Now that the United States government has spent $85 billion on AIG, we all collectively (albeit indirectly) own 80% of the 18th largest company in the world. Yea!
Most of you also know that the government has also pledged to spend a total of $200 billion through 2009 on Fanni May and Freddie Mac (or is it Freddie May and Fanni Mac..... or Manni Fray and Meddie Fac?) Nevertheless, this has created a conservatorship, with the government naturally acting as conservator (ooooohh), which denotes again a collective (albeit indirect) ownership of these two once private entities.
Oh yes, and we shouldn't forget the government's sneaky $29 billion handout to Bear Stearns via JP Morgan.
Let's see: 29 + 200 + 85 = $314 billion straight from the taxpayer. Don't you love capitalism? It's unique motto effectively captures the heart of America: Privatize the profit, socialize the risk! It's better for everyone!
Now that the government has socialized huge amounts of the private market, it seems as though the USA is rapidly becoming more of a socialized state, based on where it puts its taxpayer revenue.
Marx was right. Eventually, capitalism really does lead to socialism.
I await your comments....
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Marx was right
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I don't mean to beat a dead horse but, speaking of socialism, and with a gentle reminder that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Christian Socialist (in quiet retaliation to the capitalist mindset), here is an interesting article written on the subject.
The Origin and Meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance
And to think that the Pledge, written as a socialist propaganda tool, is considered one of the most patriotic acts possible by all the conservative, right-wing, capitalist adherents, is amusing.
Think about it, "one nation, indivisible" preaches the idea of a socialistic centralized federal government, not sovereign states.
Isn't history cool?
Interesting view on the "one nation, indivisible" part of the Pledge. However, it has always been understood to me that the indivisible reference the fact that the nation cannot separate into it own nations such as what the South tried to do during the civil war.
A state cannot chose to leave the union if it wishes. The nation is indivisible. This in my view has nothing to do with socialistic centralized government. Yes, it deals with a centralized governemnt but that doesn't mean that it has to be socialistic in nature.
States cannot have complete sovereignty our there is not use for the consitution and we would be a confereracy plain and simple.
Sure I will agree that we have strayed far from were we should be and that we are becoming more socialized but I think that it has nothing to do with the pledge.
It was during the Civil War that when people would mention the United States in a sentence that our verbage was changed to "the United States is," instead of "the United States are," to promote unity, healing, and to show that we are indivisible.
How strong would our nation be if any State could simple leave the Union whenever if felt it wanted to. I promise that if that were the case for each to then we would be in separate nations.
As for Chris comment about mocking capitalism after mentioning the massive government bailouts is ridiculous. The bailouts are the complete opposite of capitalism. The government has been seizing control of AIG and others. This is SOCIALISM plain and simple. Government control of enterprise in socialism. I think it is fair to say that the risks have been taking knowing that the government will socialize it if it fails. I don't think risks like the ones that were taken would have been taken if there was no government bailouts. It has been the increaing move to socialist policies in the government and economics that have created this mess. If free markets were able to acctually be free of government interference then we would see less of this.
Sure capitalism can lead to socialism when society has been slowing moving towards socialism for the last century.
And for the record the projected amount for a government bailout from the Treasury to ensure stability to the market is estimated at 1 Trillion dollars. That is what the Sec. of the Treasury has announced. It is much more than just the companies you mentioned.
Don't you just love Socialism?
I agree with you Nate, the pledge has nothing to do with any type of move towards socialism today. But of course I never said that.
I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that the author of the pledge, being a socialist, had socialistic motivations when writing it. What other world-view would he draw upon for inspiration? Obviously he wrote the pledge from his own perspective.
Consider also this article (one with which I don't agree as far as the motivating message behind it, but the historical details seem to be accurate:
One nation under the state? intended by its socialist composer to advance the worship of the State, the Pledge of Allegiance was revised by patriots into a concise statement of the ideals of Americanism
I recommend reading it, but if you don't want to, here are a few paragraphs that stood out to me:
"Bellamy was a co-founder and vice president of the Society of Christian Socialists (SCS). By 1891 he was also a leading spokesman of the "Nationalist" movement, founded by his cousin, Edward Bellamy. Edward authored the 1888 novel Looking Backward -- 2000- 1887, a work of speculative fiction (now called "science fiction") that outsold every other 19th century American novel except for Uncle Tom's Cabin. The book describes the experience of a wealthy Bostonian named Julian West who somehow lapses into a hypnotic trance in 1887, awakening in 2000 to discover that America was part of a world union of socialist republics.
In the struggle to bring about the future envisioned by the Bellamys and their cohorts, the schoolroom was the most important battleground. In 1892, Francis Bellamy was appointed by William Torrey Harris, president of the National Association of School Superintendents, to direct a National Celebration of the Public Schools for Columbus Day on behalf of the National Education Association (NEA).
The conclusion of Bellamy's Columbus Day address foreshadowed the rhetorical style later used by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and other totalitarian despots: "We, the youth of America, who today unite to march as one army under the sacred flag, understand our duty. We pledge ourselves that the flag shall not be stained; and that America shall mean equal opportunity and justice for every citizen, and brotherhood for the world."
Within a few years, public schools nationwide adopted Bellamy's Pledge, largely because it was seen as a useful way of "Americanizing" children of recent immigrants. By 1924, however, the Pledge was under devoted attack from an apparently unlikely source -- civic organizations such as the Daughters of the American Revolution and the American Legion. These intensely patriotic organizations, discerning the covert internationalism contained in Bellamy's Pledge, successfully lobbied to alter the phrase "my Flag" to "the Flag of the United States of America." "Bellamy disliked the change," records Dr. Baer, "but his protest was ignored." Congress codified the modified Pledge in June 1942.
Though Congress approved an official version of the Pledge, it did nothing to require any American citizen to recite it -- in school or elsewhere. In a footnote to his minority opinion in the Newdow v. Congress decision, Ninth Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez observed: "Congress has not compelled anyone to do anything. It surely has not directed that the Pledge be recited in class." The matter was left in the hands of state and local authorities, where it belongs. The ritual of reciting the Pledge -- devised by one of the architects of a nationalized school system -- was not prescribed by law, but various school systems adopted it as a matter of social custom. This is another instance in which American institutions, in their treatment of the Pledge, worked against its author's intentions to replace a federated republic with a unitary state.
As the Pledge now stands, it expresses exactly the opposite of what its author intended. By adding the words "under God," Congress not only acknowledged that God exists but recognized that our nation is subservient to Him and His laws. Pledging allegiance to "one nation under God" is not the same as pledging allegiance to a State that imagines itself, and not God, as the ultimate authority. Bellamy would doubtless approve of efforts by the likes of Michael Newdow to restore the Pledge to the pagan purity of its socialist origins."
No offense, but I think the pledge thing was long ago a dead horse, which rapidly decomposed beyond providing the opportunity to kick it further.
Nate,
I understand that bailouts fit into the philosophy of socialism, but they can obviously only take place within a capitalistic market. Otherwise, there would be no need for government intervention.
In other words, capitalism cannot in and of itself exist for an extended amount of time. It failed in 1929 and again 79 years later in 2008. According to economists speaking on the subject over the past two days, if it weren't for government bailouts, we'd have another Great Depression today. It is BECAUSE of government intervention in the "free" market that we've been able to avoid a second Great Depression. The reason we had it in the 1930s is because the FED didn't exist, nor did it have $800 billion to use at its esteem pleasure.
I completely disagree with you when you said:
"It has been the increasing move to socialist policies in the government and economics that have created this mess. If free markets were able to actually be free of government interference then we would see less of this."
On the contrary, the New Deal was supposed to eliminate any possibility of another Great Depression...and it was accomplishing just that up until the Reagan administration. You say that there has been an increasing move towards socialistic policies. The exact opposite is true. Have you forgotten which political party has had the most influence in the government over the past 3 decades? It is fact that over the past 3 decades, the government, via the Supreme Court and Congress, has been slowly unraveling the social net that might have survived since the late 70s.
In a book entitled: "High Wire: The Precarious Financial Lives of American Families", Los Angeles Times economic correspondent Peter Gosselin talks about what I've just mentioned above. I'll post an excerpt from the book to further spark your interest.
Besides an enormous amount of market manipulation (lack of regulation), another central reason for the current financial crisis is this: in 2006 the SEC relaxed short-selling regulation for 5 specific firms, among them Bear Stearn and Lehman Brothers. These firms then engaged in an illegal activity called "naked short selling" (sounds provocative, doesn't it?) You can read about this on the SEC's webpage www.sec.gov.
It should come as no surprise that as soon as profit-driven corporations successfully lobby for deregulation in the name of capitalism, they go nuts with this new freedom and take unbelievably stupid risks (like giving mortgages to people who don't have jobs).
So, big corporations break the law and....well....we pay for it. Awesome!
You argue that if the free market could actually be free, we wouldn't be in this mess. I have shown otherwise. It is government regulation that kept this mess from happening again since 1929....until now after deregulation.
We could just rename "free market" to "lawless market" and still end up with the same capitalistic concept, but I think the latter term seems to catch the essence behind it.
Indeed, we need government regulation. This mess that we're in testifies to that. We can partially thank the Republicans for this, whose political philosophy is to slowly dismantle government competence (not necessarily government size, since Bush effectively increased the overall size of government during his reign of terror, which significantly added to the national deficit.....reminiscent of Reagan, methinks).
Anyway, we can see that capitalism is unstable in the long run and eventually leads to the need for a socialistic fix. Plain and simple, like you said.
I'm not advocating Socialism as it is taught to us in 12th-grade textbooks. I'm advocating a more balanced mix of both economic philosophies. Capitalism with a comprehensive social net. A free market with socialistic values. In layman's terms: Compassionate greed. That's what we need. Compassionate greed.
Let me be clear that I'm not in favor of American Socialism in its current state. Such involves bailouts. In reply to your closing statement, I'd love American Socialism...if it involved paying for people to receive cancer treatment instead of paying for some unemployed guy's fourth multi-million dollar house in Beverly Hills.
Finally, you said the following:
"I think it is fair to say that the risks have been taking knowing that the government will socialize it if it fails. I don't think risks like the ones that were taken would have been taken if there were no government bailouts."
You are dead right. That is exactly why the motto of capitalism is: Privatize the profit, socialize the risk! It's better for everyone!
Like you said, this has always been the plan. Capitalism works......until it doesn't.
Privatize the profit and socialize the risk is not true capitalism. It is how "American Socialistic Capitalism" is run today, but true capitalism would be to not have the government bailouts.
If we were practicing true capitalism then when a company fails to only bailout it would have is for another company to buy it.
For any government to Nationalize a private business is socialism and that is what has happened with AIG.
The problem now is that the government has produced so many bailouts for fear of collapse that over years increasingly more companies have taken bad risks knowing that they would be bailed out.
If there wasn't a bailout option then these companies behaviors would be different and much more cautious.
It sucks that we are stuck with the bad decisions and risks of not only these companies but the individuals who knew that they couldn't afford these mortgages. This is socialism spreading the punishment when it should be for the company and the individuals involved. So basically those who make bad decisions get rewarded when those who make good decisions get jack!
Since we have started on the road of bailouts we have now reached a time to where we can't say no to a bailout because too many companies have taken bad risks and they are waiting for the bailout and if the government says no to one it begins to affect the others because our financial system is so intertwined.
So understand that this is not true capitalism but an modified socialistic form.
The only thing the FED should be doing is dealing with money supply and interest rates. They should not be seizing control of companies and spending money to bail them out.
This was the FED's intended function after the depression and it is overstepping it's bounds.
There needs to be some regulation and checks in place but that can also go over board and be more damaging than helpful.
Sometimes government is the problem and not the solution!
The only time government should interfere is when a choice of someone or some company is infringing upon anothers right's.
We all have the right to control our wealth as we see fit. To have government take me wealth and distribute it as they see fit is purely criminal.
I believe in a free society. One that we can make our own choices and decisions that best suit our families. Government it here to provide basic services and enforcement to protect ones freedom and liberty. They are not here to tell me what health plan I need, how much they are going to withhold from my pay in order to pay. They are not here to raise taxes so that they can redistribute my hard earned money to others who need assistance. They are not here to nationalize business and take control of our finical and commodity needs. Government exists to protect my freedoms, not to restrict them.
Socialism is a compulsory system. I want to live in a system that the decision is mine and my families. I want freedom not security! I am disgusted with our nations current situation and I am certain it has come from the erosion of our freedoms over the years but the small and subtle implementations of socialistic policies.
You said that it has been the opposite since the 70's. Sure, some socialistic policies have most likely been eradicated but not all! The biggest still remain in affect and will soon cause us great financial hard ship. I speak of Social Security and Medicare.
They said thing is that in a free society when there is a need for something someone will create the solution. Too bad that it always seems to be government when it should be private business entrepreneurs.
If you haven't discovered my point yet I will make it here. Freedom is all that matters and a lot of my freedoms will be taken away in a socialistic society.
Someone once said, that is we compel everyone to do what is right not one will be lost. But a wiser person said, let us let them chose for themselves. The right and freedom to chose is more important than security. Besides, who do my representatives and President think they are in telling me what I can and can't do with my wealth.
If I want to be charitable I will give to those less fortunate. This way creates better feelings of compassion among men then your so called "Capitalism with a heart." In fact there is no heart or compassion merely the compulsion of redistribution of funds. This is not true compassion. It is merely a facade.
I could go on but I feel like I am only going to continue beating a dead horse. I know that you are set in you thinking about socialism. And you have probably guessed that I am set in my think about freedom and choice which usually is called capitalism but is not the actually capitalism that is practiced today sadly enough.
If it is one thing we should have learned from history it is that no system lasts forever. Everything has a life span and it will soon fail. But the one things that should last and endure are our rights and freedoms, these should always be protected.
Chris,
None taken, but in order for you to understand my insistence on certain subjects, you need first to realize my complete disdain for horses.
Nate,
You make some valid and good points.
I think that this sentence you wrote however exposes a flaw (in my humble opinion) in your thought process:
"Freedom is all that matters and a lot of my freedoms will be taken away in a socialistic society. Someone once said, that is we compel everyone to do what is right not one will be lost. But a wiser person said, let us let them chose for themselves. The right and freedom to chose is more important than security."
I don't wish to cause offense here. I think that religious dogma is just one of many things that has the potential for clouding one's ability to think outside the box. This is because of a self-inflicted perception of weakness in the eyes of religious authority, if that type of thinking were to occur.
All of your points in your post are not wrong. You make some very valid ones.
But it reminds me of how the belief in eschatology is extremely apparent in how conservatives and liberals approach environmental issues, foreign policy and domestic priorities so differently.
The eschatological mindset is a powerful influence when constructing political positions and social views.
This comment is sure to bring disagreement from all of you, but I don't say it to purposefully create contention, it is just one of my observations that I notice very frequently in these types of discussions.
I suppose we all interpret "freedom" a little differently. For you, personal choice and freedom is more important than security. For me, I am willing to give up a portion of my soverignty in exchange for security. This principle is true in all societies, groups, religions, etc. For the inhabitants of the earth to live together in peace, there must be a voluntary surrender of soverignty, (which you have volountarily agreed to by virture of you being an American citizen).
That's what the word "social" means. There is an unwritten social contract that we ought to look after each other. If you don't agree with this, try sometime not to benefit from anything your taxes are used for. (don't drive on the roads, don't use the traffic lights, don't go to the park, don't buy gas or vegetables which are all subsidized...) You will find you don't have much freedom after all.
If all you want is freedom, think of living in Texas in the 19th century. They didn't nick name it the Wild Wild West for nothing.
What is freedom, anyway? The absence of contraint in choice or action, right? Apply that definition to your life and you will find that complete freedom doesn't exist. A certain level of it does, of course, but not completely.
You are contrained in making daily choices, Nate. The very thing by which you think gives you freedom also restricts it: that is wealth. Your money dictates what you do, where you go, how you live, where you live, etc. Your level of "freedom" depends on your perception of yourself in those situations.
You think socialism is compulsory. You fear it. That is because you don't understand it, nor have you had the opportunity to study it and benefit from it. You think that choice is taken out of the equation. In fact, for many, it actually greatly enhances choice. For example, it has greatly enhanced my choice to have children, whereas without that help, we would surely be in a dire situation.
Again, I am not advocating one or the other, rather a more beneficial mix of the two.
Chris,
You said, "Compassionate greed. That's what we need. Compassionate greed."
Can you explain to me why greed is needed at all?
Greed is not a valued attribute in any of the major moral philosophies in our world that I can think of. And it is completely contrary to the movement begun by the John the Baptizer, Jesus of Nazareth and James the Just characters. Not to mention the Christian movement that the Apostle Paul began from which all New Testament believing schism's today derive from.
It's only advocate is capitalism, which is not a moral philosophy, but a social mindset.
So I'm just curious where the greed attribute in your opinion becomes one of decency.
I'm not surprised that you made the comment you did Andy. In fact I would have been disappointed had you not picked the religious reference out of my remarks.
I used that example for Chris because I knew that it would carry weight with him. You call it "religious dogma" so for you I will use an academic reference in order to support my argument.
Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I believe that Freedom is inherently everyone's and those you seek to take it away in promising security have another agenda. You are grant them power over you which is not easily taken back. Once be give up our freedoms they are not coming back without a fight.
I see your point Chris that in some instances socialism can make situations easier which could open up more opportunities of choice. But that is not the case in all situations.
Also, I never advocated complete freedom because that would be utter chaos. I merely am advocating to have the freedom to choose and and have control over my families interests, wealth, and property. I'm sure I could add more to the list, but my point is that I don't want the government taking my money and giving me back what they think I need. That is not how it should work. Why should they decide my needs and wants. Sure we need takes to take care of basic societal needs such as roads, defense, etc.
The thing is Chris, I feel that whenever you support socialistic ideals it is because you are always taking the viewpoint of the less fortunate and never taking the viewpoint of the middle to upper class. Maybe I am wrong but that is how it appears to me.
I understand that you don't want complete socialism but a mix of the two. Isn't that what we have now? Maybe not quite to the level you would like, but aren't we getting there?
Sure security is nice and we all want it, but should be sacrifice our abilities to control our lives to have our basic needs met? I surely don't!
I had another thought. Chris you said that because of socialism you were free to make choices such as have children. So, from what I gather here is that you are arguing that the less fortunate have the freedom to make more choices under socialism. You are right.
However, looking from the other angle those from whom the money is being taken and redistribute to the less fortunate are losing freedom of choice because they have less to use in their decisions.
An Example could be... I would really like to have Europe as an option for me to take a vacation to this year but being that the government took a lot from me I can only afford somewhere here in the States.
I just lost some freedom of choice. So really socialism doesn't increase choices or decreases them but it equalizes everyone. I believer that we all should have equal opportunity, but does that mean that we should all have equal pocketbooks, house sizes, number of cars, etc.
I think you get my point.
Nate,
I do get your point. Well spoken. I actually agree with you on a lot of what you've said, espeically that the US is already a mix. One thing I would like to see get more support is Health Care, but that's an issue for another day.
I do tend to take the side of the less-fortunate group in the economy, mainly because middle and upper class have enough resources and voice for their own agenda. They don't need me to join in, even if I am or become one of them. But of course, maybe by then, my worldview would have changed and I'll be fighting for no taxes!
I think its important to discuss the extremes of our positions, because in the end, both sides get tappered off and some sort of middle ground is found.
As for taking a vacation to Europe...if you wait for about three years, you can have a free place to stay!!!
Andrew,
You know what I mean in the context of a healthy economy. You're trying to catch me in my words, that there might be wherewith to find supposed contradictions.
Unfortunately for you, I leave you no such opportunity.
Chill out dude, don't get all Alma the Younger on me...
Post a Comment