The cancer of unregulated capitalism

[Cyrano]

If you’re like me, you know as much about macro economics as you do about the dark side of the moon.

But I know how much I’m paying for gas. And I know that price is affecting the price of everything we buy that’s being delivered by trucks which also happen to use gas.

I know that every corporation in America is raising prices because they can. Who’s going to stop them?

I know that prices in supermarkets are perhaps triple of what they were a few years ago.

I know that when my older car needs repairs, a $600 bill is a bargain.

I know that a new non-luxury car shouldn’t cost over twenty thousand dollars.

I know that many who need prescriptions must decide between medicine, food, or rent.

I know that insurance companies have been turned loose to collect any fees they want to collect, and ignore any claims they don’t want to pay.

I know that the utility companies have been cut loose to charge whatever they want to charge for water, electricity and phone service.

I know that the luxury of a family dinner out means the drive-thru at McDonalds.

I know that government aid means an 800 number where you get to hear a recording.

I know this destruction started with St. Ronnie and has come to fruition under an ignorant, and probably unknowingly malicious man named George W. Bush.

I know the Republican Party doesn’t care if people starve, suffer, live, or die.

I know there is so much else I’ve left out. And I know that our country is badly broken.

I know that unregulated capitalism is just another way of saying “Fuck the masses.”

I know we need a government that cares and imposes regulations on big business.

I know we must win this election.

[kestrel91316]

1. Correction: Bush is KNOWINGLY malicious.

[kestrel91316]

2. Capitalism runs headlong into biological fact: there is no such thing as

sustainable growth.

Growth without end is the credo of the cancer cell. Think on it.

[sepulveda]

3. and yet

several hundred years of history have proven you wrong.

but don't let facts get in the way of ideology

[asteroid2003QQ47]

7. WOW!

Several HUNDRED years! I AM impressed!:puke:

[sepulveda]

8. right

maybe we should wait another couple of hundred years before drawing any conclusions...

do you take this same attitude with

1) civil rights
2) global climate change
3) any scientific/empirically verified reality

?

let me know.

i guess the jury is still out on gravity too

[kestrel91316]

64. So are you actually claiming that we can continue to grow more people

and build more houses and refrigerators and drive more cars ad infinitum????

Oy. Delusional fantasy.

[Forrest Greene]

11. That "Growth" Quote

...was first published by the late Edward Abbey, who also said "Society is like a stew: if you don't keep it stirred up, you get a lot of scum on top."

[kestrel91316]

65. That Abbey - he warn't no fool........

[sepulveda]

4. unregulated capitalism

as soon as you find an example of unregulated capitalism, let me know

there is no small business owner (or any business owner) who doesn't know that our capitalism is significantly regulated.

in some areas, not enough . in others, too much.

even singapore aint unregulated, and they are a hell of a lot less regulated than us. ditto hong kong (esp. pre-china reintegration)

[Cyrano]

5. This a reply to posts #3 & #4.

As I said up front, I'm not an economist.

Yet, under Democratic administrations the majority of people seemed to do well.

Under the Republican Administrations of Reagan and Bush II, most seem to be suffering.

The key difference I have been able to observe is that Democrats favor regulations on big business while Republicans say "Go for it. Rape the suckers."

So maybe you mavens of economic philosophy can explain to me why the majority of Americans are in such deep financial trouble.

Oh, yeah. I seem to remember some president named Herbert Hoover who thought everything was just dandy. It took FDR many years to clean out the stables.

Save your theories for the rubes. Any American who doesn't know that big business is screwing them into an early grave is either brain dead or should be.

So perhaps I don't know that much about economics. But I sure as hell know when I'm getting screwed and so does everyone else in this country who has had it with the Party of "values," "responsibility," "patriotism," "economic accountability," and the other ten tons of crap they have hurled at us for three decades.


On edit: Please note that I used the term "unregulated capitalism." For all its faults, capitalism is a reasonable system as long as there are checks and balances in place.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. cyrano he is using right wing code

unregulated capitalism, or free market is code for chicago school, which is a form of fascism. Just ask chileans and argentinians about it

What FDR did (and Chicago School boys hate it) is a form of statism (They will never use the term)... but it is also a mixed economy. Yes, it is free in some respects... but it highly regulates the upper layers making sure there is a social network and a social net. For "free Traders" this is a crime, since it does not allow the corporations to have a "free hand" and sink competitors and make policy, oh and yes privatize what is public.

So your observations are accurate. A mixed economy is better for the regular joe. Chicago School "Free Trade policies," which are all but free, are good for large monopolies, and the "free hand of the market:" is a fiction they use for the rubes. Never mind that Adam Smith is probably doing summersaults in his grave. What passes today for free markets is precisely what Smith abhorred: Monopolies.

[sepulveda]

14. he is using irrational nonfactual code

we don't have unregulated capitalism.

not evne close

heck, singapore which is MUCH less regulated than us is closer, but to say the US has unregulated capitalism shows complete disregard for real world facts

its rhetoric over substance

and i don't care what "wing" you are on. it's always bad. and quite common

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Ok let me ask you something

do you even know what I am talking about?

This is not empty rethoric... but do you know who Friedman was? Do you even realize what the most extreme of his views have brought to places across the world, including Iraq right now?

By the way... Suharto should be a free clue. Another is Pinochet... and the Argentinian Junta. I could add Brazil to the list, and the dirty wars in the southern cone.

Yes, you are using code. I don't know wheter you realize it or not.

Suffice it to say... Adamn Smith (and Ricardo) abhorred monopolies, care to tell me why?

[sepulveda]

19. of course

i know who friedman is, and keynes, and galbraith, and smith, and...

we are all using code. that's what language is. you don't need to be noam chomsky to recognize this. what the OP was doing is maligning facts and ideas he doesn't agree with as "right wing" code

that's a sophomoric way of discussing issues. iow, it's name calling

i see that all the time.

fwiw, i am a big fan of capitalism. many here are not . good for them. but when i see nonfactual screeds i respond with facts

that's just my nature

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. And you have yet to answer to me why you love friedman and shock therapy

and Suharto, and the rest of the boys

and why you hate mixed economies, never mind they were the most successful economies of the last 300 years

Neither PURE Capitalism, or PURE Communism are good... (and both are Platonic ideals anyhow,,, unachievable)

But read some economic numbers and you will notice that Keynesian economics (essentially New Deal) worked better than :"pure" capitalism... them are the facts of history.

As to a straw-man you referred down thread... do tell me, why did Smith abhor monopolies?

And it was "I" who accused you, and I stand by my accusation, of using RIGHT WING memes... free market IS a right wing meme, popular with the chicago boys, NOT the OP.

[sepulveda]

25. and you keep making stuff up

1) i didn't say i love friedman
2) i didn't say i love suharto (although mel gibson sigourney weaver and billy hunt is a good combo)
3) i didn't say i hate mixed economies
4) etc.

again, if you want to address facts, get back to me.

i don't care whether my memes are right or left wing. i care if my facts are right

we are not an unregulated capitalist system. the claim that we are is specious. thus, all argumentation that follows from an unsound premise is...

i won't even address whether or not your argument is valid or not, because clearly it is not sound

hint: you need both to make it work

arguing against nonexistent entities is really a waste of time. if you want to criticize US style capitalism, go ahead. i got many criticism myself

but any argument that starts with the FALSE premise that our capitalism is unregulated is wrong from the start.

hth

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. First off nobody has said the us market is unregulated

(That is what you WANTED to understand)

Second off you have pushed a well known right wing meme... free market is a right wing meme

If you do not like being called on it, so be it.

Third off... you have yet to address any of the questions I have posed.

I wonder why

By the way, if you don;t like to be called on it, there is this thing called the IGNORE button. I suspect many others round these parts will call you on your RIGHT WING memes as well... especially those who like ME, have read on economic theory and have a degree of historical knowledge (some of us even University degrees)

[sepulveda]

33. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

the subject of the OP was "the cancer of unregulated capitalism"

and he proceeded to describe events in the US

but he/she doesn't say the US market is unregulated

surrrrrre.

that's logical

btw, nice argument from authority

"look at me. i've read a book. i have a university degree. i must be right"

your ignorance is surpassed only by your elitism

(not to mention i obviously know infinitely more about economics and history than you do, i also have a degree how neato keen. PLUS, i'm modest :) )

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. A degree from where? Chicago Economics School?

Or perhaps MIT...

It would explain quite a bit about your ideological rants

[sepulveda]

46. right

you can't discuss opposing ideas, so they are just "ideological rants"

amazing the projection you get.

you should work for IMAX.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. I have yet to have you actually discuss anything

:-)

Have a nice day

[sepulveda]

52. u 2

it must be bright and sunny in yer imaginary werld

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Personal Attacks are against DU rules

report and ignore

[sepulveda]

59. what i posted was not a personal attack

hth

[Cyrano]

40. Ummmm, capitalism in the U.S. today is totally unregulated.

The overseers of virtually every American industry are former lobbyists for those industries.

I don't need a degree in economics to know when we're getting screwed to the nth degree.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Compared to some of his heavens, such as Singapure and Indonesia

we are highly regulated.

Then again, I´d rather not see what happened in Indonesia happen here under the MIT mafia

Here is some on Suharto

http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/suharto_a_controversial_legacy_539038

I guess I should also refer our friend to the history of the Guerra Sucia in Chile and Argentina and Brazil

I mean, after all Pinochet was also quite the free marketeer and Friendman was one of his advisors

[sepulveda]

48. again you are making stuff up

you are making stuff up

i didn't say i admire singapore, indonesia et al

i said they were far LESS regulated than we are

thus, if something can be LESS regulated than we are, we cannot be UNregulated.

that's something called a deductively valid (and sound) argument

i realize it's something you are unfamiliar with

your "logic" to use that term loosely, equivalent to your understanding of economics (loose), is that since i gave examples of economic systems that were less regulated than ours to help demonstrate to the ignorati that we are not in fact "unregulated" that i must therefore admire those systems

despite the fact that i am not saying that at all

your reading comprehension skillz need tweaking. if you can find them that is

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Ah another ad hominem attack

you know what, you are about to break a record... and go into the ingore list well before the 1000 post

Oh the honor, since that is a fairly "distinguished group."

By the way the WORDS you use lead me to believe that you wish for those kinds of wonderful places... I guess desaparecidos and all.

And yes, you have YET to have a fruitful discussion. And you run from facts, have a good life... IGNORE

And I am sure you will have the last word too

[sepulveda]

58. if your ignore list

is populated by those that actually clue you into reality and prompt you to use reading comprehension before making baseless assumptions - sweeeeeeet!

no the words i use did not LEAD you to believe the things you ASSUMED

your prejudices lead you to believe them

it's called PREjudice

PREjudging

judging before you have evidence.

i have explaine to you that your assumptions are baseless

and i see you are too cowardly to address your baseless assumptions and lack of intellectual integrity

so, go run away to your ignore button where you can gleefully bask in the glow of willful ignorance

maybe the lotus eaters can buy you dinner!

[sepulveda]

47. right

it's TOTALLY UNREGULATED

no such thing as

OSHA
EPA
FMLA
EPA
FDA
SEC
USDA
and literally thousands of city, state, county, and federal laws regulating business

omg, it's TOTALLY UNREGULATED

and you don't need a degree in economics. you just need a clue. i'll give you one at the market price. i realize you don't understand what a market is.

it's an organism designed to screw the proletariat designed by evulcorporatistwhiteheterosexistfascistcapitalistheteronormativeimperialistinsectpigs!

[Cyrano]

27. Thanks for the defense, nadinbrzezinski. As I stated in the OP, my

grasp of macro economics is nil.

Nonetheless, my response to most of these ideologues is that I know that the Republicans have been screwing the American public under any philosophical title they care to call it.

Again, my thanks for filling in on my lack of economic theory.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. You welcome and you are right on the money

Ideologues are cute (and for the record the left wing ones can be just as bad)

[sepulveda]

35. fascinating

you think you are cute!

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. For a new comer you are the one thinking you are cute

by repeating right wing memes.

By the way are you this ideological all the time?

[sepulveda]

42. speaking of memes

you don't have rational counterpoints, so attack your opponent as repeating "right wing memes"

it's the right wing meme meme

i guess that's from the dept of redundancy dept or something... :l

like, i said, i'm NOT ideological.

i don't care what "wing" a meme belongs to. i call em as i see em.

but accusing me of using right wing memes (i have seen this numerous time on this website - hillary fans attacking obama fans and vice versa etc etc. by accusing them of using right wing memes is a favorite of partisans for either party) aint gonna work

heck, when i questioned obama's commitment to the civil rights of gun owners, guess what? omg, it's a RIGHT WING MEME.

i guess if i attack mccain for being anti-choice it's a LEFT WING MEME!

omg!

meme's everywhere.

attack ideas with other ideas. attacking ideas by calling them names "it's a right wing meme . run away run away" simply doesn't fly.

if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy though, go for it

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Free clue... in current usage

free market (the way you are using it) is short hand for Chicago School Type economics and shock doctrine.

Look it up

Here are some links... even to the dreaded wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_(economics)

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/manchester.htm (By the way Disraeli was pulled out of the grave at Chicago by Friedman and his followers, amongst them Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz)

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2897/ (OOOHHHHH a lefty site, but they define it well)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302003.html and here is your balance

Now have fun... try to learn something and realize that it has a bad taste now.

Oh and here is one more free clue. Neither Smith or Ricardo were truly fans of free trade either, for the same reasons they didn´t like monopolies... not that Disraeli, or a hundred years later, Friedman would ever tell you this

[sepulveda]

54. and

again, you keep making assumptions

because i disagree with the (false) premise that we have UNREGULATED CAPITALISM

and because i point out that not only are we highly regulated, that there are others significantly less regulated than we are

you assume that i am straight out of the chicago school (never been there but i've been on the floor of the chicago board of trade...), that i am advocating free market economics without any of the protections against monopoly etc. that we do (imo) need, and that i somehow worship at the alter of friedman

i'll make this really clear for you, since you like to make groundless assumptions...

1) i am not a rightwing ideologue. not everybody that expresses a viewpoint you dislike is one
2) i don't care whose meme i am using. i care about facts
3) i am a strong believer in capitalism
4) i am a strong opponent of socialism
5) i am a strong opponent of monopolies

now, stop making baseless assumptions.

[sepulveda]

34. don't worry about it

your defender doesn't understand macroeconomics either

talk about the blind defending the naked...

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. RLOL

From a right wing ideologue this is rather cute.

You have YET to answer why Adam Smith abhorred monopolies, which by the way were defended to the death by Friedman

[sepulveda]

43. right

more name calling. more ad hominem

i don't agree with you, so i'm a right wing ideologue

that seems to be the modus operandi of the intellectually vacant. if you can't discuss ideas you disagree with, accuse the ideas of being right wing memes, and accuse the poster of being a right wing ideologue

sure, im prochoice, progay marriage, pro universal health care, but im a RIGHT WING IDEOLOGUE!!

lol

[Hannah Bell]

63. sure it's regulated;

but in whose interest?

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Three words: Chicago School economics

look it up.

Look up what it has done.

Two more words

Disaster Capitalism....

Now here are two more words that work far better than free trade economics (which are code words for chicago boys style economics), Mixed economy...

By the way... here is another lesson from history... NO EMPIRE SURVIVES FOREVER.

Usually collapses are very messy and we are reaching the end of the American Empire, courtesy of George Bush and Chicago School Economics

[fascisthunter]

12. weird.... let the rich control everything then?

don't regulate at all.... where'd we all here this before?

[sepulveda]

15. and where does this happen?

not here

singapore much less regulated than us, but that's about as close as you can get to unregulated capitalism

maybe albania before the ponzi crash would be a good example

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Your command of history and chiefly economics is poor

to say the least.

Suffice it to say that your ideal of unregulated capitalism has led EVERY time to a sharp division, with the middle class disappearing

I have given you examples, as in REAL examples... more I cannot do

[sepulveda]

20. nice strawman

i don't have an ideal of unregulated capitalism, nor have i stated such

your command of reading comprehension is thus poor

i don't support unregulated capitalism.

but your criticizing the US as an example of unregulated capitalism is nonfactual rhetorical rubbish

i can name numerous systems that were/are far less regulated than us. we are certainly not even close to unregulated

an intelligent discussion would require YOU understand history and economics. then, we could discuss where further regulation is warranted, and where our economy is unregulated

it sounds instead like nonfactual rhetorical bilge is your cup o tea, so more power to ya!

cheers

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Hmm funny how much of current regulatory environment

is coming from the INDUSTRIES they are supposed to regulate

Them are the facts.

By the way, you know what that is a sign off? FASCISM

Go ahead, call it a strawman

[sepulveda]

24. yes, i will

and you still can't address facts.

i'm still waiting for one shred of evidence as to how our capitalism is unregulated.

have you ever run a business? any claims that capitalism is unregulated is laughably naive.

laughably

you are arguing against a nonexistent bogeyman.

kind of reminds me of a certain president, the words "WMD" and a place called iraq

how ironic, speaking of rightwing

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Funny I am RUNNING A BUSINESS right now

and you know what the best part is... I have yet to outsource.

Second, you are the one accusing me of saying that the economy is unregulated

That said... much of the CURRENT regulatory environment is being written by INDUSTRY and INDUSTRY INSIDERS

Perhaps you should pick up a news paper or perhaps WATCH C-SPAN

Oh and a definition of CLASSIC Fascism

[sepulveda]

44. ok

so, apparently your envelope stuffing business is staffed domestically ... i'm impressed

i am not accusing you. i am reading the (vapid) OP

and yes, i watch C-span. but sometimes they use big words and it confoooses me so i need your erudite posts to enlighten me on what is going on.

and i'm well aware of what fascism means.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Ah a perfect example of Ad hominem

You have NO CLUE what I do.

Have a good day

:-)

[sepulveda]

56. yes

it's called irony. like when somebody does something and then you, in retort repeat it back to ...

oh wait, explaining irony to you would be like explaining jazz or humour to somebody who...

oh wait, why bother

[kentuck]

6. And someday soon...

We will read comments from all the wise people, economists included, asking how we could have let this happen? We knew we could not borrow money by the trillions of dollars and not expect dire consequences. But nobody said anything.

Because they grew to believe the conservative mantras about taxcuts and growth and all the insane baloney that has been fed to the masses over the last 25 or so years.

[earth mom]

13. Have you seen SICKO? Nixon gave medical insurance a free rein back then & look what's happened.

I'd say this crap has been in the works for longer than Reagan. The rethugs have worked round the clock for DECADES to OWN this country and us.


Buy the media. CHECK.

Buy Congress. CHECK.

Control information. CHECK.

Privatize everything. CHECK.

De-regulate everything. CHECK.

Give businesses free rein. CHECK.

Ignore pollution & the environment. CHECK.

Ignore public safety. CHECK.

Trash social safety nets. CHECK.

Monopolize everything. CHECK.

Own public properties. CHECK.

Tax the masses, let the rich slide. CHECK.

Get the masses in debt. CHECK.

Get the masses living in fear of the bogeyman. CHECK.

Get the masses tranquilized by t.v. CHECK.

Start Endless Wars. CHECK.


Let me know if I forgot anything. :sarcasm:

p.s. And don't expect Hillary or Obama to change a damn thing. :grr:

[Cyrano]

16. I agree with everything except your p.s.

Herbert Hoover put us into an economic sewer with The Great Depression.

When FDR came along, there was no such thing as an "FDR."

Perhaps we're due for another one. At present, it looks like Obama is going to be our nominee (but who knows?).

And perhaps one hundred years from now, he will be looked upon as the second FDR (who knows?).

[lovuian]

23. Capitalism causes Depressions its cylical

thats why people opt for socialism

[sepulveda]

26. fortunately

we havent and hopefully never will

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Ok so what was 1929? What about 1870?

Perhaps more recent, 1970s and 80s?

Oh wait, none of that happened.

Thanks for the laugh...

Even Friedman was aware of the boom\bust of the US Economy

[sepulveda]

32. we opted

we opted for socialism in 1929 1870 1970's and 1980's?

wow

news to me.

thanx for your revisionist history

i stand by my statement.

we havent opted for socialism and hopefully never will

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. You said there was no depression

you were asked a serious question

Look in the mirror for revisionist history

Oh and here is a HUGE clue for you... ignorant clown

We came THIS CLOSE to revolution in 1932... in fact, if FDR had not pulled out Keynes, there would have been a revolution in the US...

By the way, many of the elements of the New Deal were first proposed by the Grangers and the US Communist party... I am sure you didn´t know that

Oh and one more thing, you know what forced him? I bet you don´t. The highest voting by percentage for a Communist Party Presidential candidate was in 1932... funny, ain´t it? After the debacle that was hoover people actually voted for damn commies... in-spite of the red scare of the 1920s.

Oh and file that under HISTORY

[sepulveda]

45. lol

try reading for comprehension

of course there was a depression

what i SAID WAS THAT WE THANKFULLY DIDN"T OPT FOR SOCIALISM

try reading this again,.

and fwiw, i am aware that many elements of the new deal were first proposed by communists. so what?

even ideological morons (communists) can have a good idea once in a while.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Ah but you are not an ideologue

okie dokie

that is why you are pushing free trade, chicago style economics, and yes you claimed the cycles of Capitalism did not exist, and now you changed it.

Cute.

By the way, you may be interested to know that even socialist economies (They´re different than communists, not that you'd know that) also have recessions and cycles.

Oh and here is even more heresy. Just as the USSR was NOT a communist country, at least as defined by Marx, the US is NOT a capitalist country, as defined by Smith. There are many reasons... why neither is what is purports to be. But I am sure marx did a couple flips and so is Smith... Suffice it to say that Marx would have started by screaming to Lenin... you dolt you don't move a rural medieval economy to socialism without FIRST passing through Capitalism. Just a small note... and would have called Lenin and later Stalin exactly what they were, dictators and members of a new bourgeoisie, dacha and all,.

As to Smith... a system dominated by large monopolies is not capitalist since it does not allow for the competition of the market place... read Ricardo for an expansion of that. In fact, he'd be the first demanding the dissolution of these monopolies and gosh, gash, horror of horrors, regulation so we cannot get monopolies again. Read it in the Wealth of Nations... might be good for you.

[sepulveda]

60. no, i didn't

i claim we never opted for socialism

you WRONGFULLY ASSUMED i said economic cycles don't exist because you were so ready to find bogeyman under your bed you read into what i said, instead of what i said.

of course economic cycles happen

i study (and trade) markets - index futures, oil, corn, wheat, soy, etc.

lol

the idea that i don't know that economic cycles exist is painfully laughable

i was not pushing FREE TRADE

i pushed CAPITALISM

you apparently can't grok the distinction

so sad

[riotman]

61. socialism would be even worse

instead of a boom, stagnation or constant recession.

Cycles are caused mostly by the Fed's inherant inability to properly control money supply.

[Donnachaidh]

62. hogwash, pure and simple. n.t

[blindpig]

66. why parse?

Capitalism is a cancer, period. The madness of eternal growth, the theft of worker's labor, the inherent misery of cycles, the retarded exuberance of consumerism, what's to like?

Unless you're sitting on top the pyramid, or foolishly think you are.

We can do better.