This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Capitalism Versus Cronyism

Tyler Durden's picture




 

The sad 'this-is-how-politics-works' punchline of this brief animated clip is "those who can afford political influence get the benefits; and those who cannot afford it suffer the consequences" as Professor Matt Zwolinski attempts to balance the question the common claim that 'capitalism exploits the masses for the benefit of the few' - implicitly advocating increased government power - by suggesting (shock, horror) that government power may be more exploitative than free-market capitalism. In just over two minutes, Zwolinski argues that bigger government (thanks to cronyism among other things) makes citizens more vulnerable to exploitation given its power to coerce - intriguing given the recent comments by Obama.

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 07/17/2012 - 21:50 | 2626665 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"What's wrong with anarchism?"

Well, respectfully, in my opinion it can't work in any large society because of human nature. It will always coalesce into groups. Within those groups there will be leaders and the led. Anarchism ceases to be the ideal of the individual at that point, as it now forms parameters of conduct within the group, it starts to form government.

Its not to say I don't believe firmly in the sovereignty of the the individual over the state (and I can't say that strongly enough) but structure will happen.

The best we can hope for as a group is moral and ethical people. The reality is not there, so the attempt is the rule of law and government.

Better put, you and I living on an island could be anarchists happily...interject a third party maybe not.

"That is an easy goal for communists to achieve:"

Communists/socialists/progressives are a different breed unto themselves...closer to eugenicists than anything else really in my estimation. The have never let it go.

Where else could the idea of one child per family, one big gulp per day, wear your seatbelt, ban smoking, wipe out entire factual history and replace it with state propaganda, indoctrination of children etc. come from?

Its what it is...very few see it.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 23:43 | 2626901 tulip_permabull
tulip_permabull's picture

Quite right nmewn. There will never come into existence any kind of stable "end-state" society, either good or bad. There is no possibility of ever achieving equilibrium (heaven) on earth. Good (humility and respect) and evil (arrogance and overlordship) exist, and the struggle between them will never end.

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 06:49 | 2627372 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Thats correct.

I'm fond of pointing out, the fair & honest among us will recognize in ourselves we all have at least two drops of larceny in our souls.

Some are able to restrain themselves to just those two drops, others are not.

The ones who feel the twang of guilt when they see an office pen laying on the kitchen table are certainly more ethical and moral when they take it back, than the ones who justify to themselves the theft of anothers property all the way up to the point when the handuffs clink around their wrists...lol.

Human nature is a "funny" thing to watch...especially the "he stole so I can too" aspect of it.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 21:17 | 2626598 Elliott Eldrich
Elliott Eldrich's picture

And what are we to think of the kind of mind that reflexively says "you're a Marxist" to anyone who dares to utter even the tinest bit of criticism about Capitalism?

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 21:54 | 2626673 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

I've read your rule book...

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)[2]

 

no one on this site is falling for the argument. You've been exposed.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 23:48 | 2626917 ScotlandTheBrave
ScotlandTheBrave's picture

For the freedom lovers - these are the Rules for Radicals and Community Organizers. A Community Organizer is just code for Socialist Organizer.. Now part of the Midwest Academy curriculum. Thanks for sharing.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 22:06 | 2626701 nmewn
nmewn's picture

When you find capitalism in this world uncorrupted by do gooder marxists you let let me know ok?

A true capitalist is concerned with honest profit. The customary way is selling stuff and services people want or need. He is not concerned with how someone views him personally...if his pricing is too high he will go bankrupt. He will then not go sniveling and groveling before the government or the people (taxpayers) because no one is buying his shit.

Thats reserved for socialists who have to be propped up at every turn of their pathetic lives by the state or the people...someone who does that is a crony capitalist. In that vein...the state makes crony capitalists by virtue of regulation...but thats way over your head.

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 03:30 | 2627210 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

A true capitalist is concerned with honest profit.

__________________

Made me laugh. Truer than true and honest, in the same sentence, by a US citizen.

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 04:43 | 2627270 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

Capitalism cannot get past short term profit, anything that is a long term good for a society is bad under capitalism.

The very idea that 10/20 years from now we will still have a choice of ism's to live our lives by is ridiculous, survival rules dont care which theory you hold dear and self evident.

 

 

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 23:40 | 2626887 ScotlandTheBrave
ScotlandTheBrave's picture

You are a collectivist. Marxist is so last century and their boat went down with the USSR. Russia has now adopted crony socialism on the extreme scale...and we are merely trying to catch up with them..

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 21:00 | 2626543 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

Lots of hot air from you on the subject... but why TF aren't you already on the plane? It's right there waiting for you - unless the loss of your cable TV and Mom cooking 3 squares/day for you is too much to give up...

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 22:11 | 2626708 nmewn
nmewn's picture

You do realize we're all coming to eat your babies right?

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 19:36 | 2626356 Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

An interesting observation.  Thanks.

I could be wrong, but are you trying to classify the existing system as 'capitalist' in nature?  'Cause if so, you're in for a world of hurt on this blog!

One need not look far for examples of anarchic or free market systems.  eBay is a good example.  Is anyone forced to transact on eBay?  Do you have recourse if/when someone wrongs you within the huge blob that is cyberspace?  Absoluely. 

At a macro (hate that word, but I'm keeping it), I think it comes down to first principles - namely, do you believe an institution (i.e., government) has the right to force you to do something?  Or, by today's standards, do you believe an institution has the right to penalize you for not acting?  

As an anarchist, I answer no to both.  It doesn't matter to me what 'good' comes out of a system predicated upon violence.....because the system - government - is fundamentally flawed from square one.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 20:07 | 2626408 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

Theory shows that socialism fails due to the economic calculation problem.

It is apodictically true. There is no need to review empirical evidence, but if you do, you will find that it backs up the theory.

FFS, have you guys been asleep the last 90 years.

 

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 18:57 | 2626262 Burticus
Burticus's picture

19th century Frawg legal philosopher Frederic Bastiat observed long ago how the law is inevitably perverted into an instrument of plunder by the ruling elite.

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

The free enterprise economic system can only exist under the rule of law in a republic, while the fascist, socialist and communist (crony capitalist) economic systems all operate under a political oligarchy.

The Rothschilds also explained long ago how such a system is perpetuated, “The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 18:58 | 2626269 Henry Hub
Henry Hub's picture

This is a false dichotomy. The success of Capitalism often leads to Fascism or or what is now called Cronyism.
The argument here seen to be the usual one of libertarians. We must have smaller government and all will be well. However, this is backwards. The plutocracy and the multinational corporations they control create and extend big government for their own purposes. It is the large corporations that must be reined in.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 19:33 | 2626292 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

I've been taking a crack at this problem.  Please opine.

LOWPROFILE'S "FIX IT MANIFESTO" - A Work in Progress

"Labor, entrepreneurism, investment or rent. The three former are through hard work and ingenuity, the latter is through government privilege."  -Death and Gravity From http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-why-left-misunderstands-income-...

Many have been offering proposals to fix the mess of government finances, wealth iniquity, etc.  I can't offer a solution that will offer a painless transition.  At this point, I doubt such a solution exists.  The best that we can hope for is to start from a clean slate, and create an environment that encourages the reversal of generations of bad policy and growing wealth iniquity.  Here is my best proposal to begin creating an environment that will restore us to sanity:

1.) Let GOLD trade free of taxation and derivatives.  No more levered futures contracts.  1:1 allocated only.  No tax on gold sales - Capital gains or otherwise.  Do it with silver too, while we're at it.

2.) Impose a national progressive real estate tax with a super high threshold, say $10,000,000.   No federal taxation below that level.  Amend The Constitution to allow the threshold to rise based on the true rate of inflation measured against gold, silver, energy and food.  Include that the states cannot tax real estate below a threshold of $5,000.000. 

Require that all titles show clearly which individual holds the property, so that total real estate holdings cannot be hidden behind corporations or trusts.  Net out the real estate holding included in corporate stock ownership to prevent hiding it by holding corporate stock (this is the one hiding place I haven't yet figured out a suitable solution for, I am working on it).

3.) Ban all other forms of taxation (including fees, tolls etc.) with a Constitutional amendment.

4.) Include that the Fed Gov't cannot own more than 15% of the country's land, and the states cannot own more than 15% of their respective state's land AS ASSESSED BY DOLLAR VALUE....

5.) Include eliminating all government's ability to incur debt, federal, state and local: All government must operate on a cash only basis.  If you want something big built, run a surplus, save it in gold, and pay for it if/when you have enough savings to pay for it.  Either that, or let the private sector take the risk.

That fixes the problem for about 1000 years.  Savers have a stable vehicle to save in (gold) that is not gamed or penalized - They will no longer have to speculate to preserve their purchasing power against inflation.

Taxation is progressive, but only above a very high threshold, allowing those who want to live simply and self-sufficiently to do so if they wish.

The intent is to force the monied elite to deploy their capital towards CAPITALISM (seeking profit via production of goods and services), as opposed to their current method of seeking a return on their money, COLLECTING RENT.

This is far from complete.  There are many questions to be answered, e.g. "What is the primary purpose of government?"  I would argue that purpose is to protect and secure our rights as Americans under The Constitution, both state and federal.  But that may not be the opinion of my fellows, and is beyond the scope of this proposal.

 

I welcome all constructive criticism/suggestions.  Have at it!

EDIT:  I see some usless cunt gave me a down arrow and didn't give any suggestions!  Eat shit!

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 20:03 | 2626404 Amagnonx
Amagnonx's picture

I had a read - while you are on the right track in my estimation, you dont go near far enough.  In my view, it is the govt itself, and its monopoly powers over law and territory that need to be completely eliminated.

 

The idea that a govt is needed is false, it pure propaganda taught when we are children - and the entire concept of nation states should be over turned.

 

The only reason you need a state, is to protect you from another state - but if everyone operates as an individual, then no state can excersise control while people are unwilling and withhold consent - ie no legitimate govt can be recognized, because govt is deemed to be the source of tyranny.

 

I dont think it would take too long for people to then collectively agree that such things as rent taking, and currency monoply, and fractional reserve banking are unlawful.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 20:39 | 2626485 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

We need a free market in security and arbitration services. Not inefficient, ossified government monopoly providers. Not police departments that "protect and serve" by gathering protection money and kicking people out of their homes. Not a DoJ that sues people for being "wrongful" monopolies but strangely never sees fit to sue itself.

The free market is more efficient at government providing EVERY good and service.

Except for the one kind of security "service" that government excels at: securing people inside ovens.

 

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 23:16 | 2626833 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Agree, but beyond the scope of what I was trying to do.  Will work that in later versions.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 23:06 | 2626810 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Thank you Amagnonx, I agree 100%, but that was a bit beyond the scope of what I was trying to present.  Will try and work that in later versions though.

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 04:36 | 2627268 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

And whose aircraft carriers are going to guarantee the safe passage of global trade around the world while you return to your pre-industrial paradise.

China?

I hope not.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 20:35 | 2626482 GlomarHabu
GlomarHabu's picture

You invite a critique but come totally unhinged when you get a down arrow?  I suggest losing the vulgarity.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 23:07 | 2626804 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

That's because I asked for constructive criticism, and that down-arrow came w/o any sort of response or suggestion, indicating it was unconstructive.  I also didn't ask for personal  criticism, and I frequently use vulgarity when someone has it coming, as in this particular case - you fucking idiot.

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 10:24 | 2627900 GlomarHabu
GlomarHabu's picture

What redeeming value, or communicative emphasis does your vularity serve?  it is usually the mark of uneducated trailer trash who know neither how to communicate nor how to act in civil society.  Your claim that you frequently use it when someone has it coming, when perhaps more to the truth you use it simply when someone disagrees with you. I used no vularity yet your response to my comment showed am immature individual unable to control their emotions.

I wish you well.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 21:07 | 2626534 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

Why should those who "want to live simply, and self-sufficiently" get off scott-free, in terms of taxes?  Should they not have to contribute to the roads, courts, schools, peacekeepers? 

The model used in colonial and immediate post-revolution America was that you could 'work off' your taxes; so much equivalent $ for a man's work for a day, so much for a man and a team of oxen, etc..  I understand the philosophical reservations some have with property taxes but, having served on the finance board of a very small rural town for a long time, I've got a question for you:  how the hell else are we supposed to pay for the basic services?  No roads?  No registry of deeds and courts?  No schools?  Settle everything based on who shoots first or hits the hardest?  Want that?  Try Somalia.

BTW, up until 1913, the federal govt (not municipalities or states) got the vast majority of it's funding FROM IMPORT TARIFFS.  America's manufacturing, which has led the world in GDP for more than a century, grew up behind a protective wall. Woodrow Wilson, our first 'globalist' president, put in the income tax and the Federal Reserve. 

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 22:05 | 2626698 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

No. I'll just take the America before Obama came on the scene though I could do without Woodrow.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 23:16 | 2626820 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

 

Should they not have to contribute to the roads, courts, schools, peacekeepers?

Thank you PulpCutter for your thoughtful criticism!  But no, I would say they do not.

This is because under the current system, if they don't agree with foreign policy, schooling, etc. they have two choices - either leech off the welfare state (and be a drag on everyone else) or expatriate.

You would use violence to force them to participate in something they may have deep moral objections to, or force them to be a burden to their fellow man.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 19:52 | 2626378 Tortuga
Tortuga's picture

God Bless America and RICO all banksters, mult. corp ceo's and boards, their ho politicians (does that make it a quatrotomy? and IMPEACH the liar, Eric Holder.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 20:32 | 2626474 GlomarHabu
GlomarHabu's picture

 

Well you got some things right but too many things wrong

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 23:12 | 2626827 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

You are the definition of unhelpful.

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 03:33 | 2627215 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

US citizen economics include cronyism.

It does not lead to.

Typical US citizen perception.

US citizens do not disagree with cronyism, they disagree with not being the recipients of cronyism.

The day it happens, suddenly, cronyism is the worst thing in the world (it was not before and US citizens usually have soldiered to maintain it)

US citizenism at work.

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 04:34 | 2627266 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

You are aware that most on ZH are traders who work with the "large corporations" arent you?

These are the people who profit daily from less regulation and less  oversight, didnt china shoot the baby milk fraud guy?

 

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 19:12 | 2626307 suz
suz's picture

What's wrong with having a problem with authority?

 

It's when you don't have one, that you have a real problem on your hands.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 20:30 | 2626467 GlomarHabu
GlomarHabu's picture

Absatively nothing .... our republic bathe in the revolutionary waters of resistence to authority.  Today our nation is inhabited by weak, zoftig, slothes. Ready to be slaughtered.

Not me ... I think I'll be yelling "Molon Labe" to the SOB's who are crushing us ..our own very warped government.

Let 'em bring it.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 19:18 | 2626322 Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

I just saw this on the Students For Liberty FB page. I immediately put it on my page.

 

http://www.facebook.com/SmallBuisinessOwnersAgainstObama

If you do FB, visit me and like it, bitchez!

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 20:19 | 2626335 Monedas
Monedas's picture

How about the government can't own any property .... it can rent from the private landlords only !  We gotta think outside the box and put some limits on the beast !  All laws expire in a year .... unless specifically renewed .... by getting at least one more vote than the last time up .... raise the bar a bit !  

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 19:32 | 2626346 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

We need to renoune the rule of law. And everything will be solved by the free markets. 

For instance: legalize coke and let airline pilots do lines while in flight. But guess what? Somone will create an airline that's "guaranteed Coke-free". Ok, so they trick you the first time by only making it Coca-Cola free, and still pay rock bottom dollar to cokehead pilots. But then informed agents will create demand for an elite airline that's cocaine-free. And LSD "resistant", reduced-meth and less than 1% angel dust. 

Can't miss. We'd all live happily ever after

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 19:52 | 2626379 Amagnonx
Amagnonx's picture

Where is renouncing govt renoucning the rule of law?  It is not renouncing, it is denouncing the monopoly of law by a few - which will always lead to perversion of justice.

 

The only right and 'divine' authority that I voluntarily accept is justice herself - not bound by monopoly, but rather freely available to all men.  Where law is in the hands of all, then only justice can be accepted as lawful - only the hand of justice may, with clear concience, wield a sword.

 

While no man can know all things, and there may be errors, I would rather put my trust in law that is freely defined and endorsed by all men, for then the zealous will be checked by the unprincipled, and the villian by the just - the only compromise then is as close to divine justice as men may become - and liberty will prevail.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 20:09 | 2626414 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

There's only one law that means anything: that's the law of the street, friend. 

Justice is not a part of the natural order. Justice is a privilege seen only by a few. 

By default the law gets taken into the hands of your local hoodies. And that's how it should be. My buddy Big Al Capone made sure that all the businesses in his districts paid tribute. And in return, he protected them from violence and unfortunate incidents. He was a peace enforcer. 

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 20:55 | 2626532 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>For instance: legalize coke and let airline pilots do lines while in flight.

Sure. Legalize it. Of course no entrepeneurial operator will tolerate that.

Just as they would not tolerate anally probing grandma and X-raying her privates.

 

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 19:33 | 2626351 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

I'll give it to the Obama campaign, this is a pretty fucking funny ad.

http://youtu.be/Ud3mMj0AZZk

Reforming Government isn't the solution.  Reforming people, is.

And as Paul once said to Peter, "Good luck with that".

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 19:48 | 2626373 Tortuga
Tortuga's picture

I have one question. How the f$%^ did Ayn Rand know?

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 20:17 | 2626425 Monedas
Monedas's picture

Ayn Rand knew .... and Keynes didn't have a clue !            Monedas        1929            The Commonwealth Of North Korea, Inc. Welcomes You - CEO Slim Kim

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 19:54 | 2626380 GlomarHabu
GlomarHabu's picture

The good professor's tagline "those who can afford political influence get the benefits, and those who can not afford it suffer the consequences" is a bastardized quote from Thucydides writing about the Melian Dialogue an event during the Peloponnesian Wars.

Melos was beseiged by the aggressive Athenians who decided to show their power over the tiny island. They had a dialogue with the Melians first but eventually killed all the men and enslaved the women and children ....just because they could.

The famous quote coming from that is; "While the strong do what they can (want), the weak suffer what they must"

But I'm sure the good professor knew all about that line.

The line shows it has always been thus.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 21:00 | 2626530 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

"those who can afford political influence get the benefits, and those who can not afford it suffer the consequences"

True dat, homie.  Happens in my old 'hood in Boston, Mission Hill.  Gentrification gutted the place of its soul, and now it just one huge college dorm owned by Harvard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6P3YVLZ6bs

Political action, either to promote or oppose the gentrification, is often the community's response against unintended economic eviction.[4] This is caused by rising rents that make continued residence in their dwellings unfeasible for poorer residents.[5] The rise in property values causes property taxes based on property values to increase; resident owners unable to pay the taxes are forced to sell their dwellings at a profit and move to a cheaper community.[6]

Gentrification-increased property values are a positive economic development for cities when tax revenues increase consequent to increased property values, however existing residents experience the change as increased property taxes. The increased taxes force many original property owners to either pay and stay (via higher rents for their tenants) or to sell and leave the gentrifying community. In gentrifying communities without strong rent-control laws poor residents are informally evicted when they cannot afford the increased rents. As a result, such economically limited people usually oppose gentrification.

This video from 1985 sounds like alot from today: institutions, using government, to drive out the soul of the community in the favor of "profit" in order to preserve "diversity" and "economic development".  In stead we get higher rents, crappy looking buildings, and actually LESS diveristy as poor (ie minority) people have to move out as they can't afford the cost of living.

Gentrification comes from a British term, when the viceroys would come to Colonial America and reap the rewards of their facsist empirical masters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib3kSqacP7I&feature=related

 

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 20:29 | 2626460 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

Capitalism is a natural enemy of cronyism.

For example, if I hire my buddies to work at my burger restaurant, instead of hiring the best applicants, I would expect the restaurant to end up being liquidated.

It is different if I am insulated from market disciplines, for example if I obtain revenues through non-market activities like taxation or I declare monopoly privileges and have a band of brutes to enforce it. 

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 03:38 | 2627221 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Capitalism is a natural enemy of cronyism.

For example, if I hire my buddies to work at my burger restaurant, instead of hiring the best applicants, I would expect the restaurant to end up being liquidated.
_______________________________________________

Ah, yes, remember, in US citizen economics, infinite growth is a faith tenet.

There are always more resources to start a new venture and bring in new concurrents. It is how it works, the earth has no limits, is not finite.

But for people who are not pampered by a state allowing them to wallow in fantasy, as US citizens can and that have to cope with reality: an environment can be saturated. Meaning that it grows more and more difficult to start a new venture since resources are already allocated to existing solutions.

Therefore, those existing solutions can hire their buddies with even less pressure as the marginally best will have no resources to start their own business.

But hey, remember, US citizens, the most efficient stealers of environment, have actually overcome the human requirement of living off a physical environment. The resources do not matter, the environment does not matter, infinite growth and beyond.

This is US citizen propaganda and it is cheap. As US citizen propaganda is.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 20:32 | 2626472 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

 

 

HDTV turns on by itself:  [A loud authoritative voice echo’s into new NYC shipping container dwelling (definite upgrade from Robotrader mom’s basement) ]. Attention ZH Thought Criminal #2626202

Thought Criminal #2626202: Hello, err.. why are you talking to me thru my HDTV?

TV: ZH Thought Criminal # 2626202, report to the Gulag immediately. Reprograming is necessary.  We must move our mission FORWARD. Your talents are becoming stale.

Thought Criminal #2626202: Oh, I, I uh, uh, don’t want to go…

TV: ZH Thought Criminal # 2626202: Silence!! Report immediate to earn new reward points on your EBT card. 

http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/bba493f7-cc97-4da3-add6-3deb007cc719.pdf 

 

The montage of mad scientist releasing key program objectives:

Rio+20: UN Global Compact and The Rockefeller Foundation Announce A Framework for Action on Social Enterprise and Impact Investing

http://www.unglobalcompact.org/news/238-06-17-2012

 

But wait, there's more… 

http://www.trilateral.org/

http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Home

 

Big Four banks get vote of confidence June 25, 2012 09:29 AM

Australia’s Big Four banks have been given a vote of confidence from Bank for International Settlements, according to a report published by Fairfax, just days after Moody’s downgraded 15 global banks last week.

The report says the bank, known as the central bankers' bank, has classed Australia’s banks as the most profitable in the developed world for the second straight year followed by Canada and America. According to Bank for International Settlements, ANZ Banking Group (ASX:ANZ), Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ASX:CBA), National Australia Bank Limited (ASX:NAB), Westpac Banking Corporation (ASX:WBC) recorded pre-tax profits equal to 1.19 per cent of their assets last year. However, Bank for International Settlements has cautioned banks will need to adopt more aggressive cost management strategies than in the past since the new regulatory environment will put pressure on their profitability. The warning comes as Westpac’s CEO Gail Kelly affirmed the bank is ready for changes to the funding environment, claiming Westpac has planned for greater downgrades, continued volatility, and markets being unavailable. In the first half of the 2012 financial year Westpac reported a net profit of $3 billion.

http://www.finnewsnetwork.com.au/archives/finance_news_network20963.html

 

Back up the central planners short school bus. Those new carbon taxpayer gems will bailout the complacency of our Ponzi fund piggybank short sightedness. :P

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 20:45 | 2626494 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

And WHICH party would be most corrupt?  That would be the Tea Party/GOP.

As the GOP drops to it's knees, fastening their lips around WallSt's love muscles...

 --------------------------------------

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77368.html

Wall Street's vote: Romney by a landslide

For three years, Wall Street’s been telling the world how much it can’t stand President Barack Obama.

Now, thanks to campaign finance filings, it’s possible to put a price tag on just how much: Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and the super PAC supporting it are outraising Obama among financial-sector donors $37.1 million to $4.8 million.

Near the front of the pack are 19 Obama donors from 2008 who are giving big to Romney.

--------------------------------------

House roll call on Gramm-Leech-Bliley (repealing Glass Steagall): 57 no votes; 51 Democrats, 5 Republicans

Senate roll call on GLB: 8 no votes; 7 Democrat, 1 Republican

House roll call on 2006 extension of Patriot Act: 138 no votes; 124 Democrat, 13 Republicans

Senate roll call on 2006 extension of Patriot Act: 10 no votes; all Democrat, 0 Republicans

-------------------------------------------

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/03/17/173185/boehner-staff-punks/?mobile=nc

 The House of Representatives has already passed a comprehensive regulatory reform bill, and now that Dodd has given up on negotiating with recalcitrant Republicans, he is moving on an expedited timeline, with a markup scheduled for Monday.

It’s taken the Senate a year and a half after the financial crisis to even get to this point, but House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) told “an enthusiastic crowd of bankers” today that, even if the Senate passes a bill, reconciling it with the House version will take another year. “If the Senate is able to produce a bill, I think it’s just as likely that we’ll be talking about the same issue a year from now as we are right now,” Boehner said at the American Bankers Association government relations summit.

Boehner then added that the bankers should be standing up for themselves against “those little punk staffers” trying to write new regulations:

Prior to Boehner’s speech, American Bankers Association President Edward Yingling urged delay in the financial reform effort, because “every day that passes gives more leverage to [Banking Committee Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL) to water down the bill.” In his career, Boehner has received $3.4 million from the financial services industry, which is $1.2 million more than he’s received from any other industry.

----------------------------------------

http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/29/news/economy/romney-obama-wall-street/index.htm

Wall Street ditches Obama, backs Romney

@CNNMoneyMay 29, 2012: 5:08 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned -- but what about a Wall Street titan?

Deep-pocketed financiers have abandoned President Obama and are flocking to Mitt Romney in droves, providing more donations to his campaign than any other industry except retired workers. (And that's not really an industry.)

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 20:50 | 2626517 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>And WHICH party would be most corrupt?

That's rather hard to measure.

>Deep-pocketed financiers have abandoned President Obama and are flocking to Mitt Romney in droves

I think they are trying to restore a 50/50 balance. That gives them the most leverage at the last minute.

 

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 21:45 | 2626659 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Maybe you should tell the whole story. Gramm Leech Bliley final vote:

Senate. Republicans 52 Yes 1 no 2 NV
Democrats. 38 Yes 7 no 0 NV

House. Republicans 207 Yes 5 no 10 NV
Democrats. 155. Yes 51 no 5 NV
Ind. 0. Yes. 1 no. 0 NV

Signed by William Jefferson Clinton. Democrat.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 22:32 | 2626731 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

As we see here, when faced with facts, GOPers fall back on the "it doesn't make a difference who you vote for  - or if you vote - they're both corrupt" rationale. 

Bullshit. Here, I'll walk you through it slowly.  Yes, most career politicians do not exhibit a 'conscience' in their legislative behavior.  What they DO exhibit is a finely-tuned sensitivity to whether they'll get re-elected or not.  When Americans signaled, 1980 to 2008, that the only thing their voted reacted to was the short-term health of their wallets, politicians followed suit.  Corruption or it's absense simply has not been reflected in the vote totals - politicians figured "hey, if the voter doesn't care about corruption, why the fuck should I?", and gorged themselves.

If, conversely, corruption starts to play a role in voting behavior...few are quicker to pick up a new scent on the wind than a veteran politician.  Like any other issue, it doesn't have to be a night & day difference.  Vote for the less corrupt guy.  You're trying to make it a morality play: "I'm not voting for any corrupt politcian" - but all that means is that you're not voting.  Think of it as voting for the guy who is more in favor of drilling for oil, or moving to greener energy (your choice).  Most politicians support both forms of energy to some extent - and you're comfortable voting for the one who's simply more in line with your views.  Corruption is not different.  Should be, but as adults living in the real world, we know that it simply is not.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 22:48 | 2626770 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

I am far from a GOP person. I'm just pointing out that you missed a few facts. You just provide partial information that supports your point of view instead of all the facts. I'm only providing the rest of the story.

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 04:28 | 2627259 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

You presented factual data to a republican.

ROFLMAO.

I can sing to my cat but it still won't understand the song.

 

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 23:54 | 2626938 taeonu
taeonu's picture

Gramm-Leach-Bliley as in co-sponsers:

Sen. Phil Gramm (R- Texas)

Rep. Jim Leach (R- Iowa)

Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R- Virginia)

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 20:41 | 2626497 GlomarHabu
GlomarHabu's picture

Capitalism and cronyism.

A great read is George Washington Plunkitt's short work on "Honest graft"  It is candid and correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Plunkitt

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 21:04 | 2626554 liberalcowards
liberalcowards's picture

It looks like this year's election can be boiled down to Bain Capital vs. Blame Capitalism.  I put a graphic of this on http://liberalcowards.com

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 21:19 | 2626600 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

Your voice is kind of garbled - maybe take Mitt's joint out of your mouth before speaking?

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 21:33 | 2626635 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

Who is Frank Marshal Davis?

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 04:25 | 2627256 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

WOW your site is so cool, (sarc)

I see you go around posting links on comments of other sites and copy/pasting their articles.

Fuckoff until you think of something original to put on your site rather than stealing content from others.

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 23:19 | 2626821 Tom Green Swedish
Tom Green Swedish's picture

Our Current Economy is a "Mixed Economy" based on Keynes, which is naturally more invasive and Socialistic/Marxist/ Regulatory than a Free Market System with no government intervention in the economy other than to protect our unalienable rights.  It is obvious most sectors are going to becoming monopolistic or oligopolistic.  I can mention several main industries.  Utilities, Railroads, Airlines, Telecommunications, Food, Cars, Software, Banks, Oil / Energy Outlets (They control the stations they control the prices). There is no competition amongst these companies.  They have to do what the other does in order to survive, so they are the same just merely an extension of the same thing.  Which is a bad thing, because instead of being competitive they focus on colluding and fixing prices instead of innovation. You think it's any accident a can of coke costs the same amount as a pepsi?  Most of these larger corporations have no competition if any at all of smaller players which will never purely compete with them on any form, and if they do they end up getting bought out byt the bigger guy.  That is why small businesses are restricted to shitty things with low margins, which one exception being doctcom bubble websites (note I did not call them a business which they are not).  The reason for this?  There is a revolving door in the government.  Most government regulators served as businessmen before appointments.  Their opinions will always be biased.

 

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 23:33 | 2626874 Gamma735
Gamma735's picture

Central Planning = Facism.  It does not matter if the Right or Left plans it.

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 04:30 | 2627263 taeonu
taeonu's picture

Yep.  On one end you have a privaliged political class controlling the economy and on the other you have a privaliged economic class controlling politics.  Same difference.

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." - Benito Mussolini

 

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 04:55 | 2627280 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

Very good - and how did that class gain all the power?

 

Through capital accumulation.

 

...and what is the goal of every participant in Capitalism?

 

Capital accumulation.

 

Governments diddn't hand Goldman Sachs power - they 'earned' it through exploitation of consumer and labour.

 

Fascism / Corporatism is the INEVITABLE result of free market capitalism.

 

...or can one of the ideologues out there explain when GS were supposed to collapse and 'leaner meaner' competitors took their place?

 

(and please nobody be so backward as to suggest 2008 - it was far, far too late by then)

 

The problem with the free market capitalists is their lack of understanding of how we got to where we are today.

 

All they want to do it 'reset' and do it all over again - they probably count on them being the winners this time as FMC's are always awash with over-optimism and false hope.

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 03:40 | 2627222 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Wonderful pick.

It may be less oppressive.

That is one US citizen for sure who knows how to cover his back.

Dont worry when it is proven it is more oppressive because from the start, it was stated as might be less oppressive.

Wonderful, US citizenism at work.

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 12:10 | 2628448 akak
akak's picture

While driving between Beijing and Shanghai, one can see hundreds, no, literally thousands of Chinese with their pants down while squatting and defecating on the sides of the roads, doing their best to befoul and pollute the countryside like the half-animals that they are.

Chinese Citizenism at work.

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 04:21 | 2627254 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

ZH'ers can now only think in black or white, plus or minus, good or bad, red or dead, rocky or bullwinkle, it was not always so but it appears to be the latest fad here, you shoulda been here when the posters used facts to back up their theory rather than insults or CAPSLOCK, back when bullshit got jumped on rather than repeated as a tenet of faith.

These are the people bill hicks warned us about.

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