Perils of Capitalism?

[vox]

Molly Ivins is a populist, not a socialist, but she consistently has some of the best anti-corporate and sometimes anti-capitalist writing around.

Once again, she shows the perils of capitalism in her column about privatizing water rights (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-03.htm). The article from "The Nation" that she mentions can be found here (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=barlow).

vox

[Nateddi]

Excellent stuff, Vox.

I just finished reading the four-page article from The Nation, it was a very good one indeed.

There seems to be a great deal of pessimistic feeling circulating in the reader after reading the article. She states a clear problem quite well, however her solution is definitely not solid, but seeming to be based on great optimism and uncertainty. How would vox solve such a problem?

[antieverything]

Regardless of your political views, privitizing "natural monopolies", where competition is impossible, is obviously nothing more than idiocy. If you privitize the sewer system, how can there be any competition to help the consumer? Somebody building a new sewer system? When you cannot vote with your dollars the benifits of capitalism don't exist...you have to be able to vote with a ballot.

The answer to problems with the state-controlled parts of our society is, in my opinion, to have multiple yearly elections for the people who are in control of these things.

[Nateddi]

I doubt that anyone in the top of any establishment is stupid or irrational. antieverything presumes the movements to privatize water as “idiocy”, and I can see where he is coming from. The catch is however, the various free trade organizations and agreements are not led by benevolent right-of-centre capitalism ideologues. The decision makers are global elites which are either heavily financed by private corporate elites and/or are themselves corporate leaders. Privatizing water, as the article explained quite well, will bring immense profits to those who control these commodities. The fact that water is not a luxury but a necessity, only inflates its profitability.

Let’s face it; competition is quite possible, especially in theory. In theory, there are multiple companies controlling various areas of production and distribution of water, the companies will naturally compete with each other. Will the private control of water bring devastating problems, especially long term? Of course. Can it be labeled as capitalism, fair practice, or global progress? Yes it can, for that is the pretext for such agreements get passed.

[antieverything]

Yes, the people who make the decisions know exactly what will happen...but the people who support them--the Reagan-worshiping supply-siders, the anarcho-capitalists, and people who are simply idiots--think that privitization will somehow benefit the consumer. These people are the ones who we need to be directing our efforts towards. Their ignorance is what makes this possible.

"Mass rape of the consumer--made possible by stupid dumbfucks like you!" (I wonder what reagan lives has to say about this.)

(Edited by antieverything at 10:35 pm on Oct. 3, 2002)

[vox]

Nateddi,

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Could you be a bit more specific?

vox

[Nateddi]

vox,

the article showed a problem, but the solution seems a bit too utopian and too optimistic. its basically saying we are doomed. what would be your way of solving the problem presented in the article.

[vox]

Nateddi,

I don't think that there is just one problem. While we are nominally talking about water rights, what we're really talking about is economic and political power. Of course, that is handled differently in different countires.

In the US, where I live, I'd say that local action is probably the most effective means of stopping the privatization of water delivery. In Bolivia? I'm not sure. One of the things that comes to mind is what is already being done: opposing IMF and WB conditions on loans. The idea being that people who actually LIVE in a country have a bit better of an idea as to how it should be run. Beyond that, I would not tell the Bolivians, for example, what to do. I leave that for them to decide, though a strong show of support is always in order.

There is no doub that the problem is ultimately capitalist self-interest, but I believe it's rash, and rather naive, to say that there is one solution to this problem, for it manifests itself materially in different ways.

vox

[Stormin Norman]

It has been shown time and time again, that the private sector operates more efficiently than large public interests. This is the general idea behind the deregulation of many of these so called 'natural monopolies'. By deregulating the energy market new exploration into various methods and technologies can be done independent of a large oversight commitee. This will inevitably reduce the perils of groupthink, and lead to the development of new and exciting means of generating electricity. The result may be less of reliance on foreign sources, putting the U.S. in less of a compromising position with respect to our national security. When it comes to the question of public or private, I'll take private any day. What can I say, I am of the 'Chicago School' of thought.

I suppose this is the main criticism that lefties use to denounce the IMF. Socialists do not like the fact that these developing countries are using capitalism and private interests to catch up to the rest of the world. They would rather have them industrialize by way of a more socialistic method. Of course, commy pinkos see this as a defeat for their tainted world view.

"Long live capitalism!"

[vox]

"It has been shown time and time again, that the private sector operates more efficiently than large public interests."

That's simply a lie. For example, even the folks who support the privatization of Social Security agree it would have higher administrative costs, and, indeed, that's is always the case. SN, post some facts if you can, and not rhetoric from the National Review, either. Post stats if you got 'em, but you ain't got 'em.

"By deregulating the energy market new exploration into various methods and technologies can be done independent of a large oversight commitee. This will inevitably reduce the perils of groupthink, and lead to the development of new and exciting means of generating electricity."

Hey, we tried that here and got higher prices and criminal fraud. That's what the right-wing stands for, of course.

"I suppose this is the main criticism that lefties use to denounce the IMF. Socialists do not like the fact that these developing countries are using capitalism and private interests to catch up to the rest of the world."

Fact? Let's talk facts, boy. Why don't you show me the developing country that has actually DEVELOPED under the tutelage of the IMF or the WB? I dare ya to. You want a fact? You can't show me one because there ISN'T one. I now predict that SN will run from this thread, never to be seen in it again. (It's already obvious that he didnt' click on the links, isn't it? He doesn't seem to know that water prices in Cochabamba, Bolivia doubled after it was taken over by Bechtel. Isn't it funny how that slips right by him? Hee! We are now laughing at you once more, SN.)

You say you state facts, but all you do is spout rhetoric.

Nothing like a big heaping pile of bullshit to satisfy a right-winger.

vox

[Nateddi]

In my opinion, the only presently industrialized country, which developed itself through capitalism, is the United States of America. This was of course, the long and strenuous 19th century, which was marked with some of the world’s worst abuses of labor rights and human rights upon the working class. It was basically a less-efficient, capitalist type of monopoly-ridden central planning.

Western Europeans were comfortable with the unscratched industrial power United States flood them with billions to develop it in the post-war. Eastern Europe was planned developed with the help of, the as well demolished, Soviet Union. The Soviet Union post Civil War was planned developed. Soviet Union post WWII was planned developed.

We get to the third world, and the IMF/WB development is not going anywhere. It is ludicrous to assume that the IMF/WB operates on behalf of the indigent people of the so-called “developing nations”. Private industrialization, especially done at the supreme guidance of economic powers in a whole another class above the third world does not benefit the third world. It only benefits the wealthy profit-driven private companies of the developed capitalist world which are participating in such so-called “development”.

[Stormin Norman]

Here is some info on the success World Bank funding has had in the Congo:

http://www.usaid.gov/regions/afr/success_s...es/drcongo.html (http://www.usaid.gov/regions/afr/success_stories/drcongo.html)

Here is a factsheet that details the importance the IMF places on exposing the kind of corruption prevalent in many of these third world nations. They also place great emphasis on helping to develop good policy and transparency. Usually this includes greater political participation on the part of the people. Take a look and tell me what is wrong with this. What do you find objectionable to greater political participation? Is it democracy that you hate?

http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/gov.htm

Helping many backword nations develop policies regarding government, banking, and business practices remains a bad thing for the luddites who hate to see these nations succeed using capital markets rather than the old dictatorships that failed their people in the first place.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sc.htm


Here are some facts regarding the IMF's involvement with Ethiopia.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2002/PN02113.HTM

Of course the IMF got together and passed a debt relief initiative that still fails to appease the avid left wingers out there. The IMF may not have a 100% success rate, but it is the best model we have to help achieve the philathropic goals that the left claims to support. Why don't you find me evidence of a communist country that has even attempted a huge task, like helping poor countries industrialize, Vox.

Of course, if one wants a good example of how the private sector produces better results, they must look no further than education. This is a subject that the World Bank has looked into in some detail. Take a look at their philosophy and tell me what you would disagree with. Would you rather have a predominance of illiterate parochials? Do you like the fact that subjects are more readily manipulated than participants?

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/gei/World%20Bank.html

What about the glaring fact that most of the progress made in the last century was a result of increased marketization. Even China has had to deal with this reality, for it is the increased move in this direction that has kept them from becoming completely destabilized. Singapore morphed from a post-colonial mess to one of the world's top contender in less than 40 years, as a result of racial cooperation and aggressive marketization. The Singapore government places education as a top priority. Where ever one looks they see the reality of an overwhelming move to marketization. Why is this? Could it be that it is the most successful means to modernize? Does it solve the problems presented by the direct control of the economy by government? I think anyone who investigates will find the answer to be a renounding yes. Certainly, there will be those who resist change and blind themselves to reality. They will be the ones left behind wondering what has happened, meanwhile screaming that things are moving too fast and it must be kept in check by strong regulation. Look at Greenspan. That is what he did in late 2000 by jacking up the interest rates at the wrong time. We all know what has resulted from his fear of rapid growth. It is detrimental to all those involved to unnecessarily place obstacles in the way of the economy. Markets will fix themselves, in time. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Interference may cause an alarming amount of static for everyone that stands to benefit.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. Communists do not wish to have equality for the masses. They are the enemies of modernity and freedom. A strong comparison between communists and Islamic fundamentalism can be made. In fact, communists are there own variety of fundamentalism. Why is it that more terrorist cells are being found in places like Oregon, where there is a large demographic of left leaning subhuman filth? I don't think it is an accident. While terror cells are being disrupted, you have stupid ass anti-war demonstrators shouting in the same neighborhoods where terrorists were operating from. We have enemies within and they are the left.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 4:43 am on Oct. 7, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

More redneck bullshit from SN, who is too far gone up the arse of Bush, the worlds leading advocate of political gangsterism, to take a reality check.
http://www.hermes-press.com/econexploit.htm

[antieverything]

It has been shown time and time again, that the private sector operates more efficiently than large public interests. This is the general idea behind the deregulation of many of these so called 'natural monopolies'. By deregulating the energy market new exploration into various methods and technologies can be done independent of a large oversight commitee. This will inevitably reduce the perils of groupthink, and lead to the development of new and exciting means of generating electricity. The result may be less of reliance on foreign sources, putting the U.S. in less of a compromising position with respect to our national security. When it comes to the question of public or private, I'll take private any day. What can I say, I am of the 'Chicago School' of thought. -storming moron

It is really quite sad that a person who talks as if he is knows everything when it comes to economics is unable to see the obvious conflict of interest of a "natural monopoly" being privitized and can't seem to comprehend the most basic of free-market economic laws: The value of something is whatever you can charge for it. The supposed equalizer in the free market system is competition. Obviously, though, there isn't any competition when it comes to water rights, utilities, etc.

It may or may not be true that the private sector operates more efficiently (I've seen evidence pointing both ways on different issues) but that doesn't mean that it provides better service or costs less to operate for society as a whole...just look at HMO's or ENRON's energy dealings in California. Even if a company can produce products cheaper in Taipai it isn't neccesarily going to pass the savings onto the consumer. You can get a USA union-made T-shirt for less than a NIKE T-shirt made by a nine-year-old. Maybe that isn't the best example as brand loyalty comes into play. Look at other products where nobody gives a fuck who makes the thing. For instance, campaign buttons (the circle things that you put on your shirt or backpack)made in China cost the about the same amount as campaign buttons made in America by union workers. The only difference is that somebody is making a large fortune off of the Chinese workers and the other guy, with the American workers, is making a smaller fortune. The trickle down theory is bullshit and everybody knows it...the only trickle down is the worker getting pissed on. (and you can put a dash and my name by that and quote me).

I find it interesting that Stormin' Moron actually ADMITS to being of the Chicago School of economics! The Chicago School emphasizes research into theory, rather than the practical application of economics to policy and it is famous for primarily basing its theoretical and mathematical models not on realistic data, but on imaginary, ideal and incomplete starting assumptions.


The Chicago School of Economics is a hotbed of conservative economics that has won eight Nobel prizes and considerable influence in the field. But its stock is rapidly falling. "Monetarism is dead" is the catch-phrase that economists use to describe Milton Friedman's monetary theory. Rational Expectations, although still widely admired, has lost currency in academia. The Coase theorem has taken a drubbing in the academic literature. Public Choice theory is so flawed that it actually predicts that people won't vote. There is also a backlash against the over-reliance on math and perfect starting assumptions so heavily used by the Chicago School. Furthermore, the Chicago School tried their economic policies for sixteen years in near-laboratory conditions in Chile. The results were exactly what liberals predicted: falling wages for workers, soaring incomes for the rich, the destruction of social programs without sufficient replacement, wild swings in the economy, and some of the worst pollution in the world. Even the string of Nobel prizes that the Chicago School has won appears to be the work of Assar Lindbeck, the right-wing Swedish economist who heads the Nobel prize selection committee for economics.

-from http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-chimain.htm


The Chicago school is almost as bad as the Austrian School...neither are sciences, instead of using scientific methods, they base their theories on (fundamentally flawed) "common sense" assumptions. This isn't how a science operates. Ironically, however, this is how religions tend to argue the validity of their beliefs.

(Edited by antieverything at 9:52 pm on Oct. 6, 2002)

[antieverything]

Read these essays from http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/LiberalFAQ.htm

These are actually not very radical viewpoints, they are the views of people much more towards the center than alot of us[hr]
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-richmerit.htm
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-exploit.htm
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-mobility.htm
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-deregulation.htm
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-privatization.htm
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-homoeconomicus.htm
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-carterreagan.htm
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-standardliving.htm
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-enviroc...ocapitalism.htm (http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-envirocapitalism.htm)
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-healthcare.htm
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-harvardberkeley.htm
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-socialism.htm
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-taxgrowth.htm
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-taxshare.htm
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-corpora...ratewelfare.htm (http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-corporatewelfare.htm)
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-runawaywelfare.htm
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-welfarejobs.htm
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-welfarepoverty.htm
[hr]



SN, I'm not asking you to become a Socialist. This is what we have come to believe after lots of soul searching and self-education. All I'm asking you to do is educate yourself. Don't simply cling to every word of these free-market worshiping zealots that are in control America. Look through your own eyes, see the arguments of your opposition and decide for yourself.

Always remember that when it seems that the answer is simple, you have it wrong.

(Edited by antieverything at 10:13 pm on Oct. 6, 2002)


(Edited by antieverything at 10:15 pm on Oct. 6, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

"The value of something is whatever you can charge for it."

That simply is not true. I think what you meant to say is that the value of something is what people are willing to pay for it. It would be a erroneous to claim that businesses can charge whatever they want. There are economic principles at work here, and yes they are based on common sense ideas.

Since when do we call economics anything but a social science? By its very nature it falls short of the kind of universal theory necessary to make it a hard science. The closest thing to that universal theory is the law of supply and demand. There are simply too many human components to accurately predict a system with 100% accurracy. To try to place economic theory at the same level as physics or chemistry is a bogus attempt, at best. However, free-market economies have be proven to work more efficiently and have a stronger affinity to gravitate in free societies than communist/socialist varieties of resource allocation. Simpy put, free-markets do a much better job of answering the complex questions that must be adressed by any economic framework, as equilibrium is achieved without the heavy hand of government. When the powers that be try to manipulate this delicate balance disasters are created and it inevitably results in a complete failure to achieve the peaceful equilibrium that exists in free-markets.

[antieverything]

That is what I meant...my wording was not incorrect, though. If you can't sell the product, you can't charge that much. You charge the most you possibly can and still sell the product.

And you admit the truth of this yet don't answer why this makes it better for the consumer when water is privitized.