This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Attention Marxists: Labor's Share Of National Income Drops To Lowest In History

Tyler Durden's picture


Probably the most imprtant secular trend in recent employment data, one that has a far greater impact on the macroeconomic themes than Birth/Death and seasonal adjustment manipulated month to month shifts in the employment pool per either the household or establishment surveys, is the labor share of national income. In a 2004 paper from the St. Louis Fed, the authors make the following statement: "The allocation of national income between workers and the owners of capital is considered one of the more remarkably stable relationships in the  U.S. economy. As a general rule of thumb, economists often cite labor’s share of income to be about two-thirds of national income—although the exact figure is sensitive to the specific data used to calculate the ratio. Over time, this ratio has shown no clear tendency to rise or fall." It would be wonderful if this was true, and thus if the US population really had a stable distribution of income between laborers and capital owners. Alas it is dead wrong. In fact, as the latest note from David Rosenberg points out, the "labor share of national income has fallen to its lower level in modern history - down to 57.5% in the first quarter from 57.6% in the fourth quarter of last year, 57.8% a year ago, and 59.8% when the recovery began." And here is where the Marxist-Leninist party of the US should pay particular attention: "some recovery it has been - a recovery in which labor's share of the spoils has declined to unprecedented levels."

Like Rosie, Zero Hedge is not a marxist blog: quite the opposite, but like him we come to the same troubling conclusion: "extremes like this, unfortunately, never seem to lead us to a very stable place." We would go further: not only does the US already have the core elements, should one be so inclined, to provoke a (rather active) anti-fascist movement based on some interpretations of pro-corporatists policies adopted by the administration, but should another be so inclined, the country also has the groundwork in place for another neo-Marxist revolution: just take this chart, add some slogans, mix, and simmer. And who will be the natural enemy? Why only look at the great October revolution in Russia for ideas. History always rhymes.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:31 | 1339405 jpritikin
jpritikin's picture

The point is that savings ought not be a prerequisite to accumulating productive capital. Employee stock ownership programs (ESOPs) enable employees to gain an ownership stake at the place where they work without investing prior savings. Similarly, an ownership stake can be acquired in an individual retirement account by using dividends to pay off the initial low interest loan used to acquire the shares. No past savings necessary.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:13 | 1338567 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Nice try, but historically one acquires capital through theft.

But your version makes for much better propaganda when White Capital tries to justify itself for producing landfills.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:53 | 1338666 jpritikin
jpritikin's picture

The brazen hubris on display here is flabbergasting.

Can we discuss this like adults? Can you find some factual aspect of binary economic, prove you understand it, and then criticize it?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:05 | 1338684 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

You can't discuss Capitalism reasonably when people don't understand what Capital itself is. 

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 19:22 | 1340111 jpritikin
jpritikin's picture

Capital? Do you mean money? Money is anything that can be used to settle a debt.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:46 | 1339128 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Nope, sorry, only the "noble" savages and the governments you love so much accumulate capital through theft.  Everyone else has to produce it through hard work, thought, and sacrifice.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:18 | 1339382 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Hey:  ruthless murder and savage conquest is hard work that requires thought and sacrifice.   I know that.

I'm just not a fan of the end as much as you are:  "ME ME ME ME!  I WANT IT!"

I think it's selfish, and hubristic - like a spoiled adolescent.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 19:24 | 1340119 jpritikin
jpritikin's picture

I do not advocate accumulating capital through theft. How do you infer that?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:46 | 1337883 cynicalskeptic
cynicalskeptic's picture

Slaves and serfs exist to serve their betters.  There are far more slaves and/or serfs than lords.  This has been the norm for most of history.  

I guess the lords of the manor want to re-establish the 'natural order' of things (and appear to be succeeding).  If the population of the planet is reduced to more 'sustainable levels' (the life expectancy of slaves and serfs being fairly short), well, the elites probably view this as  a 'side benefit'.


Now stop complaining and be glad you have a bowl of gruel to eat and someone to protect you from the hordes of barbarians threatening our civilization.


Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:47 | 1338048 Hacksaw
Hacksaw's picture

Would that be Homeland security?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:51 | 1337897 Ham Wallet
Ham Wallet's picture

If 1% controls all the wealth, then that means 99% of the people are most equal. 


Glass half full, people.  /sarc

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:58 | 1337913 Monedas
Monedas's picture

Charities and churches should pay is business ! If you get entitlements or tax don't vote ! It's called conflict of interest ! Monedas 2011 Oh, go recuse yourself !

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:51 | 1337904 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

Does anyone remember my post last night regarding Timmah & treason?

Have a look Tyler, you can dig deeper into Exchange Stabilization Fund subject matter.

What I have been afraid to blog about: The ESF and Its History (Part 1)

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:01 | 1338421 FreeNewEnergy
FreeNewEnergy's picture

Nice work, Atomizer. Professional and ground-breaking. Can't wait for part 2, 3, 4...

Thank you.

Sun, 06/05/2011 - 15:20 | 1341573 I_ate_the_crow
I_ate_the_crow's picture

Holy shit Atomizer. Spending the last half-hour reading this thread was absolutely worth it for that video. In light of the ESF, IMO the plan for the supra-national banking organizations begins to come into focus.

The ESF underscores the banker-gangster idea evidenced throughout history, especially in America, that controlling the government's monetary policy is just as important as controlling its currency supply. The first step is establishing a private central bank, the second step is capturing the government/regulatory structure, and the third step is making the true purpose/manipulation secret or at the very least heavily obfuscated.

In other words, after the political and regulatory policy of a government is captured there is no limit to the looting that can be achieved with a privately controlled central bank as the clearing mechanism to hide the fraud in some obscure portion of the balance sheet. In this case, the 11 other Federal Reserve banks and the Fed itself serve as a shield to the NY Fed's clearing of the Treasury's secret slush/manipulation fund.

The Bank for International Settlements already serves as the clearing bank for the IMF and the member central banks, just as you point out that the NY Fed is essentially the clearing bank for the ESF as managed by the Treasury Secretary. Now just extrapolate what they did in America to the international level. The obvious goal then becomes capturing the political and regulatory policy of every government. The problem is that nationalistic ideology runs deep. AFTA, CEFTA, COMESA, GAFTA, GCC, NAFTA, SICA, TPP, EU, BRICs - these were all steps in the direction of breaking down national borders and monetary policy, which governments of the world would have to willingly give up in order for the American scam to be moved internationally.

So first there are years of globalization and free trade agreements all facilitated by and dependent on the reserve currency, the dollar. Neo-colonialism by the Western multi-national corporations is a big part of this, with the ultimate goal being witnessed right now, the elimination of the middle class in the West (the only group that can stop them). Any attempts by other countries to deviate from the dollar, especially the petro dollar, are met with severe force (sorry Sadaam, Gaddafi) as these plans have been in the minds of the banking oligarchy families for decades.  

Now the stage is set to systematically destroy the dollar and plunge the world into global depression and choas, so that the world governments' will be able to sell the idea to their people that the situation is out of control and individually they cannot solve it, but together they can bring us out of it. It's hardly a coincidence that the ESF was created in 1934, in the aftermath of the first Great Depression, which they likewise planned and executed to perfection.

How convenient for them that 9/11 gave Congress the political will to pass the Patriot Act and also conveniently came a day after the 2-trillion-is-missing announcment. The DHS-TSA-CIA complex was born and recieved unlimited funding for operations with no accountability. Now domestic dissent can be supressed using this network, and down the road that "terrorist prevention" network can then serve as the basis for the world's fascist police force. 

Then in 2008 we get the manufactured housing crisis, western depression, looting of the American/European tax base, Asia bubble, and the acceleration of the dollar's destruction. I'm guessing they were gonna wait until after Obama was elected to let Lehman fail and trigger the crisis, but he was going to lose to McCain so they had to act. Brilliant really, no way a republican can get elected with an economic crisis added to the list of all the outrageous things Bush did. 

At some point in the next decade, when shit gets really bad, in steps the IMF with the SDR gold standard. Since 2004, the BIS has published its accounts in terms of SDRs. I am pretty confident that central banks have been acquiring gold so that they can conveniently sell it to the IMF in a gold revaluation centered around the SDR when all the fiats go to zero with the dollar they are tied to.  

And all the world's governments will have to do in exchange is simply agree to give up national monetary policy and regulatory control - "what a deal, we're saved!!" they will say. Just this week Trichet proposed an EU Finance Ministry that would allow "European Union officials" to make spending decisions for financially troubled countries: "One way this could be imagined is for European authorities to have the right to veto some national economic policy decisions. This is simply a precursor of what they have in mind for the future. Welcome to the NWO.

The extrapolation seems pretty clear to me:

Congress-President(Obama)-Treasury/ESF-Federal Reserve System-Multinational Banks/Corporations-US Military/CIA

UN-President(Obama)-IMF/World Bank/(ESF equivalent to come)-BIS-Multinational Banks/Corporations-NATO/World Police

The BIS Board of Directors is a who's-who of central bankers. Along with the private shareholders of the member central banks and the BIS itself (Rothschilds, Rockefellers, etc.), they will steal and control all of the world's wealth, surely figuring out a way to funnel it away from national taxpayers and into their various projects and bank accounts. (and in the process, for good measure, maybe they'll kill a few billion people through poverty/starvation/GMO poison so that they and their soulless progeny may inherit the Earth)

Like it or not, we in America and our brothers already protesting in Europe are the only ones that can stop it. *Takes off tin-foil hat, fills with whiskey, gets wasted on Sunday afternoon*

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:26 | 1338602 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture
by Atomizer
on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:51


Does anyone remember my post last night regarding Timmah & treason?

Have a look Tyler, you can dig deeper into Exchange Stabilization Fund subject matter.

What I have been afraid to blog about: The ESF and Its History (Part 1)





Must! See!!


If you are fight club, you must see this.. republicans go back to palin . com.. democrats go back to koolaide . com!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:53 | 1337909 Arkadaba
Arkadaba's picture

Ok - Attention Marxists? Made me LOL before reading any further.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:56 | 1337916 IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

I know ..... can you believe that there are still people who believe that marxists are still the problem nowadays?!?!

Go figure!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:59 | 1337917 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Marxists are pro-union?...when did this happen?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:58 | 1337921 IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

Confusing labor with unions?!?!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:24 | 1337979 IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

Yo cheesy! ... you should first read whatever you decide to post ...

that's like three kids at a table somewhere ... not the thousands and thousands of middle class Americans protesting ...

...Our table was on the rear-side of the Capitol, away from the main rally, away from the main speeches ...


You seriously think Marxists are the problem .... you need professional help!!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:31 | 1338466 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

Simply look at the first picture in the article Idiot.  Marxists everywhere.  If you think the marxists, communists and other statists are not in league with the unions, then you need professional help. 

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:05 | 1338547 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

All that means is that in the struggle between working people and the Banker-Gangsters the Marxists are on the right side, and you're with the parasites.


Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:21 | 1338592 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

Wrong.  False choice. I am a taxpayer, you know, one of the ones funding the parasites.   

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:30 | 1338613 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Union workers pay their dues too, last time I checked.

Curious, are you for or against concentration of political power?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:41 | 1338640 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

Union dues go to the campaign funds of politicians who then negotiate union contracts.  The taxpayer is out of the loop, last time I checked.

Concentration of political power like central planning?  Like the marxist/commie/statist union bosses want?  Um, I'd have to say against, if I understand the question properly.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:46 | 1338750 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Hunh.So you`re trying to tell me that union workers` earnings are tax free? Pull the other one.

In light of the evasive blather of circumlocution above, despite it being a relatively simple question, please allow me to rephrase it in a way that you may find more difficult to slither underneath:

Are unions charged with serving their members, or politicians?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 08:59 | 1339031 nmewn
nmewn's picture

According to the GM union, both.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:50 | 1339130 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Or the leadership of the unions, at the expense of the rank and file?

Or the people with whom the brothers have placed their pension money?

Or even the very management jerks who 'negotiate concessions' on behalf of the rank and file?

All hierarchies are subject to corruption. Some unions are more necessary than others (compare and contrast your average local with the law enforcement union block in CA).

Detail and nuance are important here; polarization has too many pitfalls.

Mon, 06/06/2011 - 12:01 | 1343442 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

My point is that, as a rule, the dismantling of unions is a further concentration of political power into the hands of the elite, not a dispersion to the masses.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:41 | 1338632 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Says you.  When the barricades go up, you'll be with your fellow Whiteboy Banker-Gangsters begging government to protect all the shit you and your boys have looted behind the veneer of CAPITALIST 'law'.

You're against those who produce wealth, and with those who take it.

Congrats, bootlicker of the Banker-Gangsters.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:47 | 1338645 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

I will protect my own shit.  Why dont you stop by when the barricades go up, so you can say congrats in person?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:54 | 1338663 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

When I come for all the shit you've stolen 'legally' under the dictatorship of CAPITAL, it will be with divisions.

And you'll be begging for the Pigs to save your ass ... same as it ever was.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:01 | 1338677 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

I'm real scared.  Now go away, boy.  Next time I wanna hear fom an asshole, I'll just fart.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:08 | 1338686 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Go buy some derivatives, tough guy.  

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 17:10 | 1339875 Shell Game
Shell Game's picture


Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:15 | 1337974 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Are you serious? Have you never heard of the World Workers Party? Or are they false Marxists or something?

The Character and Structure of Revolutionary Industrial Unionism

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:22 | 1337991 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Just throwing a Snickers Bar in the pool to see who screams and jumps out ;-)

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:34 | 1338160 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture


Broke my damn tooth on a Snicker's just yesterday.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:06 | 1338248 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Clearly, we need some sort of governmental oversight/unionized/regulatory body to form some sort of committee and resolve this situation...corporatist bastards.

Hell, now that I think about it, some are allergic to peanuts, we're at deaths door here!!! soft peanuts for all!!!...think of the kids!!! ;-)

Kidding, I was eating a hamburger a few years back and a small piece of bone was in there and I broke off a section of filled molar, it sucks...pretty jarring...burger was good though, still left a tip...El Cap in St.Pete, try em if your ever get that way.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:44 | 1338638 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

"Let the market decide everything!  It knows best."  

Because hey - depressions, economies in terminal decay, and races to the sweatshop bottom RULE.

Hooray for CAPITALISM!!

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:37 | 1338740 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Looks like europe is awake...I'm gonna laugh my ass off when you guys eat each other again...for the third time...LOL!!!

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:56 | 1339464 Rynak
Rynak's picture

"Let the market decide everything!  It knows best."  

Because hey - depressions, economies in terminal decay, and races to the sweatshop bottom RULE.

You imply something which is not true. In the case of a capitalist market, the market participants DECIDE what's best (though, via alliances and amassing large amounts of wealth, some of them can become "marketmakers", and when that happens, the result actually is a planned economy.... and a planned economy which's motives are not the the health of the market).

In the case of a planned economy, a coordinating body (or possibly the collective itself - democracy style) DECIDES what's best.

In both cases, you have people who decide.... in both cases, they may be competent or incompetent, honest or corrupt..... the difference between a market economy and a planned economy, only is in the scale on which decisions are made. With a market, decisions are made on a per-case basis, while ignoring the big picture. In the case of a planned economy, decisions are made based on the big picture, while ignoring individual cases.

Bottom line: The difference between both purely is a technical one, not a moral one. None of both makes humans more or less competent, or more or less evil..... they're just tools, not intentions and goals. You may as well argue if hammers are more evil than screwdrivers.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:51 | 1339137 Vendetta
Vendetta's picture

the baby ruths have some lumps on them and are far more realistic

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:27 | 1338004 IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

Yep ... we got a winner ... that's the problem right there! arrest them all .... all eleven of them!!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:50 | 1338060 nmewn
nmewn's picture

There is an alternative where you don't have to feed, clothe & house them ya know ;-)

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:07 | 1338089 IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

And you would too ... wouldn't you?!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:11 | 1338106 nmewn
nmewn's picture

In a New York second.

Define rich to me...what's the number?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 02:21 | 1338851 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

You define poor first... what`s the number? Hunh? hunh? well, what is it? I`m still waiting, c`mon, hurry up!

Blunderdog has already answered this for you, and you have nothing except to repeatedly bray the same old tired rote like the thick, stubborn jackass you are.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 09:16 | 1339037 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I did.

Mon, 06/06/2011 - 12:02 | 1343471 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Well then, by your definition the only ones who aren't poor live alone, on an island, off-the-grid, grow their own food and communicate with no one... gotta be a pretty small demographic.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:04 | 1337931 mynhair
mynhair's picture

Wait a sec.  Just today the Marxist-in-Chief told his drones the eCONomy is roaring!

He's the smartest teleprompter on Earth; you'd better believe.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:52 | 1338065 Hacksaw
Hacksaw's picture

If he is a Marxist then you must be one too because he serves the same master you do, shill. The TBTF financiers and the international corporate fascists.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:41 | 1338641 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture


Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:53 | 1339139 Vendetta
Vendetta's picture

did he?  I'm glad someone else had the time and interest to listen to the blather

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:01 | 1337932 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

I hear CNBC experts say that it's all a question of confidence!

If people just had more confidence prosperity would return. That empty wallet is all in our heads. 

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:12 | 1337967 IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

When the sheeple finally decide to fuck the banksters, can we kindly have it live on CNBC?!?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:21 | 1337990 nasa
nasa's picture

Locked up America is always on at CNBS.  Buy,buy buy, booyah.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:45 | 1338643 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

When that happens, CNBC will be occupied.

And their programming will change.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:05 | 1337934 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Let's blame college kids' choice of majors.  That's plausible.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:44 | 1338192 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

What the fuck is "Sociology" anyway?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:05 | 1338241 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Mostly a waste of time, but if you're actually asking, it's the application of statistical models to behaviors of groups.

Any good sociology major should come out of school with a strong understanding of how to structure and interpret statistics.  Most don't, but then, most engineering majors can't build bridges or design circuits either.  So it's not generally the major that's the issue.

Applied stats is useful in the right hands.  Forget the subject matter and recognize the skills. 

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:39 | 1338353 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

Oh, you were serious.  Well I think the U.S. education system is very broken.  Waiting For Superman is a documentary that explains K-12.  Higher education is more interested in getting grants from TPTB than leading the world in actual quality of education.  But the U.S. doesn't have the economy to absorb real experts in many fields anyway.  We flip burgers and make iCrap.  Thomas Edison and Henry Ford would shoot each other is they could see this...

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:47 | 1338651 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

People sometimes study how people interact with one another when they become sophisticated enough to realize that Business School is a bunch of fucking retards spouting corporate propaganda.

For most, that occurs around the 1st grade.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:12 | 1338694 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

I never meant to imply your clever major was a total waste of time and far as you know...

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:20 | 1338707 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

My alma mater's sociology program was eradicated long before I arrived by the military contractors and biotech firms who ran the university.

Rest assured their Business School is well funded, still, despite the moral, political, and intellectual bankruptcy of the 'field'.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 02:06 | 1338837 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture


#1 Air Force; U. Colorado

#2 Somewhere in Boston

#3 U. Minnesota


Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:04 | 1337938 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

Die Marxists. Just die.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:11 | 1337962 IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

where are they?   .... WHERE ARE THEY?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:13 | 1337969 mynhair
mynhair's picture

Try a mirror.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:46 | 1338196 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

Hey, Marxism worked well in Russia.  Wait, never-mind...

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:47 | 1338646 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Capitalism has given us lots and lots of landfills.

And sweatshops.

And plantations.

ROCK ON, Capitalism.  To impoverish so many for the benefit of so few ... 

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:28 | 1338721 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

Landfills, sweatshops and plantations are not necessarily bad things.  Capitalism, for lack of a better term is giving the impoverished an admittedly slow and ball-busting path out of poverty.  You shouldn't blame Capitalism for the poverty of those impoverished by other systems.  The real problem for people like you and your spawn is that the U.S. living standard will decline to equilibrium with a much higher living standard in previously hopeless population countries like China and India.  You may not realize this yet because the Bank Cartel is propping things up while they put the finishing touches on this Country's demise.  Are you really too clueless to understand this?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:31 | 1338735 US Uncut
US Uncut's picture

But China is forever poised on the brink of a cliff. It cannot survive without us yet and even if it could, how long can it stay in control of it's people?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 01:22 | 1338789 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

I'm blaming the destruction of whole continents and hemispheres on CAPITALISM because it is CAPITALISM that has underdeveloped them, through slavery, genocide, and expropriation (which you applaud!), for the enrichment of White Capital.

To blame other systems for the centuries long looting of China and India (to take a couple examples of the myriad from which to choose), when their demise paralleled the rise of the crooked BRITISH (i.e., government sponsored) East India Company stealing land and dealing smack is historical evasion on a grand scale.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 02:08 | 1338841 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

You must have done well in 1st grade when your clueless teacher asked: Who killed the gentle Injuns?  And you answered: The White Devils from Europe.

I'll have to ignore you from now on Sacajawea.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 09:45 | 1339066 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

That's really not how the CAPITALIST propaganda factories teach it - especially in 1st grade, when they can really bullshit the kids with "American Dream" "Hooray for Capitalist Genocide!" garbage.

After all, you've got to brainwash them into being little consumers aiming to fuck everyone over for their own benefit BEFORE they learn to mount a sophisticated defense.  And they need to be conditioned to live by a clock, so they can be good little servants of White Capital, too.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:50 | 1339131 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yeah, let's go back to FEUDALISM, where 99.9% of the population are slaves.

Funny how you don't think about how capitalism actually works, or what it actually did to the economy.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:25 | 1339391 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

The Banker-Gangsters you service daily are doing a perfectly good job of returning us to FEUDALISM without my assistance.

CAPITALISM doesn't work - people do.    White Capital TAKES what people do and divides it up inequitably, based on selfishness and brutality.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:30 | 1339403 Rynak
Rynak's picture

Actually, as always, it depends on how capitalism is implemented. The "no rules" anarcho style form of capitalism, which some (not all) here seem to promote, would actually after a while lead to the SAME as feudalism..... which is hilarious, because it means that this particular brand of anarchists, promote something that will lead to the opposite of anarchism.

Face it ideologues: The overall category of the economic model is secondary.... yes, there are some fundamental and important differences.... but what are they in comparison to how much the HOW affects things?

- You can design a democracy, to work like a dictatorship

- You can design a dictatorship, to work like a democracy

- You can design a dictatorship, to work like anarchy

- You can design anarchy, to work like a dictatorship

- You can design a free market, to work like an oligarchy

- Hmm, it appears the opposite actually doesn't work. Interesting.


An ideologue is someone who doesn't care about actual implementation... only about symbols and #winning


Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:50 | 1338659 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

yeah, that`s exactly what it was that brought them down, `marxism`... So, I would be utterly fascinated to know, according to you what politcal system best defines Russia now? Assuming that such a people still exist, of course, do they?


Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:18 | 1338701 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

Russia is a Mid-Life Crisis Political System controlled by a pint-sized Dictator who refuses to wear a shirt.


Sat, 06/04/2011 - 02:05 | 1338834 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Just so I have this clear: you're saying Stalin was a marxist and Medvedev/Putin is a dictatorship?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 02:12 | 1338845 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

Based on our extensive discussion of Stalin how could you draw any other conclusion?

Your kind of mental masturbation only makes sense when you people like you talk amongst yourselves...

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 02:34 | 1338854 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

It was a straightforward enough question, I thought. Don`t turn on me, I`m hardly to blame if you`ve involved yourself in a conversation on a subject that you know essentially nothing about.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 09:17 | 1339038 Bob
Bob's picture


Authoritarianism With a Friendly Face

In the minds of the American public, the dominant media, and the accommodating pundits and intellectuals, there is no sense of how authoritarianism in its soft and hard forms can manifest itself as anything other than horrible images of concentration camps, goose-stepping storm troopers, rigid modes of censorship, and chilling spectacles of extremist government repression and violence. That is, there is little understanding of how new modes of authoritarian ideology, policy, values, and social relations might manifest themselves in degrees and gradations so as to create the conditions for a distinctly undemocratic and increasingly cruel and oppressive social order. As the late Susan Sontag suggested in another context, there is a willful ignorance of how emerging registers of power and governance “dissolve politics into pathology.”[10] It is generally believed that in a constitutional democracy, power is in the hands of the people, and that the long legacy of democratic ideals in America, however imperfect, is enough to prevent democracy from being subverted or lost. And yet the lessons of history provide clear examples of how the emergence of reactionary politics, the increasing power of the military, and the power of big business subverted democracy in Argentina, Chile, Germany, and Italy. In spite of these histories, there is no room in the public imagination to entertain what has become the unthinkable—that such an order in its contemporary form might be more nuanced, less theatrical, more cunning, less concerned with repressive modes of control than with manipulative modes of consent—what one might call a mode of authoritarianism with a distinctly American character. [11]

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:50 | 1339212 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

Well I will admit that Rosenblatt has nothing to say to me.  And I admit the U.S. has lost it's way in many respects.  But I always am interested in what country all you young Communists hold up as the example of a proven alternative system to the corrupted version of U.S. Capitalism.  Please enlighten me.


The human condition has never been an iCrap dream-land where Mommy is always there to pick you up when you skin your knee.  At its best America was a Country of Christians with a work ethic that was responsible for most of the innovation and progress in the World.  The Welfare Society controlled by the Bank Cartel has changed that.  But the loss of our Christian foundation has changed it much more.


So you academic back-seat-drivers can bash away at "Capitalism" but a real fact or two might make you worth listening to.  The ZH I show up for was never meant to be Romper Room...

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:29 | 1339221 Bob
Bob's picture

Capitalism should man up to its shortcomings, imo . . . and saying that does not betray some easily insulted "socialism" on my part.  There should be lessons learned from some honest examination of what we've allowed capitalism to perpetrate. 

If we don't "get serious," we're gonna be looking at a worldwide socialist revolution, imo.  Not the mamby pamby bullshit kind that Beck et al squeal about hiding under our beds . . . but the real fucking article. 

And that, my friend, is something I am quite sure neither of us wants to see.

As for holding up an example of what else has worked better, I really don't see the point.  Is that a requirement of doing something better when you can see that it's got to be improved?  What we need is clearly some new ideas . . . you know, like the "Forefathers" had 200 years ago, right? 

Your argument seems to assume that somebody can't be the first to solve any problems.  I hope that doesn't apply to a cure for cancer. 

What's wrong with creatively and intelligently evolving?

Or is humanity to be sentenced to eternal swings between extremes wrought by successive revolutions?

Maybe it's time to really grow up.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 17:33 | 1339902 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

You could write political speeches.  Sound serious but say nothing.  "We need to do things better" is not helpful.  I mean, no shit.  But how do we break the hold the Banking Cartel has over everything?  Look at the "average" voter-eligible American and explain your strategy.  Violent social unrest?  As a Christian I am not supposed to want that.  Otherwise I wouldn't mind it.  It would be the quickest way to purge America of those who have no interest in being Americans, including working their way up the economic ladder like strong people.


You will have to do really take some risk someday if you want to have any impact on changing the world.  Or you can get yours like most of us...

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 19:44 | 1340134 Bob
Bob's picture

I can "get mine" better than the vast majority.  The problem is, as this ZH article implies, a growing majority can't.  The numbers will not support the status quo as the money continues flowing to the top.  And it would make no difference if the "top" were not a criminal enterprise, though that should make it simpler for us to morally balance the equation. 

I encourage you to pray for your own ideas about changes.  There's no point in us dicking back and forth about it.  It would be a gift of Grace for you to simply think about it from a different perspective yourself. 

A gift from God, that is.  I don't give those kind of gifts--not in my job description and not within my woefully limited power. 


Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:48 | 1338648 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Spoken like a true NaziRat.

Were you at the Beer Hall Putsch?  

I thought Hitler wacked all you guys when he didn't need useful idiots anymore.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:20 | 1337963 Use of Weapons
Use of Weapons's picture

If you really want to search for Communists, use your brain:

In real terms - there are no real Communists in America.

Hint: There are no real Communists in China or Russia, either*, of any importance.



Top tip: Power has nothing to do with politics, really. 200 years of listening to the naivety of your leaders should have taught you that... oh.. wait... is that the sound of Satori?






*Barring the sweet, sad and now very aging party members who still believe. Those in Red Square should do the decent thing (as I did), and take them for a meal, beer [and politely accept the dubious dried fish in return, even when wearing cashmere] and listen. They have voices, still, and if the world had been led by better people, on all sides, then we'd all be happier. Their child-like naviety and emotional honesty could have saved the species - the option when control turned into bloodletting disgusts me. It debases all involved. Weak and sick are not ethical categories, nor are they intellectual limbo dances.




Stop playing with your food, Communists don't exist, nor do bogey men.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:13 | 1337971 mynhair
mynhair's picture

Re-elect Oblahma!


Vote Ron Paul!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:19 | 1337977 Audacity17
Audacity17's picture

Last time I checked they don't have 'trickle down' in Europe or Japan, so they should be way ahead of us right?  Uh, no.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:20 | 1337984 Use of Weapons
Use of Weapons's picture

I'd stick to realistic measurements.

Aka, using GDP from the CIA when everyone has already let the cat out of the bag multiple times on just how many [er, actually, EVERY] category barring military stuff the USA is not #1 in, let alone top 10, or 20...









Nice Vietnam era death card. I'm hoping you're an out of work Vet paid to shill, 'cause at least then you'd be worth a damn, and bothering to engage with... charity and all.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:30 | 1338002 Audacity17
Audacity17's picture

“It isn’t the sum you get, it’s how much you can buy with it, that’s the important thing; and it’s that that tells whether your wages are high in fact or only high in name.”
Mark Twain (A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court)

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:37 | 1338024 Use of Weapons
Use of Weapons's picture

Ok, here's what you need to do.

Instead of actually reading the reports / statistics [tldr, beyond you], you need to google "Infographics" and "USA #1" and learn a bit of hard reality.

The USA hasn't got the #1 statistic in any major proper category, and haven't had for a long time. Quoting dead people isn't relevant in this discourse - like the majority of people (non-Americans), I prefer science.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:33 | 1338017 Audacity17
Audacity17's picture

By the way, did you even read the link??  Why the hell you going off on me.  Where I live $50,000 a year is great money, in New York that is horrible, because of costs.  Do you understand that??  Its no different for countries.  Here is the state PPP.  Is it rigged by the CIA too, lol??

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:39 | 1338029 Use of Weapons
Use of Weapons's picture

Um. GDP means nothing if it costs you x17 to get a service that is actually worse than 16 other better countries.

You might want to check out the USA status on healthcare, for instance.




Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:23 | 1338136 nmewn
nmewn's picture

So that's why they all come here for medical care...our own Leo, the King of Saudi Arabia, some half assed Queen's governor from Newfoundland etc...because its sooo much better there...huh, how bout that ;-)

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:43 | 1338150 Use of Weapons
Use of Weapons's picture


Please take that avatar down, you don't deserve to wear it. Go spend 5 mins with a proper member of LulzSec, and you'll be schooled. Poseur wanker.

There's a massive difference between medical equipment, medical speciality and medical care. If you'd spent any time researching the data, instead of using the internet as a personal echochamber to masturbate to, you'll easily see that the USA has the highest spending on medical treatments, the highest paid specialists [hint: top equipment + top specialist in very narrow field + lots of dollars = come to USA] but only about #15 in the world on actual health in terms of treatment, efficiency etc.

Hint: It has to do with corrupt practises in medical insurance [hint: don't pay, won't pay, worth spending X mil making sure you don't pay], and 50 odd million people without proper "insurance". The idiocy of a model that on the one hand demands personal responsibility for the vagueness of chance [and ability to get a lawyer post-facto to claw back costs when it isn't your fault] but on the other is sanctimonious about abortion, organ harvesting after death and so on, is pure insanity.

Hint: Ordering 124,011 procedures to protect yourself from being sued, and racking up spending costs to fund yourself does not equal healing people.

Hint: Prevention is better than cure. How's that 50% obesity rate working out for you?

Hint: There are currently about 31 scientifically accurate ways to increase / decrease [through lack] of a newborn's IQ. Do you a) Make them mandatory through various means (aka, very hard to escape) or b) make them a "personal choice" and then bitch n moan when the Jeremy Springer show is full up? Guess what happens to a society that does a), and one that does b)? Durrr.

Negative vrs Positive freedoms - sadly, the USA checked out at negative, and forgot that they're two sides of the same coin.




You have, in front of you, a powerful tool. If you choose not to use it, and decide to merely base your opinions on personal bias, you're a lazy twat, and a sheeple. There's about 90 papers, and countless accurate statistics to prove all of this, but hey - I'm not responsible for your arrogant inability to learn. Die.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:49 | 1338203 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

When you nit-wits figure out dentistry feel free to weigh in on health care...

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:03 | 1338235 Use of Weapons
Use of Weapons's picture

That'd be cute....

Until you realise that there's only one denistry option that matters.

Sharp. Pointy. Teeth.

The square white tombstone look is no longer important. Now deal with it.




Silicon tits are a no-no now as well, as is left eye droop "due to botox". /fail



Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:12 | 1338280 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I asked you before (and you ignored me, will you again?) when you were defending DSK...I'll ask just one more time before I discard you.

What country are you posting from?


Many have tried, you are not the first, somehow I'm still here ;-)

What country are you posting from you socialist bitch?...or have you no honor at all?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:45 | 1338372 Use of Weapons
Use of Weapons's picture

"socialist bitch"

"defending DSK"


Neither of those has ever been true. Drink more koolaid, please. In fact, I think I was the one posting that DSK had been hoisted by his own petard. -- But please, apply the theory of falsification, troll - post the link to the offending post, I'll look over it.


Oh - and way to ignore my content. Does the pool have AIDS yet? Want me to get onto that level with you, pup?


Country is obvious - do a Grep n look through posts - stated about 5 times now. Oh, wait. Lazy troll, Anonymous wannabe.



Sat, 06/04/2011 - 02:34 | 1338844 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

so righteously fucking CHOICE. Use of Weapons FTW, stick around.

nmewnm, if your goal is to make a complete fool of yourself and the coprophagic dogs sniffing around your ass while simultaneously bringing out the best in anyone who goes toe to toe with you: job done. Tool.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:50 | 1339215 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

Nice. Like an IDIOT, could I marry you based on that?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:30 | 1338152 Use of Weapons
Use of Weapons's picture


Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:44 | 1338375 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Thanks for the confirmation...if your ever in Fla. look me up.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:58 | 1338404 Use of Weapons
Use of Weapons's picture

Do a trawl deep sea style for Sea Bloops. Games-within-Games-within-Games.

If you haven't had an online presence as a woman for ten years as cover, you're doing it wrong.

The only information that should be available is the information you wish to share. As a source, I'm burnt, but I can provide covering fire or sloopy skullduggery. 'Tis the way of the sea, H.S. Thompson style.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:41 | 1338497 nmewn
nmewn's picture

The only presence you've ever had is that of a damned fool.

I am who I am, there is no reason to be anything other than that unless I were trying to decieve, which can't be said of you, obviously.

By the way, I won't be dying anytime soon, least of all by your hand boy.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:34 | 1338610 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

Your name is use of weapons, so why not do everyone a favor and use one H.S. Thompson style.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:18 | 1338702 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture


Sat, 06/04/2011 - 04:55 | 1338920 Use of Weapons
Use of Weapons's picture



And no, I didn't junk you - I'll apply a self-junk though.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:45 | 1338753 Audacity17
Audacity17's picture

I see that you neither read, nor comprehend the link.  The whole point of the link is nearly everything is cheaper in America.  Keep telling yourself its a utopia somewhere else.  With regards to healthcare, there is more that being able to get a service.  There is WHEN you can get the service.  Have fun with those 2 years waits in Europe.  Our health care costs have zero to do with being a free market capitalist country and everything to do with twinkies, lawyers, fraud and illegals.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:07 | 1339050 Bob
Bob's picture

It might have a bit to do with a defacto labor union known as the AMA that artificially inflates costs by limiting supply of doctor services and the absence of genuine free market pricing of virtually all services and supplies via health insurance monopolies and big pharma capture of everything and everybody, including government. 

What is so clear about the financial system being run for the benefit of banksters applies equally to the medical system and doctors.  I won't say they don't work hard for their money . . . but our costs would be dramatically lower without a system whose top priority is maximizing profit by whatever means necessary.  Primarily to the financial benefit of the doctor class.

The sad fact is that there's a doctor at the top of every single part of our system.  And that system depends upon limiting aggregate care to maximize profits.  Genuine care for the public is not in the equation. 

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:35 | 1339418 Audacity17
Audacity17's picture

I would agree that any licensure requirements necessarily limit supply.  That goes on throughout the economy as a whole though, not just medecine.  Not sure how to fix that since nobody wants a surgery from some guy that walked in off the street.  A college near me has just introduced a Physician's Assistant program...I assume that is a response by those in the know to increase the supply of people that meet a minimum threshhold of competence.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 19:46 | 1339662 Bob
Bob's picture

I did some law school and my daughter actually graduated.  The medical racket is run by a bunch of Dr. Mengele's who spare no effort to make sure that every avenue is blocked.  Social workers also lock up their specialty through anti-competitive practices.  But only one profession among the "helping" professions has the hard grip upon our balls that the doctors do.  We should at least label them as the banksters' ilk, if we're going to make any headway against a fucked-up system . . . run by them. 

And I say this as somebody who has worked with and known many decent human beings who were doctors. 

But in the big picture, this shit

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 21:12 | 1340288 Audacity17
Audacity17's picture

Interesting, I would think that doctors are among the smartest, type A people in America.  Those people tend to have an elitist outlook.  That could result in cliquish attempts to keep the "club" small.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 22:57 | 1340490 Bob
Bob's picture

It's a massive love-fest, all right.  Genuine concern for your fellow man, not so much. 

But, having observed them in their day-to-day lives for so long, I gotta say that when people kiss your ass like a celebrity everywhere you go, home and away, it would be hard not to worship your own. 

In any case, I think we need to address this system . . . owned and run by doctors in a way that has nothing whatsoever to do with patient care.  Or medicine.  

Sun, 06/05/2011 - 15:32 | 1341658 I_ate_the_crow
I_ate_the_crow's picture

If you "did a little law school" apparently you didn't get to Torts. Doctors in this country are terrified of being sued. Malpractice insurance is expensive because when a Doctor makes a mistake, it usually means someone dies, and wrongful death negligence suits have outrageous damage awards. Thus doctors issue a battery of tests to cover their asses as best they can, which insurers have to pay, which drives up the insurance premiums for those that actually have it (or their employers who have to pay for it).

Without knowing the exact stats, I would guess that at least half of the 485 members of Congress have a law degree, and some of them, like John Edwards, made their fortunes suing doctors. The ABA is a huge lobby, obviously, and the trial lawyers in Congress won't dare touch tort reform. They are all cocksuckers.

Then on the other side of the fence you have big pharma and insurers, who both benefit from chronic illness. There is no incentive to cure disease, there is only a profit incentive to manage disease over the long term. A cure for cancer? Much to Tmos's dismay, I doubt we ever see that - but a psuedo-cure that makes cancer a chronic condition like arthritis or HIV that you take a pill every day for the rest of your life? Guaranteed.

The only thing you can do is study how to be healthy and avoid the whole mess (hint: shop at whole foods, don't eat sugar, take vitamins). Of course now that all of our food is radiated, it might be time to invest in some cancer-related companies. Fucking eh.

Mon, 06/06/2011 - 12:10 | 1343477 Bob
Bob's picture

True, lawyers are the equal of doctors in the extent to which they dominate and exploit their position in the system which they themselves have built for themselves.  What I find strange, though, is the success doctors have had in marketing themselves as the "good guys."  Especially vis a vis the lawyers. 

We could debate it back and forth, and there are reasonable arguments for both groups, but ultimately it's a charade much like that of the dims and publicons, imo. 

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:59 | 1338422 bbq on whitehou...
bbq on whitehouse lawn's picture

New York is a big place much bigger then just the city.

50k is good money if you have no debt and have a low cost or morgage free living space.

Thats the issue: cars are cars no matter where in the world you live. Rice is rice no matter where in the world you live.

Prices are riseing in all countries but some faster then others.

The profit once made by currency arbitres has been stopped by central banks and their ability to price money.

Doesn't matter. It is and has ever been about barter.

You have somthing shiny ask a bird what it will do for that shiny. :P

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:17 | 1337978 scratch_and_sniff
scratch_and_sniff's picture

Hey maybe you lot should go hyper-socialist and raise your marxist minimum labour-wage requirements...doh, hold on, that would mean your free market capitalists would spilt to communist china in search of the pro-corporatist global ponzi wealth effect LOL.

So the real lesson from all this is that you should have all worked for peanuts, kept your mouths shut, and let bastards walk all over you.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:57 | 1339143 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Or remove the regulations on the use of capital that have driven our manufacturing base away.

Labor is a tiny component of modern industrial economies.  Seeking lower labor costs is far from the only factor in making a decision on where to go to manufacture things.  Which country is going to nationalize your factories?  Which country is going to force you to continue to employ unproductive workers?  Which country is going to force you to complete a three year environmental and archeological survey before you can start building a factory?  Which country is going to force you to stop all operations because a bird built a nest on a piece of your machinery?  These are all FAR more important than "how much is labor?"

If the cost of labor was the only factor, industry would have moved to Africa a hundred years ago.  Instead, they only started fleeing when the government started increasing in size at a geometric rate.

You also need to understand that not everyone in an economy works for the minimum wage.  It is usually only the very young who do that, or those who have fallen on hard times and would otherwise be unable to do ANYTHING.  By getting rid of low paying jobs, you make it so that people are unable to get a second chance.  Your "compassionate action" has destroyed their jobs, and forced them onto government services, where they and their children and their children's children will continue to breed in abject dependence, unable to get a job that you have given to an expensive (but not TOO expensive) machine.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:33 | 1339198 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Some good points. As Germany and Japan were gobbling up market share in the automotive world in the 70's, 80's and 90's they actually had and still have HIGHER labor costs. They moved some of their production here because of political and currency issues. However, labor costs were not their competitive advantages.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:58 | 1339230 scratch_and_sniff
scratch_and_sniff's picture

That above comment was tongue and cheek tmosely. The possible arguments you want to start going over are all well rehearsed and well trodden - I am aware of the red-tape phenomenon strangling business - UK tax, environmental, and labour laws are probably the most convoluted in the world and every so often they need reigning in, but I also accept that you cant let capitalism go apeshit by letting business do what ever it pleases to the environment or to its workers bla bla bla. I'm also of the mind that, even though the companies operate within a free market capitalist system and are free to come and go as they please, that they should show some loyalty and patriotism every now and again, that would solve a lot of problems IMO, but I know that’s fairy dust to capitalists, so you dont need to get pissy about.

Admittedly my views arent as cut-and-shut as yours are, I tend to accept the dynamics of the political positions and resign myself to the fact that as long as you have one party undoing the others work when they get a term, and the other doing the same, that sometimes the end result is that the balance ends up wrong, sometimes it‘s right…failing really radical thinking, that’s just the way it is in ’first past the post’ democracies (But let me say, regardless of the many reasons companies pack up and leave, given the chance to exploit workers and pollute the environment if they could make more profit- it’s a no-brainer)

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:31 | 1337994 Rynak
Rynak's picture

As i previously explained in other article comments, one (if not perhaps THE) defect of free market capitalism, is that it is *exclusively* individual-based. What i mean with this is something very simple - something which "pure free market capitalism" proponents take for granted: I give you this, you give me that. So, trade between individual entities on a per good basis. Every single trade requires that both parties have something to exchange. Via currencies and debt, it certainly is possible to blurry the line between such individual trades.... still, the guiding principle is "this for that", per individual.

When people think of communism, they typically imagine it as it has been previously implemented, or how individual communists described it. I define it as something much more generic: A planned economy based on COLLECTIVE needs. So, the exact inverse of free market capitalism. In this model, needs of the entire collective are estimated, production and work is then allocated to meet the expected demand, and the produced goods are distributed to the individuals (NO "this for that").

As people know, pure communism has failed. One of the reasons is it performs horrible when needs are very dynamic, plus there is little incentive for improvement. And finally, all private accounts i have so far heard of planned economies, did not even make use of the major killer-advantages of communism (so, not only did it suffer from its disadvantages, it also didn't even gain from its advantages).

As we currently see more and more clearly, pure capitalism is ALSO failing. People here may blame it all on fiat and corruption, and both certainly play a very important role in its current downfall. However, the elephant in the room is being ignored: The employment problem. The employment issue is not just a result of incompetent and malicious policies.... it also is plain and simply a symptom of free market capitalism's disadvantages.

How so? Well, as i said.... it for every part of the economy expects "this for that". That "this for that" does not always match reality, became first obvious when it came to how to finance things like infrastructure. So, services and goods that are shared between the entire collective. Obviously, it would make little sense to go "i repair this road, and you give me that in return".... and there came taxes. Many people may not see it as this, but taxes actually work very similiar to socialism: The entire collective (though perhaps with varying percentages) pays for something, and that something is then made available to the entire collective. This is not free market capitalism! It is a patch, to make something work, that cannot efficiently work in free market capitalism style. And i may add: It is a very lazy patch.... it's just throwing money at a problem.

A communism-style planned economy would NOT have this defect, precisely because such collective planning and allocation of work, is the ONLY thing it can do well. The pattern which i want to make obvious here, is that free market capitalism does, what communism cannot do (dynamicity, individual-based economics, competition), while communism does what free market capitalism cannot do (efficiently solving predictable collective-wide needs).

What does this have to do with the topic of employment? Well, same question as the one i asked in the past: Why is lack of employment even a problem? Why *gasp* is it not GOOD if less workforce is needed to get the same output (efficiency via technological advances)? Answer: People don't survive from nothing.... in free market capitalism, they need to pay for all existencial needs. You may think this is fair and balanced, but it is not: If someone has a need, and is willing to work to produce that need, but is DISALLOWED from doing just that, because less jobs are needed than goods are produced, then WHY should he not get what he needs? He's not selfish, and in such a case his contribution simply IS NOT NEEDED...... there is no answer to this in free market capitalism...... and despite of the "work you lazy bitch *whip!*" propaganda, people KNOW this, and this is why they expect that such people are not just being left to die.

But how to solve this, if free market capitalism cannot deal with such a scenario? Well.... again..... the same way as with infrastructure: Just throw money at the problem! (socialism).

In pure theory.... there is a way how this could work in a free market economy without cash-infusion.... but it never happens and will never happen, because of the individual-based thinking. Here's how it could work: If say, only 70% of workhours are needed to produce the same amount of goods, then everyone could work just 70% of hours, but by paid 100% of time. Yes! This is how a free market would actually need to react, to a reduction in required work (efficiency increase) HIGHER wages, NOT lower wages, and a reduction in workhours. This may sound insane, but it really isn't insane, if you break out of your capitalistic mindcage, and think of it in pure maths:

In free market capitalism, people need enough cash to buy their existencial needs. If the amount of total marketwide workhours goes down via efficiency-improvements, then for people to still have enough cash to survive, and everyone to be employed, everyone needs to work less, and be paid more per hour. Doing the opposite (reducing wages) would actually INCREASE the unemployment problem, because by doing so, you reduce the amount of cash earned per hour IN ADDITION to there being less hours!

(The only halfway sane argument one could make for such a counterproductive policy, is to argue that it will make more corporations come to the country, because of the cheap labour... and thus increase the amount of hours available. But if one thinks further about this, it too is bullshit, because 1. Instead of fixing the model defect, one impoverishes the population.... basically selling out the own countries lifestandard as a beggar to foreign corporations (they like that though!). And secondly, it pushes other countries to do the same, because the corporations that come to your country, LEAVE other countries... thus, other countries will fight by, by starting a braindead race for which population is willing to enslave itself the most).

Bottom line: If you want to solve the rootlevel issues of the global economy, it isn't enough to describe to a particular ideology, and then play fanboy for it. You need to rationally and neutrally analyze all available options, figure out what they're good at, and what they suck at.... and then with this pool of methods at your disposal, think about how to efficiently and sustainably model current economic realities.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:30 | 1338011 IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

I can't resist this ... I need to ask ...

What we had is 'pure capitalism'?!? ... do we need the impure one then?!?

also ... what does free stand for in free market?


Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:31 | 1338013 Rynak
Rynak's picture

You apparently did not think when reading the post. Otherwise you would have noticed, that the questions you asked, and the answers, are completely irrelevant to the points that i made.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:37 | 1338016 IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

 I stand corrected and at attention!!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:02 | 1338083 Monedas
Monedas's picture

No system in history has been given more oportunity to suceed than Socialism ! It always fails ! .......... Find me a black Lesbian with Milton Friedman's wisdom and I'll vote for her ! That would make a good talent show ! Monedas 2011

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:08 | 1338107 Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

Condoleezza Rice is not running, is she?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:50 | 1338207 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

Just classic.  Thank you.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:44 | 1338033 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You've started with an entirely inadequate construction of the notion of "capitalism." 

Capitalism is inherently collective, whereby a fictional entity known as a "corporation" exists to return money to shareholders.

That's collectivism writ large.

It's just that the beneficiaries of the collective have nothing to do with its daily performance.  There's no "individual need" that is satisfied by a production line worker, or a customer-service rep on the phone.


Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:53 | 1338068 Rynak
Rynak's picture

How does "your capitalism" allow to poll collective-based needs, and then allocate work efficiently? And how is this then not the same as a planned economic sector? How does "your" capitalism deal with situation, where only 70% of consumers need to work, to produce the goods for 100% of them - without resorting to socialism or some kind of planned economy? Looks to me like just another "camper"-post made by someone who cares more about symbols than meaning and arguments.

For the record (in case it hasn't become obvious in my previous post): I do NOT advocate communism as a replacement for free market capitalism. I just notice, that the "holes" of the capitalistic model, are by coincidence exactly the things, at which communism is good.... and thus hint at the possibility, of solving some economic aspects with small selfsustainable planned economies (instead of socialism-style "throw money at it!"), and letting everything else work dynamically with free market capitalism.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:04 | 1338092 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

"MY" capitalism?  What the hell are you talking about?

Look at what I said: capitalism is inherently collective.  It HAS TO BE.  Your notion that it's based on some free-market that exists solely at the individual level is just nonsense.

As for my beliefs personally, I'm all for generally reducing the powers of collective organizations.  But let's start with how the world actually operates, in which corporations are the dominant power structures and are collectives which exist *solely* to concentrate wealth in smaller and smaller groups of people.

I tend to lean in the direction of believing that the employees should derive direct benefit from the success of their labor, rather than giving it all to someone else who doesn't work. 

As for this 70% consumers, blah blah.  Most folks don't care much for the existing societal structure.  It exists to benefit a tiny number of people.  If you think only 70% of people "need to work" you *could* consider reducing their hours.  The 40-hr workweek is just a habit, it doesn't mean anything.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:44 | 1338200 nmewn
nmewn's picture

First, I didn't junk it BD.

"Look at what I said: capitalism is inherently collective."

IMO, ultimately, capitalism is free choice.

I don't have to throw my capital long on anything (bonds, stocks, self proprietorship etc.)  nor do I have to be short the same or I can do nothing at all and not risk any of it. Because I move in one direction today means nothing to how I choose to make a profit.

What I choose to do with my profit is also my decision...not a collective one.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:10 | 1338272 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

It's worse than pointless to extract one TINY component out of an economic system and say "that's what the system is." 

"Football," ultimately, is knocking people down.  "The Navy," ultimately, is men living together in the ocean.  "Physics," ultimately, is stuff hitting other stuff.

Don't you realize how STUPID this is?

There *is* a commonly understood meaning to the word "capitalism."  Don't pretend you love it if you don't even care what it is.

There's really nothing bad about an education.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:29 | 1338336 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Any collective is an obligation on the individual to contribute to the whole the way I use the word.

I object strenuously to the word collective when used with the word capitalism, as no one is forced or obligated to participate in anything and any profit or loss remains with the one who risked his capital, as long as it isn't Goldman, Morgue et al.

At least that's what the IRS's position is with me, they say I (as an individual I made a profit), maybe I can't tell anymore, would you like to share the liability? ;-)

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:48 | 1338380 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

The only corporations that are not collectives are sole proprietorships.

(If you think that's the only form of company that should exist, your posts make a bit of sense, but that means an effective end to "capitalism" as a system of aggregating wealth to provide returns absent personal labor.)

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:26 | 1338413 Rynak
Rynak's picture

If you in a generalized way object to any concept of a collective, then for fairness sake, the collective should also be able to object to giving you access to any collective aspect of economics.

Think very carefully about which aspectics are "collective based", before you answer "okay"..... because as you may of may not have noticed, what is called "collective" and what is called "individual", is just a matter of scale.

Personally, i have zero issue with you rejecting collective contributions, if you do not use collective contirbutions at all.... i just strongly suspect, that you are NOT aware of all the things that affect everyone..... even basic things as longterm availability of ressources.

Hypothetical example: Want to pollute the atmosphere with toxic wastes, while ignoring collective agreements? Fine, you just gave us the justification to no longer respect your own life as untouchable!

If on the other hand, you just totally want to opt out of the collective, without burdening it in unfair ways, then you have my "go ahead!".... but how many inviduals really mean this, when they claim so?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 09:58 | 1339067 Bob
Bob's picture

Nice effort with this thread, Rynak!  It's too bad that people are too chained to their precious perspectives to actually take an objective look at the ample evidence that we need to break free of bankrupt binary thinking and implement a system that offers the best of all those failed systems to date in a reasonably coherent and harmonious manner. 

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:41 | 1339120 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Thanks for the reply and maybe I can express myself clearly to you both.

"If you in a generalized way object to any concept of a collective, then for fairness sake, the collective should also be able to object to giving you access to any collective aspect of economics."

I object to the notion that for me to engage in capitalism (which entails only my risk thus only my reward), I have to belong to, owe any allegiance to or fear reprisal from, any collective...which could also mean a monopoly (the collective) as I'm an individual "actor". We will leave the "collectives" desire for oversight of something that does not belong to them and law "enforcement" aside for the moment.

"Think very carefully about which aspectics are "collective based", before you answer "okay"..... because as you may of may not have noticed, what is called "collective" and what is called "individual", is just a matter of scale."

The only scale concerning me is my scale in capitalism.

If my scale is harmonious with others, that can be mutually beneficial to all, but I don't go into it thinking what is mutually beneficial to all (the collective), only of self. This is not to say ethics & fairness play no part. If I do business with you I would want to treat you fairly so I could return again. 

"Personally, i have zero issue with you rejecting collective contributions, if you do not use collective contirbutions at all.... i just strongly suspect, that you are NOT aware of all the things that affect everyone..... even basic things as longterm availability of ressources."

That is again, a societal/group concern, not wholly a individual concern. For an individual to give over his/her desires with no recourse to some "collective" central planning authority is to give over a portion of his individual sovereignty to conduct himself in his own affairs as he see's fit.

Every modern generation always thinks that they are the smartest ones to have ever trod the earth. That no innovation or discovery will ever happen after us. History proves this false.

"Hypothetical example: Want to pollute the atmosphere with toxic wastes, while ignoring collective agreements? Fine, you just gave us the justification to no longer respect your own life as untouchable!"

As it happens, I'm not an anarchist, there will always be mutually agreed upon rules of commerce that cannot be onerous to either party. No one has a right to stop me from cutting every tree down on my property, if I want to (they are my trees), just as I have no right to cut down any of your trees. Same applies to air & water. At the point I damage you I'm outside of being an individual engaged in commerce because I have damaged you without you being involved in my "transaction" for a profit.

This is the point where the collective comes in, not before. As an arbitor between two parties who disagree.

"If on the other hand, you just totally want to opt out of the collective, without burdening it in unfair ways, then you have my "go ahead!".... but how many inviduals really mean this, when they claim so?"

Apparently just one. But this is all dwelling (as blunderdog says) on one small point of it.

Capitalism is the fairest way of filling a need between two or more parties for profit.

Collectives have formed forever with mixed results. A pirate taking from one collective is considered unlawful by that collective...the pirate of course knows that collective took it by force from who are the brigands? ;-)

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 18:59 | 1340068 Rynak
Rynak's picture

I don't care about your ideological rethorics, glorification of invidualism and capitalism, and demonization of the collective and collective-based planning.... and i reject your attempt of telling me how i do stuff regarding my life, including collaborative efforts....

....all i said was: You reject all collective-level efforts in a generic way? Fine, don't contribute, but also don't expect benefits from those who contribute. You get no streets in your area, no managed water supply, no electricity lines, no phonelines, no nothing.... you will do everything yourself, or trade with others to provide this to you. Oh, and.... if you want to leave your area, and use our infrastructure, you'll pay usage fees.

I'm sure, you as a capitalism-ideologue should understand the reasoning for this quite well, right? :)

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 20:53 | 1340259 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I understand it quite well actually.

I've been extorted to pay for it all by the collective which you presume to speak for, so naturally I will be availing myself of the infrastructure I was extorted to help build...without any usage fees (outside of gasoline taxes, tag fees & licensing fees).

You do realize you have superimposed a government system over an economic system which I went through great pains to distinguish between...which of course was the central question you have now attempted to avoid.

By the way, where I live, I paid to have a water well put in and the septic tank, they are maintained by me and there was no collective effort to help me pay for any of it. I also paid for the power hook up and rented (I paid for, fueled & drove) a trencher, the conduit, glue and put the conduit & pull string in the trench myself.

My expense & labor.

Again, no collective came around offering to share costs and labor...maybe I missed you when I was out renting the trencher ;-)

As a matter of fact, the entire length of the road in front of my property is taxed by the county (that I have to pay, even though all my neighbors use it) even though my boundry marker lies on the other side of be careful going down any dirt roads, it might be best if you stay on the state/publicly owned highways where there is a clear delineation of rights & ownership.

I would say I have "contributed" more to the collective than I have ever recieved in kind. I would also say the collective would want to keep it that way for as long as possible and be happy with what they extort from the productive.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 21:14 | 1340291 Rynak
Rynak's picture

Ladies and gentlemen,

here we have someone who calls himself a capitalist, and who rants about the evils of socialism, the collective and communism..... and he wants stuff for free, by you working and paying for him, argueing that you owe it to him.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!