Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Eat The Rich!

Re: Eat The Rich!

Unread postby GHung » Tue 11 Sep 2018, 19:25:59

dohboi wrote:» Increasing economic gap between rich and poor cities in the USA:

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-c ... ver-wider/


Frontline, on PBS is doing a thing on Dayton, Ohio which has devolved to a ~35% poverty rate. 10 PM tonight in my market
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2590
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Eat The Rich!

Unread postby evilgenius » Wed 12 Sep 2018, 12:39:44

Cog wrote:I tend to be very abrupt when I'm posting by phone. Some overheating problems with desktop which I'm trying to solve. But back to government lending. Politics tend to get heavily involved in government bureaucracy. IRS targeting conservative non profits under Obama and as I believe FBI targeting of Trump.

Now imagine a government banking system with a partisan on either side doling out loans based on the person's political ideology. Don't tell me it won't happen. Look at school loans and calls from Democrats in the last election to forgive those loans. You will hear those same calls being made if some groups default at a higher rate than others. Or some people simply won't get loans at all. It will be red-lining but done by the government instead of a private bank.

Not to mention we will need a whole new group of government employees to run the operation. Government is already a hydra.


I've worked for some big corporations. When I was young I used to buy the line about government being incompetent, and big government being a bogeyman. Then I worked for those big corporations and realized they were almost all more inefficient than the government. Not only did they not have to attend to the various stakeholders with greater attention, but they couldn't do even what they did do as efficiently as the government, if you extrapolated that out to the size the government dealt with. I only discovered this because I was willing to see it. I had to dispense with the easy emotions. Big business usually has an image of success beyond that of the government because it only has, really, to please a very small group of people.

Aside from that, I agree that there would be problems to overcome. And that those problems would most likely arise from the politics of self-interest amongst the citizens. Isn't that, however, our ideal in forming a government in the first place? Everything is politics, but the government is where we allow that those politics are understood. Where else, other than the markets, do we seek that understanding? And even the markets are subject to regulation. Non-regulation is a politically driven form of regulation, in my opinion. That takes us back to the government (the kind that is of the people, by the people and for the people) as the only pure form of discovery.
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Stopped at the border.

Re: Eat The Rich!

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 12 Sep 2018, 13:09:28

evilgenius wrote:I've worked for some big corporations. When I was young I used to buy the line about government being incompetent, and big government being a bogeyman. Then I worked for those big corporations and realized they were almost all more inefficient than the government. Not only did they not have to attend to the various stakeholders with greater attention, but they couldn't do even what they did do as efficiently as the government, if you extrapolated that out to the size the government dealt with. I only discovered this because I was willing to see it. I had to dispense with the easy emotions. Big business usually has an image of success beyond that of the government because it only has, really, to please a very small group of people.

Why only point at big business? Because it fits your belief system?

Sure, corporations grow old, and some even die, like people.

But that's just part of the life cycle. Overall, smaller businesses grow faster than bigger businesses, and create a lot of the technology that ends up really changing things.

OTOH, bad government departments rarely die the death they deserve, no matter how inefficient they get. Too little competition and too little accountability.

To look at big government institutions overall, what they spend, what they actually do *** (vs. what they say or actually have private companies DO -- while all they do is create big spreadsheets for $billions, while reporting on what the private companies do) is generally so wasteful that to call big government efficient overall is just silly.

*** Examples: the US EPA and FDA. Not a lot of monitoring themselves. Lots and lots of money spent though. Nearly every time there is a US food crisis/scare, per the CSPAN coverage of the congressional testimony, there has been inadequate monitoring in the field by government itself.

Lots of "self monitoring" is done. That would be fine if all companies were completely honest. Naturally the crooks don't report themselves. Only the FDA and congress acts surprised. :lol:

I don't pay taxes wanting to have government that says (Ayn Rand novel style) "I couldn't help it" and "It wasn't my fault" while finding out they do very little with their funds. I especially don't want to call that "efficient".

Sure, there are some small town DMV's that, for example, are surprisingly efficient. To the point they remind me of the way a good company runs. But that's the EXCEPTION to the rule -- i.e. why it's surprising.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 5916
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Eat The Rich!

Unread postby evilgenius » Wed 12 Sep 2018, 13:33:27

Yeah, but don't compare apples and oranges. Governments are bureaucracies. Business is as well, but not in the same way. When it comes to government the size of the bureaucracy is due to its budget, which is beholden to the process as outlined in the Constitution. And that comes under the auspices of the political sphere as the various groups of people vie for their side. For business it can be political too, but usually as understood by positions understood within the structural hierarchy of the company. A manager wants his bonus, which he will only get if he keeps spending on a certain kind of thing(s) below a level. Those who suffer in a company from lack of funding are below that manager on the hierarchy. They don't have a say. It works that way all up on the company's hierarchy as the bonus structures evolve. Only those at the very top are really at any sort of arm's length negotiation when it comes to what they will receive. Government has many constituents, as it has to give place to all within any perceived hierarchy, whereas business tends to run to a few.
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Stopped at the border.

Re: Eat The Rich!

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 12 Sep 2018, 21:38:07

As capitalist systems become increasingly complex, businesses and consumers require more government. That's because both are dependent on public funds for infrastructure rather than insist on independent cost centers (e.g., citizens will pay for some toll or fee for every bridge or road that they use because each is privately owned and operated), businesses want to have limited liability (among others), and consumers want protection (which means regulation of goods and services provided by businesses.

This explains why governments grew together with businesses. The difference is that the latter is controlled by capitalists which also provide funding to governments. This explains why most politicians in various countries are part of the affluent classes or are allied to them, and why governments generally focus on pro-business and pro-management policies. Whatever concessions are given to citizens are achieved only because the rich will benefit from them, which explains why across several decades worker productivity generally rose higher than income, and why business profitability increased significantly.

In short, governments don't work in favor of their constituents but of the hand that feeds them.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4923
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Eat The Rich!

Unread postby evilgenius » Thu 13 Sep 2018, 11:40:05

ralfy wrote:As capitalist systems become increasingly complex, businesses and consumers require more government. That's because both are dependent on public funds for infrastructure rather than insist on independent cost centers (e.g., citizens will pay for some toll or fee for every bridge or road that they use because each is privately owned and operated), businesses want to have limited liability (among others), and consumers want protection (which means regulation of goods and services provided by businesses.

This explains why governments grew together with businesses. The difference is that the latter is controlled by capitalists which also provide funding to governments. This explains why most politicians in various countries are part of the affluent classes or are allied to them, and why governments generally focus on pro-business and pro-management policies. Whatever concessions are given to citizens are achieved only because the rich will benefit from them, which explains why across several decades worker productivity generally rose higher than income, and why business profitability increased significantly.

In short, governments don't work in favor of their constituents but of the hand that feeds them.

Which is why I proposed what I did. If government is going to be beholden to the corporations, then every person needs to effectively become a corporation. Each one of us can either grow or not grow according to the integrity of our own actions. If we fail, we can enjoy the same protections offered to those who have the ruling person's ear. To argue from a position of weakness, that our humanity ought to ensure some sort of place, is the wrong argument. For one thing, the economy doesn't grow according to activity, whether virtual or real, under such a scheme. Aside from a much smaller contributing sector, growth can only come from some form of central planning, as an outgrowth of the government's creation of money to provide a UBI. That's not the same as transfer payments to only those who are deemed incompetent to participate within a more robust capitalist system.
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Stopped at the border.

Re: Eat The Rich!

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 13 Sep 2018, 12:01:04

Evil, while in theory your proposal makes sense, it is NEVER going to happen under a Capitalist regime. That is partly because the Capitalist class ie. owners of capital are only interested in maximum profit. And the political class as it has evolved is nothing more than an extension of the capitalist class.

The argument boils down to the human priorities and wants. Those with the opporunity to attain the maximum of what that opporunity affords. In this case of this overly monetized and commercialized society, what is afforded is MONEY. So, the impetus to have a UBI or other reward for the masses is limited. The few with the most money and thus the most clout will always enforce the primacy of their money as it is built in the Capitalist mode of economics. Ralfy's post was totally accurate.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9965
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Eat The Rich!

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 13 Sep 2018, 18:19:30

evilgenius wrote:Yeah, but don't compare apples and oranges.

...

Government has many constituents, as it has to give place to all within any perceived hierarchy, whereas business tends to run to a few.

Hey, the point I was answering was making a contention about those apples and oranges, and comparing them (incorrectly, in my opinion).

My point is, IMO, it's not reasonable to assert that, generally, business is as inefficient as government.

Coming up with excuses for why the government can't help it doesn't change that.

Now, if being pro government, you want to say that government is efficient, considering its structure and responsibilities -- fine (and that's another discussion). But that's a very different thing than saying business is generally just as inefficient as government, without such qualifications.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 5916
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Eat The Rich!

Unread postby ralfy » Thu 13 Sep 2018, 21:13:10

evilgenius wrote:Which is why I proposed what I did. If government is going to be beholden to the corporations, then every person needs to effectively become a corporation. Each one of us can either grow or not grow according to the integrity of our own actions. If we fail, we can enjoy the same protections offered to those who have the ruling person's ear. To argue from a position of weakness, that our humanity ought to ensure some sort of place, is the wrong argument. For one thing, the economy doesn't grow according to activity, whether virtual or real, under such a scheme. Aside from a much smaller contributing sector, growth can only come from some form of central planning, as an outgrowth of the government's creation of money to provide a UBI. That's not the same as transfer payments to only those who are deemed incompetent to participate within a more robust capitalist system.


Governments are not beholden to all corporations, just the most powerful ones. There's a list given here.

The bulk consists of financial multinational businesses.

Similar phenomena are seen in other industries, e.g., a few corporations control much of media, food processing, etc.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4923
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Eat The Rich!

Unread postby evilgenius » Sat 15 Sep 2018, 10:58:18

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
evilgenius wrote:Yeah, but don't compare apples and oranges.

...

Government has many constituents, as it has to give place to all within any perceived hierarchy, whereas business tends to run to a few.

Hey, the point I was answering was making a contention about those apples and oranges, and comparing them (incorrectly, in my opinion).

My point is, IMO, it's not reasonable to assert that, generally, business is as inefficient as government.

Coming up with excuses for why the government can't help it doesn't change that.

Now, if being pro government, you want to say that government is efficient, considering its structure and responsibilities -- fine (and that's another discussion). But that's a very different thing than saying business is generally just as inefficient as government, without such qualifications.


Sorry, the apples and oranges thing is about saying that government is efficient, considering that it does have to serve everyone. Corporations, though technically subservient to all of their various stakeholders, only really have to please a small group. They can thrive serving that group. Government cannot thrive under those same circumstances.

Corporations can be coerced by the markets to become more efficient along the same lines within which the government operates, but that is only when the understandings that form those market forces are coherent enough to bring about that action. An example might be how when the labor struggle was more truly profound and various corporations were coerced to implement labor friendly policies and programs. There's an echo of that today, where companies will print a manual outlining a worker's situation, giving it some definition. The out clause which says, "And all other duties as assigned," is, however, something belying that. What those things, manuals and such, attempt to do, actually, is prevent a world where labor rises up in any way approaching the organization of the past, thus imposing the definition of what it means to be an employee upon the corporation.

I'm not saying anything, however, about government having an edge that comes out of its natural construction. It only has that edge when it is run correctly, using the capacity of that construction. It can be run so incorrectly as to be inefficient. The obvious example is when either party in a two party system "hijacks" the system. When they do that, so that government is made to focus upon their philosophy to the exclusion of the other side's philosophy, it introduces inefficiency. Similarly, when one type of faith or creed takes control. That doesn't also mean that the situation has to devolve into splitting hairs. That's why we have a Constitution. Elections are only part of the process. They are great for finding the will of the people, but they can also implement the tyranny of the majority.

I introduced this line of reasoning here because I don't appreciate the comedian's approach to running government. That's the one where everyone grouses about what is going on. People love to laugh at comedian's jokes about government. They also love to join with the "outsiders" who come along every election cycle and claim some kind of comedian like position, full of criticism. The trouble is, you can't run efficient government that way. To run government you have to have ideas. That means taking risks sometimes, which could be laughed at. Many good people won't go into politics for that reason. We are left, sometimes, with the dross left after those who don't want that scrutiny are removed, but not always. Yes, you do need to be able to take a joke, but also willing to listen to the subtext which makes the joke funny. I guess FDR is a good example. He was willing to experiment, not just stick to ideals. He felt he had to, the country needed the answers that might come from the results.
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Stopped at the border.

Re: Eat The Rich!

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 04 Oct 2018, 20:59:52

"The total net worth of the 400 people included on the list hit a record $2.9 trillion this year, up from $2.7 trillion last year."

"The average net worth of billionaires on the list rose to $7.2 billion, an increase of a half-billion over last year’s average of $6.7 billion."

"The $2.9 trillion in the hands of these 400 richest people in the United States is roughly three-quarters of the total federal budget"

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10 ... b-o04.html
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17738
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Previous

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests