"Greed is Good"
 

Fareed Zakaria, writing in Newsweek: "The Capitalist Manifesto: Greed is Good" makes the case that "[Capitalism] is the worst of all economic systems, except for the others." Interesting read from an interesting guy. (Wikipedia has a bio.)

The problem with these arguments is that they're based on a false premise:
Who's saying we need less Capitalism? Why is it necessarily Socialism to want proper regulation? Pure Capitalism is and always has been, impossible. Markets need rules to function, and if you let the marketers make the rules then you have the fox running the hen house! That creates things like Enron, Madoff, Big Oil jacking prices until we scream, then relaxing them until we forget, massive Mortgage fraud, etc.

When we insist that Government should stay out of things completely what we get is Corporations manipulating Government to set the rules to their liking. That immediately destroys Capitalism and leaves us with something that only looks like it if you don't look too closely. Our problem is that nobody in power looked closely over the last eight years.


Edit: I don't want to imply that I disagree with much of what he's saying. It's just that the idea that what's going on now is a move away from Capitalism is disingenuous, politically motivated, and too many people are falling for it.

I agree with much of what he says, and with your take on it as well, CWT, although at the same time, I'd argue that for some utilities, for example, nationalization (at the federal or state level) makes sense. If an electric utility has a monopoly on local power and is a non-governmental corporation, then their goal is to pay a dividend to their stockholders, not to serve their customers who have no choice.

I agree that nationalizing some utilities might be necessary until we get more solar/wind power in use, but even that isn't really a move away from Capitalism. It's merely a recognition of Capitalism's limits. Unfortunately, we have a loud minority that will try to use it politically by calling it Socialism.

But if government really stayed out of everything, corporations wouldn't have anything to influence. Essentially, this places far more responsibility on individual, and groups of, consumers.

Similarly, government regulation over a monopoly is likely to oppress future competition that may have otherwise developed. It's not that the government will run the system too effectively, but that it is far more difficult (and possibly illegal) to compete with that government service than with a corporate one.

I think it comes down to: less government influence leads to more freedom and, over time, greater choice. That choice may take longer to come about than a legislated all inclusive government program, but it will come with greater innovation, flexibility, and a more efficient process overall.

LOL! Not a chance! First, Government cannot stay out of everything. Money needs to be printed, and with it come all sorts of problems that need to be controlled. Policing (a government duty) extends far beyond the cop on a beat.

Next, if Government is involved in anything (as it must be) then individuals will attempt to control Government. So far, that's fine, since a democracy is essentially free market governing. The problem is that Corporations have far more power to influence government, which is why we need to use our anti trust laws.

not to but a bee in anyone's bonnet, but part of the problem here is that people talk about capitalism as though it actually existed somewhere. It doesn't. Capitalism in its proper sense refers to free-market mercantilism (ala Adam Smith), which is actually a sustainable (if low-yield) socio-economic system. what we have in the western world (largely, and with variations) is a form of corporativism or corporate socialism. corporativism differs from feudalism in a number of ways - leadership is diffuse, rather than inhering in a particular feudal lord; fiefdoms are built around abstract resources rather than concrete territory; control over people is exercised via wage and debt rather than through military means - but it's closer to feudalism than to actual capitalism.

whenever you hear someone extolling the virtues of democracy and capitalism in your nation, you can be damned sure they're putting as much effort into convincing themselves as they are into convincing you.

I don't know what "free-market mercantilism" is supposed to mean, could you expand or rephrase that? (I think it was you who wrote a very stimulating piece on how Adam Smith thought in terms of a free market of cottage craftsmen and abominated corporations.)

I like what you say about corporativism and feudalism, though. Now feudalism is a topic I know something about, and I've written a lot about this linkage myself. When I've edited it, it will go up on the blog (below).

It goes something like this, when the government needs money, the Federal Reserve Bank buys treasury Bonds from the government with Federal Reserve Notes. The government deposits the Federal Reserve notes into a bank account, and upon this deposit paper notes become officially legal tender money (Only 3% of the money supply exist in physical currency, the other 97% essentially exists in computers alone, digital money).

well, having double-checked my definitions, mercantilism is probably the wrong word (it has a particular meaning in economics, having to do with trade deficit policy - not my specific field, sorry). what I meant was that capitalism in its pure form is a society of merchant-producers. people want to acquire goods; they produce goods in the hopes of exchanging those goods for others, with money as a token of exchange. capital is a storehouse of exchange-tokens, to be expended in a risk-intensive way in an effort to produce new goods. I've long held that the main difference between Smith's ideal market system and Marx's ideal communitarianism is in their exchange tokens: Marx sees people exchanging a form of social regard (do well by the community and the community will do well by you), whereas Smith depersonalizes it (make something good and you will receive something that can be exchanged for other good things).

Marx's early work was actually a critique of capitalism, not a rejection of it, and he wasn't actually complaining about what Smith would have called capitalism. the problem (and you'll excuse me for interpreting and interpolating generously here) revolves around this 'risk-intensive' moment. in a free market, risk is bourn by the individual merchant-producers and their investors; a failed venture hurts these individuals, but leaves the community as a whole untouched (it will hardly notice the absence of a product it showed no inclination to purchase in the first place). even workers are relatively unscathed - they may lose their jobs, but they received their pay, and the economy as a whole is sound so they'll get new jobs. however, the problem with Marx's 'capitalist class' is precisely that they split the community into classes and shift risk off onto the other classes. a capitalist of this sort can take risks without worrying about or feeling the consequences of failure, and ultimately the cost of failure is absorbed by the community at large (errr... do I need to give anyone examples?). it's class-based society itself that's anti-capitalistic, because classes destroy the holistic community structure that's required to keep a capitalist system healthy.

not your normal way of looking at capitalism, I know...

I should have been more precise. I meant to say that money needs to be created, and whatever the means used, this is something that can only be done by the government. Then of course, the only way to ensure that money has any value is to create rules/laws about how it's used. These rules need to be policed every bit as much as any other.

I agree with tw's assessment. It seems obvious to me that the only way to go from corporativism to something closer to Capitalism is to break up the offending corporations. Banks and insurance companies that are too large to fail, large energy companies, and Microsoft all seem like good places to start.

Seems that that would be the same issue we have now, except for the level of "expected" intervention.

I don't know that there's anything that requires government to be the issuer or controller of money. There are several private currencies in existence. All that's really required is that both parties agree on the value of the currency. With a currency backed by a physical quantity (ie. gold or some other "precious" commodity) it's relatively easy to agree on this value. When you get into fiat currency you're relying on the word of the issuing agency and it's a lot easier for a government to back up that word than a company.

Right. Expecting no government intervention = no government. The largest corporations have their way, which is pretty much what we spent the last eight years doing. Worked out well, didn't it? :rolleyes:

Well, my point was that it might be a battle to keep government in it's role, but that's the same issue we have now, just a different baseline. I just don't agree that because it's a battle the solution is to let it run.

There's nothing like anti-capitalism in order to save capitalism.

<p style="tone:flame">
you know, I have to say I get annoyed by people who use terms like capitalism as mere rhetoric. breaking up corporations is no more anti-capitalistic than breaking up political cabals and factions is anti-democratic. Capitalism is an economic system that functions according to certain principles; corporations can work with that system or they can work against it, just like people can work with it or against it. the word 'capitalism' should not be used as a mindless euphemism for "the great system we have in this country that nobody ought to question", because that's not what capitalism is, that's not what we have in this country, and it's just a stupid way to approach the topic.

next time understand the context and think through the principles before you decide to toss this kind of meaningless snark into the conversation.
</p>

It might be, but if it gets to that point we'll have long fixed our current problem, which is that Democracy is just a word used to placate the masses while international corporations with loyalty to no country decide our fates as they run a system that is not *Capitalism.


* It's worth noting that the primary reason Capitalism (using the term loosely) is the best system available is that no humans, be they government officials or corporate executives can grasp the complexities of the market and respond appropriately in real time. It isn't simply a bad idea to have a government run the economy: corporations will do just as poor a job. The only difference is who gets rich and powerful while the rest of us starve.

But very stimulating, thank you. I've pasted it into a notes file for rumination and possible plagiarism ;)

I think you make a good case for Smith and Marx being variants on a theme, and unloading the risk is an alternative take on Marx' alienation of labour, but I'm still not happy with the use of "capitalism" to denote what Smith had in mind. I don't believe he used the word himself, wasn't it Marx himself who invented it out of thin air?

I think the bottom line of this is the labour theory of value contra the theory of shareholder value. If thee and me and CWT find a natural resource and work our butts off to process it, does the profit accrue to us, or solely to Aehurst (say) who has the right piece of paper saying he owns the fruit of our labour? We have "capitalism" the moment Aehurst pays us a fixed wage, which he naturally minimises, rather than a share in the profits, which all four of us wish to maximise.

Incidentally, this fixed-wage business was far from universal before the nineteenth century; much of humanity has been run on profit-sharing. Example: whaling, which operated on "lays" or percentages of the profit, bigger lays for the captain than the cabin-boy, admittedly, but still a cooperative model. (I think privateering and piracy operated the same way, ergo hurrah for the democratic pirate rebellion against early exploitation.)

It follows that the Maslow-type corporation that pays in shares and bonuses to all, not just the head honcho, and generally makes nice to its workers, is not a capitalist player at all -- more, as you said, like a benevolent feudal lord, or else a tribe or clan. BTW, did you know that Spain's second-biggest industrial company is actually a worker cooperative?

The problem is that the Government Bonds exchanged to create the money by the Federal Reserve are instruments of debt. Fixing the nation's economy is accomplished through borrowing. The government bills, notes and bonds are considered a safe financial product by investors because they have a guaranteed rate of return, based on faith in future US tax revenues. If you follow what I wrote in my previous post, the government "owes" the money borrowed to the Federal Reserve Banks which in fact are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations" and they are not considered a federal agency (Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)).

It's no wonder that by really having the power to create money out of nothing, these privately owned corporations are the biggest holders of U.S. Government debt. The Federal Reserve system of banks and other US intragovernmental holdings account for a stunning $4.806 trillion in US Treasury debt. And after recent announcements from the Fed, potentially another $1 trillion may be added to its balance sheet.

I wish the Government could create money by itself without having to get in debt with private Banks, just as Lincoln created the Greenback currency during the civil war, which was issued directly into circulation by the Treasury department and without bearing any interest and was very well accepted by the population. But incredible powerful bankers (the owners of the Federal Reserve System) which are by far in a much higher league, much bigger and more powerful than the federal Government, will never allow this to happen.

well, not out of thin air - the concept of capital was around long before Marx (and I think even Smith used it, though I could be wrong - certainly he was aware of it, if only in what Marx would later call the C-M-C mode). capital-ism was a neologism for him, though. the problem with looking at Smith is that he was pre-scientific: he didn't see himself as creating a model that explained economic forces, he saw himself as describing the factual reality of economic forces, and that removes a lot of the incentive for giving what he was talking about a name.

I'm not sure that's quite true. for Marx (at any rate) wages were a symptom, not a cause. the causal problem lay in the alienation of the worker from the means of production. the capitalist owns the tools needed to make commodities in volume: individual workers can't compete with the capitalist in productive power, and can't have access to the capitalist's tools without the capitalist's say-so. it effectively places the worker on the same level as a draft animal. the one worker's cooperative I know of (a grocery) actually pays wages to all the employees, with differences according to position and seniority, it's just that the wages (as well as other store finances) are openly discussed and regulated by the cooperative as a whole.

I mean, maybe it's just me, but I always tend to see this issue in sociological terms. where there's a (paternalistic/authoritarian/whatever) relationship between workers and owners (even when the owners are abstract objects like your Maslow-type corporation), you're going to have a failure of the market system, for the simple reason that no one discusses things with draft animals. it doesn't matter what workers in an authoritarian environment want; workers who do what the corporation wants get fed, and those who don't get fired and replaced. we should just feel lucky that there's a moral proscription against sending undesirable workers off to the glue factory (ala Animal Farm). market systems require a level playing field, or they just don't work, and you can't have a level playing field where one segment of the population views another section as a mere 'labor resource' to be exploited.

My bad!! I meant to say that capitalISM was the Marxian neologism.

I think we're basically on the same song-sheet here, since it might be argued that the only reason the worker would accept a fixed wage rather than a cut of the profits is if he has already lost control of the means of production.

Your grocery is surely an intermediate thing between the whaling lay and the alienated wage, in that you don't have a boss who wants to pay you less so that he may appropriate a larger slice of the communally-baked pie.


Well said.

It might be worth reflecting that for most of the time since the agricultural revolution, the primary mode of production has been slavery. Marx would no doubt say that this has generated its own superstructure, namely a perception of those who do the actual work as lesser beings, that is still very much with us. (I am reminded of Mrs. Thatcher during a strike, when she complained that the workers were there to serve the public. That pesky servant problem again! The workers probably imagined that they were "there" to have a life, by exchanging their labour for a decent wage.) Since the full-bore slave economy, complete with glue factories, was resurrected within the lifetime of some posters, there is clearly no ratchet operating -- progress must be defended.

I think we've just witnessed the ultimate expression (for our society) of this: We have owners (ok, not owners, but those at the top) fail miserably at their jobs and still take enormous pay/bonuses. And what did they do next? Lay off workers! That they've done this isn't the worst of it though. The really scary thing is that while they've been doing it they have managed to pit workers against workers. It's the perfect diversion: get workers angry about other worker's pay and you can get away with anything! So much for free markets and democracies.

No snarking about it. I meant what I said, and didn't include anything about capitalism being some glorious system already in place. There is far to much government intervention in corporate operations in my opinion. Breaking up a company that was "too" successful will not bring about a better system.

I don't think I could say it any better than what you wrote. Corporations will do just as a poor a job, but when they fail they can be held accountable or will disappear, leaving behind an example for the future. And frankly, I'd rather a corporation get wealthy off of their work than the government force a successful company, or a private citizen, to subsidize a failing one.

And the only reason that they were able to do that is because the government intervened because they were "too" big to fail. I still don't understand that logic. Let them fail. Someone more responsible and innovative will come along and pick up the pieces. They likely shouldn't have been allowed to get that big and powerful in the first place, but the limiting factor shouldn't be the government. It should be consumers and groups that say, "You know? Company X is getting too big, powerful, and mysterious. They need more transparency before I'll give them more money, because if they fail it'll devastate far too much." At least in that situation the consumer is more educated about where their money is and what could happen to it if the "big, nasty, mysterious company" goes under.

Exactly. Too much interference.


The other item that baffles me is how it seems that everyone seems to treat the idea of giving more freedom to companies as allowing them to write law. It isn't. All it means is that the government can't favor one company over another. In order for a company to "own" you, you'd have to allow them to. You'd have to make the conscious decision to hand over your money for whatever product or service they provide. If they steal your money or go under (which happens now anyway), you'd have the same recourse to go after them that you do now. But you wouldn't have the government giving them more of your money to survive.

If you're concerned about companies having too much power, how do you feel about a government having the aggregate power of all those companies.

That's quite a leap of logic you've made there! So how do you think it came to be that the government decided to step in? You think that the government is sitting around waiting for the chance to interfere? The government got involved for the same reason it always gets involved: it was lobbied by business to do so! This is why it does mean that giving corporations more freedom (they already have more than you or I) means that they will write laws to benefit themselves. That's the only extra freedom they can be granted!

Like the DMCA

Umm, exactly? It's a struggle. That's the point. Just because businesses would want to write laws doesn't mean they'd be allowed to. Sure there will be lobbyists, the point of reducing the power of government is to reduce the power of government! If Congress is not allowed to write laws affecting business, anything they pass which does that would be overturned, just as any other unconstitutional law is.
The current system has no such restriction and leads to things such as the DMCA, as was pointed out.

There are plenty of freedoms that are restricted in the name of regulating business that don't come anywhere near "writing law".

Which "leap of logic" in particular were you referring to?

You can't be that naive. First, Big Business does write laws, and they want to write more. Second, the only way to reduce the power of government is to give some of its power to somebody else. It won't go to you or me, It will go to Big Business, especially if you prohibit Congress from making laws that affect business. By definition, that would mean that Congress couldn't make laws that affected business in a way that business deemed harmful to its interests. That means that laws like requiring seat belts would never have been passed, but laws like DMCA would not only pass, but be more draconian.

Your leap is the belief that somehow Big Business, which often pays lower tax rates than their own employees, is somehow constrained in a way that is detrimental to business. What exactly would you grant to business that would make things better?

Right, that's how it works now. If they were restricted from this because Congress couldn't pass such laws, they wouldn't be able to wield such influence.

Precisely.

Wait, what? If Congress can't pass business related laws, how would they pass business related laws? Am I missing something here?

Businesses pay lower taxes because they exploit tax law to do so. Or in many cases they make use of laws and tax concessions that were specifically passed in order to entice the business to operate in a given location. This all puts aside the idea that government taxes could be much lower if government did not operate such extensive programs.

For an example of detrimental constraints, take the Microsoft and IE anti-competitive monopoly situation. Do you think that the ability of IE to be removed from Windows has had any impact on browser innovation? Of course Microsoft wants to control which browser you use. And it was in their best interest to offer incentives to OEMs which went Microsoft exclusive. This is bad for consumers as it does limit choice. But since when is it a consumer right to be entitled to OS choice? I think Microsoft should have packed it in with that decision. Microsoft felt they could still make money by bowing down to government intervention. How quickly did OEMs start offering other OSs? Has the decision had any impact on OS growth? Apple doesn't license to OEMs and *nix systems can hardly be considered to have a "foothold" in the market. Over time Microsoft has made itself ever more irrelevant, government intervention hasn't changed that. Innovation is far more effective than the government can be in regulating the market. You said yourself (cwtnospam) that government can't run the economy. Why should they be involved in corporations?

Nonsense. Nothing will stop Big Business from lobbying to create laws in its favor. There's just too much profit in it.
Yes, you are. See above.
More nonsense. Businesses don't just exploit tax law, they make it. The problem isn't government interfering with Business. The problem is Business interfering with government. I'm not talking about small business. I'm talking about internationals that are not citizens of any country getting laws passed (or stopping laws) that allow them to pollute, destroy ecosystems, and kill people, all so they can make billions at taxpayer expense.
Because corporations are trying to run the economy, and they can't do it either. Even if they could, they don't have constituents to answer to, only shareholders. Shareholders aren't interested in keeping DDT, lead, mercury, etc., out of your kids food or drinking water. Voters are.


***


I note that you have yet to describe in what way you feel corporations are unfairly restricted. I really would like to see that!

Oh, and you missed the point before:
The problem isn't when they fail (with the exception being in this crisis) but when they succeed. Many of these entities have greater GDP than most countries, and money = power. It's only natural, and absolutely certain that these entities will use that power to their own benefit. The inevitable result is that they will wipe out any semblance of a free market since a free market entails risk to their dominance. I'm assuming that since you'd like the government out of the economy, it's because you'd like a free market. Wouldn't you?

I keep saying the same thing though. Of course businesses will want to keep lobbying for favorable laws. If Congress is Constitutionally prohibited from passing such laws, they won't be passed. Some may slip through (unconstitutional laws do now as well), but they'll still be overturned the same way.

I'm going to make the analogy to religion now, because it's far too apt to ignore. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Is this to protect religious exercise? Or protect government from religious influence. Debating the effectiveness of the clause can be left for another thread, but the protection works both ways. It protects religion from being influence by the government and it protects government from being influence by religion. These protections would be just as useful for corporations. Again, the effectiveness may be just as valid as with religion, but the intent is that over time there would be less interference in both directions.
I'll also point out that I don't make a distinction between big and small businesses. I don't think there's some magic delimiter where a business can be treated differently. The same laws should apply to any size of business.

Those voters are still consumers. They can still boycott harmful corporations. They can still sue companies which do harm to consumers and the environment. Those have happened, consumers have won.

I actually did provide an example with Microsoft. For a more general view, take the bank, auto, etc bailouts. The government is taking money from citizens and corporations (taxes) and distributing it to other corporations. Someone is deciding which companies will benefit and, by exclusion, which will be harmed. How is that not restricting and favoring some company over another?
For another, consider that it is illegal to compete with the USPS, a public company with an imposed monopoly. Yes, there is FedEx, UPS, etc., but it is illegal to use those carriers for "non-urgent" letters and other services. It's a small distinction and hard to enforce, but it's still a restriction on competing carriers. For companies sending out bulk mail, this could be a great expense.

I would, I also think you underestimate the power of a free market. And it's not a free market that they are threatened by, it's competition. Without competition, those same companies would grow stagnant and open further opportunities for a rival.
And using that power to their own benefit? Like providing better services and products with which to make more money? In the long run, exploiting the consumer is not an effective business plan. Look at the RIAA.

You aren't saying the same thing at all! You constantly and dramatically underestimate the political power of Big Business and overestimate the markets, which are not free from its influence. If you completely remove government from markets they will not be freer. On the contrary, they will be tightly controlled by the largest and most powerful companies.
It's to protect religion, and as a result many religious organizations routinely interfere in government. Laws prohibiting abortion, dancing, alcohol, and many other things have all been written for purely ideological reasons. We cannot afford to make this mistake with Business.

This is so ridiculous I don't know where to begin. Shall we start with Love Canal and the thousands of other Superfund Sites? Or maybe something more recent like the Enron or the Madoff scandal? And sue companies? Doesn't that require laws that affect companies? http://charlottesville.injuryboard.c...oogleid=263606


I didn't ask for an example where a company might make a case for being wronged. I asked for a case where that resulted in the economy being worse. Something along the lines of the damage that the world's Oil oligopoly has done to our economy and our environment.
No, you overestimate the possibility of one actually existing. It's government's job to bring us closer to one by enacting and enforcing the appropriate laws. We will never have a truly free market, but doing away with those laws would completely destroy any resemblance to one.

Well, I'm not saying the same thing as you are, I'm just repeating myself over and over. My main point is that if government is not allowed to make law regarding business, then business will have no influence on government. Or at least, any influence will be excised given time.

That is entirely up to how consumers interact with the market. If they allow the corporations to take control and simply swallow whatever is produced without complaint, then yes they would not be freer. I'm counting on consumers to not let this pass. The corporations are nothing without the consumer.

Constitutional scholars disagree with you.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/...s/jeff1650.htm
The intent was clearly to protect government from religion, just as much to protect religion from government. That there are unconstitutional, religiously motivated laws does not change this.

Are you really arguing that because government has allowed unconstitutional laws to be passed, that we should give up fighting unconstitutional law? It seems that if businesses are bound to attempt to influence government (I agree) then there should be protections against this. Perhaps by prohibiting government from making laws respecting the operations of businesses? Then there would be no influence to be made.

So, because companies have done bad things and existing governments have colluded with them, limited government with less power and influence will be more susceptible to corruption? I'm not persuaded. It seems to me that decreased government power: provides more power to citizens, more freedom to companies AND citizens, and decreases the ability of companies to protect themselves from retribution.

Not specifically, no. If a company dumps waste in your backyard, you have been harmed and can seek damages just as you would if another citizen had done the same. We don't need duplicate laws to govern citizens differently than companies.

That's good. Government influence on the rights of citizens is just as bad as when it interferes with corporations. I'll also counter with this: Federal Reserve to get new authority to regulate any company whose failure could endanger the U.S. economy
Where's the incentive for responsible actions if failure is rewarded with a tax payer bailout?

That's an almost impossible task. I'd be equally interested in such an example, or in one where government action directly improves the economy. Things aren't so simple that such direct lines can be easily drawn. If anything, I'd think that your oil example is an example of the harm that government support of the oil industry can bring.

I think this really gets to the heart of our disagreement. I don't think it's government's job at all to bring us closer to a free market. In fact I think that any government that takes on such a task is more likely to hinder this process than help it. For the most part, it seems that you disagree, though also agree that businesses have too much influence on government.
Is it just a disagreement on how to rein in this influence?

Mostly, but I don't see how Government, at least the US government, has too much power, especially compared to Big Business. Sure, government can do all sorts of bad things because of its size, but that's different from Big Business, where there's tremendous incentive to do bad things: profit. Superfund sites exist because creating them meant more profits. Asbestos, lead paint, cigarettes, etc., the list goes on and on, and they've all been done in the name of profits. Even slavery (it was around before there was a US government) was the result of Big Business. The US Government would have to work very hard at being bad and it would still take many decades to catch up with Big Business.


Here's your government example: WWII. Lots of government spending on heavy machinery (tanks, planes, boats, munitions, etc.) pulled us out of the Depression, which was created by lack of regulation of large financial firms!

Edit: Oh, I know there's some Rush Limbaugh inspired revisionist history about WWII and government spending, but that's been thoroughly debunked. Please don't bring that up.

To be fair, Asbestos, lead paint, and cigarettes are all examples where later research revealed their harm. Of those, only cigarettes are still around and, while I can't imagine why an educated person would start smoking today, I also don't agree with legislating what someone wants to do to their own body.
I think things like the DMCA and the bank and auto bailouts demonstrate the power of government. DHS, TSA, "enemy combatant", etc. are others. It does come down to how much power you think government should have and your interpretation what that entails.

Perhaps, but I still wonder how much of that would be more easily resolved without government intervention. Again, my core bias is limited government, but that doesn't mean that I think government is the root of all evil, just that it might not be the best solution.

I don't know about Rush-esque revisionism (honestly, I've never heard or looked into it in much depth), but my basic research, and what I remember from school, is a decent amount of debate over the causes of the Great Depression. I don't think there is much of any disagreement that WWII helped pull us out, but foreign defense is clearly in the domain of government (I'm a foreign defense, domestic defense, courts guy), so I don't have any issues with that. And I'll admit that wherever the government must interact with the private sector (ie. military and private contractors, etc.) is bound to be a complicated area.

:eek:
That's not being fair, it's missing the point! The problem isn't that later research revealed harm. The problem, and the unforgivable evil here is the resistance to making the necessary changes long after the harm was known. They did/do things like funding counter research to use as propaganda even when they know that the problem was real.

It was/is always done for the sake of short term profit alone, and almost always at taxpayer expense, and usually at great physical harm to citizens! This isn't just about old issues. They're just the recognizable examples. These same types of things are happening right now, and not just in the US. All you have to do is pay attention to the news and you'll see plenty of them. Sixty minutes did a story a few weeks ago about Chevron's oil pits that they left to pollute drinking water in Nicaragua over the last 15 years.

:confused:
So you think that the government getting into something it doesn't want to have to deal with is an example of its power? If it had real power, it wouldn't have to bail them out! This is more an exercise in corporate power than anything else. They're showing the world that no matter what they do, they can't be touched. In the end, the CEOs win. Not the government, and certainly not people who work for a living.
When you're the only solution, you are by definition the best solution. Big Business has had many decades to get these things right, and they've failed miserably. Besides, if they don't want government to be involved, they shouldn't keep involving the government! They should clean up their messes without having to be told to do it. Because they don't clean up after themselves, we need to treat them like the spoiled children they are.

We need to stop making public policy based on what international (foreign in every country) corporations want, and make it based on our best interests.

Since we're talking about greed, here's a little something for those of you who think you've got good health insurance:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...hemselves-foot

It could only be at taxpayer expense if government is involved and supporting the evil. Without government involvement, it would be consumer expense and the company would be held responsible. If there was government involvement, it's a failing on the part of government and seems to argue for less involvement. I sure don't want my tax dollars going to fund research by evil corporations. Government should not be in a position to choose which company survives or fails or which set of corporate propaganda receives better funding.
If it can be proven that the companies knowingly provided dangerous products, it should be a pretty straightforward case in holding them accountable. Regardless, once something has been shown to be dangerous, why would someone keep using it? Surely the offending companies weren't going around forcing people to paint their houses with lead paint? At what point is it up to the consumer to question the study results that are coming from the corporation?

Sounds like they need to be held accountable. Is the government doing that? Is anyone?

? What does "If it had real power, it wouldn't have to bail them out!" mean? It's the government. If it doesn't want to get involved in something, why is it? Because just this once it's for the best?
Corporate involvement with the government is exactly the problem. Removing government power over corporations also removes power that the corporations can yield against the government. The companies "can't be touched" because the government is bailing them out.

So why aren't they allowed to actually fail? Do you think the government should simply take over everything? I'm honestly curious here. If "Big Business" keeps failing, why isn't it outlawed from operating? Is the free market a complete farce that only exists in theory?

Don't get me wrong, corporations love to involve the government. It means passing laws which are favorable to them (citizens don't have the power to lobby on the same level). It means tax payer bailouts and funding when they screw up (why try to be accountable when the government will cover it up). Sure sometimes there are restrictions which are less than desirable, but they'll deal with those in the next round of lobbying.

EXACTLY! Stop bailing them out when they screw up. Stop cleaning up their waste dumping, allow them to be sued or otherwise held accountable for harming citizens and society.


Let me try to clarify my position.
Government influence over corporations is bad because it allows corporations to wield power over government. We would be far better off if corporations had no avenue for affecting government. The only effective way to bring this about is by limiting the power that government has over corporations. If government can't regulate corporate operations, corporations won't be able to influence those regulations. Trying to set up a system wherein government controls corporate operations, but corporations don't get a say in those controls simply won't work. You'll still end up with lobbying to alter the rules. Corporations must be given the freedom to fail; be accountable for their actions.

Your posts include railing against "Big Business" as well as noting that much of their crimes have been funded by tax dollars. Pretend you're the dictator of this imaginary country. Are you for more government control? Smaller businesses? How big can a business get? Who decides whether a business should be split up, and which businesses get a pass? How do you keep businesses from influencing those decisions. How can a government rule over businesses without being corrupted by those same companies? Are you happy with the system as it exists today? What changes would you make?


And the actions and policies taken by those health execs are despicable. I don't see how this isn't useful evidence in proving wrongful breach of contract, etc. They, along with any other company acting in such a manner, should be held accountable.

Your entire position is based on the impossible idea that limiting the government limits corporations. It doesn't! The only thing to keep large corporations in check is government, which is why Chevron (Texaco at the time) felt they could get away with doing what they did in Nicaragua where the government is smaller and the regulations don't exist. That couldn't happen here because we have regulations against it!

It means that these corporations have so much political power that they can screw up completely, yet still make the government do what they want. They're so large that they're thinking of themselves as being outside the law, and you want to reduce government power and confirm their conclusions!

1. Because they have too much political power relative to the government.
2. No, they should be breaking up many of these companies.
3. There are laws against them. They're called anti trust, but see number 1.
4. Yes, the free market is a farce. We can only get close to a free market by reducing the size of Big Business because Big Business is a collection of people organized to collude, and while collusion is fine on the production side it is deadly to a free market.
Which is why what you're advocating is completely impossible.
You do realize that to do these things requires regulation, right? If you're going to have a society based on law, you can't just point at a company and say we're going to fine you if you don't have a law to justify that fine. As for lawsuits, they're rarely effective because most people can't afford to pursue them, and companies have already done the math to confirm that it's cheaper to pollute and stonewall people than clean up. Reduce regulation, and people will have fewer grounds for suing!

Of course, now Big Business is trying to make stonewalling cheaper by claiming that government regulation is too costly for business. I'm sure they appreciate your help.
I would split up any company that has gotten large enough that it begins manipulating the markets instead of competing in them based on the quality and cost of its products/services.
Once again, you're asking for regulation, whether you know it or not. Breach of contract is a civil matter, and the cost of such a suit would be prohibitive for 99% of people affected, especially if they're sick and have unpaid medical bills! It's completely ineffective, which is why the insurance companies can count on getting away with it unless we have more regulation to stop them.

My whole position is that limiting government WOULD make it impossible for corporations to influence government. Especially if government was specifically prohibited from influencing corporations. My position is that doing so shifts freedom to all and power to local government and individuals.

If you don't accept the idea of a free market, or that limited government would limit power over corporations, then of course it wouldn't work. Debating the reality of a free market is also something that I don't even know how to approach debating.

First, limiting government power means that you INCREASE corporate power in relation to government, making the problem worse. Making government unable to influence corporations does nothing to stop corporations from influencing government, and that's where the problem is!

Second, shifting power to "all" is perfect for corporate criminals. You've passed a law against child labor in your state? No problem, they'll set up shop in another state and still do business in yours.

You're essentially asking to take the world wide problem of corporations finding and abusing places with lax laws and bring it to the US. We already have corporations paying people in places like China and India far less than minimum wage. The people who make Nike/Adidas sneakers can't even afford to buy a pair! Why do you want to bring that here?

That's because you have this strange idea that any market without government interference is a free market. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you have a group of private organizations that are each larger than most governments, and that collude to manipulate markets (say like the oil industry's manipulation of gas prices combined with the auto industry's desire to keep selling internal combustion (maintenance = profit center) vehicles instead of electric), you don't have a free market! You can't have one because no one will produce alternative products. (Sure, we're beginning to see electric vehicles now, but that's only because Oil guys like T. Boone Pickens know that oil is running out, not because of market forces. )

You're basically thinking of the economies of the world as if they're weather systems that humans can't control. They're not. Everything that happens in them is a direct response to human action, so humans can manipulate them with or without government.

Again, this is our disagreement. I don't think that limiting government allows ANY power by corporations over government.

Far less than OUR minimum wage. It's a noble goal to bring all economies out of 3rd world status, but that takes time and providing jobs to those people is a start. If you don't like the conditions that Nike, et al. operate in, don't buy their product. Join a group that lobbies them to improve conditions faster. They're sending jobs overseas because it's cheaper labor. If someone's rights are being violated it's a different story all together. That's not a government / corporation issue, it's a human rights issue. And if the employment is voluntary, it's harder to show exploitation. But this is getting into foreign policy.

Why does it even matter if the workers can buy the products they make? I'm sure there are plenty of workers in the US that can't afford to buy the products they produce while making a perfectly decent living.

Umm, actually that is THE definition of a free market.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+market
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
I now see that what you've been talking about is a market wherein all private interests are forced to be equal, or at least prevented from becoming too unbalanced. THAT's not a free market at all. In a free market the government is simply not involved. Whether this would result in mass corporate collusion and conspiracy against consumers or enhanced competition and improved consumer conditions is debatable and impossible to prove either way (it's never existed; the US is a mixed market with government intervention). I think it would end up the latter.

Oil isn't running out in any form. Energy research is shifting toward alternate forms, but that's more due to environmental concerns than it is any shortage. I'd argue that consumer demands driven by environmental concerns fit perfectly as a market force. Pickens has the foresight to go where the money WILL be, not just where it is now.
Electric vehicle research has also been going on far longer than Pickens has been involved. In fact he's more interested in Natural Gas than electric cars. His most recent endeavor was the failed California Prop 10 which would have sent tax dollars to his own company. If the government couldn't fund private corporations, they'd have to find their own funding solely from investors and consumers and produce results or die off to be replaced by those that can succeed.

I've never said anything remotely like that. Markets are "controlled" by people as best they can by developing, buying, and selling goods. You're the one who has said that governments cannot be, nor are companies, capable of understanding and controlling markets. Whether that's true or not, companies would be far more successful focusing on their product instead of artificially influencing the market.

I don't even have the faintest idea what you're getting at with that last bit. If people manipulate markets with or without government, why is government even involved? You've said that governments and companies can't understand or control markets. That markets will be manipulated with or without government intervention. That governments need to control companies because their only goal is to, essentially, gain profit and harm consumers. They apparently aren't helping any if manipulation is going to occur regardless. Why not get out of the way and stop wasting tax payer dollars on a useless endeavor?


Again, my main argument is that companies can only have power over government if government is allowed to make legislation regarding companies. Remove that ability and companies will have no reason to lobby government; no laws that could be favorable to them would be allowed.
Beyond that I believe that a genuine free market is ultimately better for the consumer than a mixed market. Any government control is bound to be biased towards some group or another and, as you've said, can't possibly effectively control the market.

Sure, guys building nuclear subs can't afford them, but we're talking about sneakers! There's something very wrong with a system where any worker can't afford sneakers.
Here's the New Oxford American Dictionary definition:
That's unrestricted competition, not unrestricted rights. Corporations have far too many rights, and they use and abuse their power to avoid living up to their responsibilities. Then they claim that they're just responding to the market. It's a ridiculous smoke screen to claim that they're over regulated and that regulation of any kind is anti free market.

The government isn't involved in how companies go to market. It needs tot be involved in policing corporate crime, which is at least as large as street crime. Things like insider trading and polluting are not affected by market forces, and that's the kind of regulation that corporations are really resisting.
Estimated reserves are supposedly around 1.2 trillion barrels. worldwide, and we use about 81 million barrels per day. At that rate, which is still increasing, we have approximately 41 years left. Of course, that number will turn out to be smaller because China and India are accelerating their consumption even faster than we are. Maybe you know some new math, but that looks like running out to me.
Like Enron? They found great success manipulating the markets. It wasn't until regulators caught on to what they were doing that the house of cards collapsed. Maybe you think the regulators should have ignored what they found?
That's because you choose to misinterpret my talking about the people manipulating the markets as if they were average people and not heads of large corporations.
And my main point is that you've never pointed to one single regulation that unfairly inhibits corporations from marketing their products and services, while I've pointed out cases where lack of regulation has caused great harm to the public.

And in several countries you can legally buy Windows for anywhere from $36 to $2.50. Products are priced differently in different markets. You pay a heck of a lot more for shoes in the US than you would in the 3rd world. I bet in many of those countries they don't even sell those shoes, it's not the target market. The same is true for any number of other products (cars, televisions, clothing, etc.).

Even by the definition you posted, regulation of any kind is anti-free market.
How can you possibly have "too many rights"? Name one that goes too far. Keep in mind that your rights, and those of a company, end when they infringe on the rights of others, without their permission. And vice-versa.

Bottom line, I'm arguing for a free market.

Perhaps, but we've been actively using oil for around a hundred years and have around 40 left? Seems like we're investigating new energy forms with plenty of time to spare. There certainly isn't an availability crisis.

No, I just don't follow your treatment of corporations and their execs as different than "average" people. If there really is a difference in the view of the law, it would seem to indicate current laws which favor business. I'm pretty sure we both agree that those are bad.

I did actually point out Microsoft. Then you dismissed it saying you wanted something else. Your lack of regulation cases all seem to be instances where government has failed to hold a company accountable. They are after-all the current authority in the present mixed market.


But, let's bring this back to the original issue. Way back at the beginning of the thread, you said:
I agree that corporations manipulating government destroys capitalism. But, how can this be true, if government were to be restricted from making any laws respecting corporations? I still contend that this would make corporate manipulation of government impossible.

Sigh. You can't seriously think that I meant they couldn't afford to fly to this country, buy a pair of sneakers and fly back, could you? Of course I meant that they couldn't afford to buy them in their country!!! And yes, they're sold in those countries.
A couple of rights that go too far:
Right to murder (This is essentially what large scale polluters have done for decades. Murder for profit is still murder, even if it's indiscriminate.)
Right to not pay taxes.
No, you're arguing for feudalism, in which large corporations are the Lords and everyone else are serfs.

LOL! You think that we're just going to go for 40 years and then the spigot turns off!!! :eek: It doesn't work that way. We're already using extremely high technology to get what's left out of the ground. Every year it gets harder to retrieve. Yes, there's forty years worth of total supply (really probably more like 30 if you factor in the rate of increase in consumption) but by the time we get to twenty we're likely to find that getting the rest out uses more energy that we get from it. In the mean time, oil prices will rise dramatically. If you think $4/gallon was high, think again, then think of the economic problems $4/gallon gas caused.

Yes, and there's no way that limiting government power will remove laws that favor Big Business. They just won't let it happen.


Right, and holding a company accountable requires:

• The existence of regulation, without which there is no justification for any action.
• The government must have more power than the company, which naturally doesn't want to be held accountable.

Both of which you want to do away with.

As for Microsoft:

The entire point of free markets is that consumers have choices! That's what drives the market. Your own example is one of a large corporation destroying free markets! :eek: Sure, Microsoft is less relevant today, but it still dominates the market despite the fact that its products are inferior. IE in particular still has more than 60% market share and it's the least standards compliant browser on the market, causing problems for developers and users alike. The only way they can maintain that market share is by manipulating the market!

Well, let's use your example again:

With no government interference, or even the threat of it, Microsoft could have continued to force OEMs to pay per computer sold, making it prohibitively expensive to put Linux on any of their systems. There would be far fewer Linux systems today and IE would have an even higher market share. Manufacturers lose and consumers lose. Microsoft wins. One large Lord, lots of serfs. Welcome to Feudalism.

Yup.

I would make a case that there is no great distinction between "feudalism" and other alleged forms of society, inasmuch as all human life is organised around the patron-client nexus, which attracts different labels in different periods. The devil is in the details: given that Tom and Dick are always in some kind of relationship of personal dependence on Harry, what is of interest to Tom and Dick are the precise terms of that dependence: where he is on a spectrum involving slavery (of which there have been innumerable varieties, some more unpleasant than others), serfdom (ditto), modern employment (ditto again), plus all the various forms of clientage and retinue membership (the Romans would have understood Boss Tweed and Mayor Daley very well).

I think it indubitable that the trend of the last twenty years has been a deterioration in the terms of Tom's and Dick's service to Harry. In addition, we have seen elements of classic feudalism, which may be summarised as the "privatisation and outsourcing of government services", so that public law is replaced by a web of private-law contracts. The proliferation of "security contractors", for instance, is a red flag to anyone who knows his history. One might usefully ask to whom Blackwater owes loyalty and for whom they would fight in the event of civil disorder.

I have also been expecting the return of the good old tax-farmer: you know, where instead of collecting its taxes from Tom and Dick, the government outsources the collection to Harry, in such a way that Harry contracts for a certain sum in taxes, and is then free to squeeze Tom and Dick until the pips squeak, pocketing the difference. It's only the next logical step in neoliberalism. :(

I think you're right when we're talking about large scales, because the devil is in the details, and it's easy for the unscrupulous to take advantage when they're in positions of power in large organizations. (The cream may always rise to the top, but so does pond scum!) On small scales, Capitalism works very well because power isn't centralized enough to be a threat in anyone's hands. That's why it's so important to break up monoliths like Exxon, Microsoft, AIG, etc.

I absolutely love how you think murder is a right of anyone. I was hoping you might actually come up with some real rights that go too far. Instead you've made something up, which no one actually has the right to. Or can you actually point me to someone or some group which actually has the RIGHT to murder without retribution. The logic of including pollution here seems to justify including accidental deaths due to surgical complications as well. If pollution causes a death, wouldn't the affected be able to hold the company responsible for wrongful death? Thus clearly showing murder is not a right? Unless the government is protecting the company from such actions.
And to not pay taxes? Who has that right? I'd like to meet them and subscribe to their newsletter. What does that even mean? The only groups that I can think of that are exempt from taxation are non-profits. Ya know, if that's what you're getting at, I agree. As for companies, governments may pass laws which reduce the taxes paid by corporations, but that isn't an inherent right that anyone has these days.

No, I'm arguing for free markets. Classic feudalism can only be an outcome of that if corporations are handed power over their consumers and workers. In a free market it is up to the consumers and workers to set the terms of their purchases and labor. They have the power to reject any terms they don't agree to and find a more habitable employer or retailer.

I don't know what gave you the idea that the spigot would just shut off after 40 years. All I said is that it seems to me like we're investigating alternate forms of energy with plenty of time to spare. It sounds like you don't think we'll have improved on alternate energy forms at all in even 10 years.
See also: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4100

But the setup of my basic premise is that limiting government removes such laws. If you're really going to reduce the argument to stating that my hypothetical situation simply cannot occur, there's really no point in debating at all. You're not arguing about whether such a system would be effective, you're simply stating that my posited restriction can't exist. You still haven't provided any avenue for which corporations would influence government if government is specifically restricted from making laws regarding corporations.

Actually, no. Replace regulation with basic property law, contract enforcement, etc. And companies are bound by the contracts they enter into and responsible for any violation of others' rights. I suppose you can look at it as the courts having power over the company, but really it's just an enforcement of contracts and property law.

As even you have posted with your own supplied definition, a free market is one without external regulation. Buying and selling drives the market. Competition arises as a result of that, and choice with it.

And consumers are allowing them to do so. If the average user actually cared about standards IE would be a very different product.
Regardless, as you stated "Manufacturers lose and consumers lose. Microsoft wins." I'd counter with Microsoft wins, Manufactures win, consumers don't care and don't notice. Clearly Microsoft wins. The manufacturers also win because they want to profit by selling Microsoft products; Microsoft is what the consumers wants. You could argue that the consumer looses, but there have always been other options. It may have been more expensive at the time, but no body ever put a gun to anyone's head and said, "Buy Windows".

Hmmm, thanks for not addressing my point at all. I asked about how corporations would influence government if government was restricted from making laws regarding corporations and you addressed a situation where a corporation wasn't restricted by government and went on to not influence government.

I'm asking about a hypothetical situation. Not about how it works in the world today. How WOULD it be possible if government was constitutionally prohibited from passing laws regarding a corporation.

Walmart, Apple, Nike, BestBuy, Sony, LG, Motorola, Honda, Ford, GM... What do you want to be left with? Corner stores, Mom & Pops, and garage hackers? Companies get big because they are successful. They can be more effective and productive as larger companies. If you break them up as soon as they get big, what's the incentive to be successful?


Wow, I can't believe I actually had to argue that murder is not a right.

Oh, I'm not saying they'd ever actually call it murder, but that's what they do when they make the calculation that it's cheaper to fight the survivors in court than clean up their mess. And they do have the right to make that calculation, because we don't call it murder. That can't be because they haven't influenced government.

Laws establish rights. That's what they're for.

Yeah, right. When's the last time you negotiated what you pay for gas with anyone? Your food? How about your clothing? And you think that the worker has a chance at negotiating labor rates? :rolleyes:

Oh we'll have improved on it, but only enough to keep world wide oil consumption from rising much higher than it is now. Not enough to get it to drop, or even stay where it is now.

Have you not seen any of the corporate corruption that's been going on since the beginning of corporations? And you think they'd need a legal avenue to influence government??? Geez, just google corporate fraud!!
Yeah, that'd work. Individuals can then square off against entities that never get old or sick, have enormous resources and can drive up court costs to make it nearly impossible to fight them at all. Good thinking. :rolleyes:

Unbelievable. :rolleyes:
Not influence government??? You think that the anti trust suit just went away on its own??? :eek:

Oh, in that case, we'd all live happily ever after! Everything would smell like roses, and we could eat anything we wanted and never get fat! Oh, and Big Business would be ethical and never break the law, so they wouldn't interfere with government. :rolleyes:
Nobody wants to cut them into a thousand pieces, but many need to be cut into thirds or maybe tenths. I'd make that judgement at least partially by how heavily they've been lobbying.
Rights are granted or established by precedent. Large companies have established that they can get away with letting people die because of their actions without ever having to admit wrongdoing. I'll call that murder. You can call it business.

Rights are inherent, laws take away or limit them.

Are you serious? Every job I've had I've negotiated my pay, and continued to while employed. As for food, gas, etc. You "negotiate" by choosing the price that is acceptable to you at the stores around. If you're being ripped off, don't buy at that location, get it on your own, or do without.

So make it illegal to make laws regarding business, and business will break the law and force government to make laws regarding business. They can do this because they are more powerful than government and don't have to answer to anyone. Right, why bother with the pretense of making the laws?

Your arguments boil down to:
Government must control businesses, to keep them from growing too powerful.
Corporations will always influence government, even if government is specifically restricted from making any sort of law that would be beneficial or detrimental to business. They'll find a way because they're too powerful.
Corporations dominate government, influence government and markets to get their way, and aren't accountable to anyone, including government.
Government must control business, because now they're too powerful and exerting influence over government.
Repeat.

You're not taking this seriously and I've put in as much as I care to.

Umm, without the Constitution, the law which is the basis for all of our laws, the only rights you have are those you can physically defend yourself.

I specifically did not ask about your job because I assume that because you're on this site you've had the benefit of some form of higher education, which puts you in a position to negotiate your pay. Most people don't get that benefit, but they deserve to make a living too.

So you think that choosing the price that's acceptable is enough to keep poison out of milk, lead out of paint, put seat belts in cars, keep financial institutions from lying about their balance sheets, etc.?? :eek:
You're right. Let's apply this same logic to street crime: People will commit murders, rapes, burglaries, arson, etc., anyway, so why bother with the pretense of making laws against these things? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No you're argument boils down to:
Big Business is responsible, honest, and true, but people in government are evil sobs who want to restrict their freedoms. There's never been any corporate crime. Pay no attention to Mr. Madoff, Enron, Tyco, Countrywide, the shell game being played with people's pensions, etc.

Of course I'm not taking this seriously. Not as a debate anyway. We live in a society based on checks and balances, where laws are made because we find people doing wrong, not to please some bureaucrat's whims. You want to do away with those checks and balances at a time in our history when we've seen more corporate fraud and on a larger scale than ever! And your solution? Let the people try to take on corporate wrongdoers in court!

It's beyond absurd! Nine or ten years ago, I'd have just laughed it off as ignorant foolhardiness that couldn't gain traction. Then it did, and we're suffering the results. Not again.

Re: The forgotten Social Contract...
 

.
IMHO, greed needs to be tempered by what we might call "the social contract".

Unfortunately, no one speaks about that anymore -- and certainly not the bankers that have been bailed out.


Edit: Ooops! I appear to have interrupted a duel. ;)
Methinks someone has overdosed on Ayn Rand...

.

IMHO, government and big business are the 2 sides from the same coin, and have the same masters, the so called "owners" of everything. Today, the richest 10 percent of adults account for 85 percent of the world's total wealth.

I now predict that society as we know it, will come soon to an end. By next december or January the US$ dollar will collapse. Followed by the collapse of all systems. Government, economy, trade, industry, education, all will stop functioning very soon. Why? Because the system we live today is based on lies, power, fear and greed. The leaders of the world show disregard for the sanctity of human life, disregard for the unity among nations, disregard for growth in the spirit towards realization of universal consciousness, and propagate slavery by keeping the population ignorant in order to fulfill their dreams of power.

Everybody knows this. Inequality among nations is the norm, children dying of malnutrition while the granaries of the rich are full (meantime the world produces enough food to feed each person 3 times over. It would cost only 19 billion dollars to end world hunger, roughly the amount the world spends on ice cream every year), with a world economy guided by leaders of nations that are unwilling to change despite destroying our ecosystem, while at the same time the Banks of the rich are overflowing with cash. Greed and the egoistical entities who control this system, will disappear, vanish forever from our planet, as in the coming years, there will be no place for such a destructive force on the way to higher human evolution.

Unless you're using "evolution" as a metaphor, this doesn't fly. Evolution isn't about becoming nicer. Put it this way: the only way in which evolution can arrange for us to become less greedy is if (a) greed is genetically determined, and either (b) greedy children died before reproducing, (c) greedy adults reproduced less than altruistic ones, or both. Assuming for the sake of argument (a), how do you propose to arrange for (b) and/or (c)?

.
This doesn’t fly, for the simple reason that the terms evolution and evolve are not restricted to genetics. We are also talking about social systems -- and I think this could well be what Sao is referring to when he says "higher human evolution". It’s not only (or even primarily) a question of DNA.

I confess I have no idea what people mean by "higher human evolution". The first adjective makes no sense if we're talking about the DNA kind, so it probably is some other kind -- which is why I said "metaphor". I challenge you to demonstrate any kind of cultural mechanism that inevitably leads humanity "onwards and upwards". All such schemes, whether Teilhardian, Marxist, Hegelian and so forth are ultimately Christian eschatology. Which in my book, together with two euros will get you a cup of coffee. All cultural advances are reversible. Social capital is built up by hard work, it doesn't "evolve".

Sorry, you're right. I should have been more clear. "Higher human evolution" sounds not so good, and it's almost impossible to understand with a rational, logical mind. It's not just Christian eschatology, but all mystics since beginning of time have discovered something that lead humans "onwards and upwards". Like this poem by Rumi:

I died from minerality and became vegetable;
And from vegetativeness I died and became animal.
I died from animality and became man.
Then why fear disappearance through death?
Next time I shall die
Bringing forth wings and feathers like angels;
After that, soaring higher than angels -
What you cannot imagine,
I shall be that.

Let me put "higher human evolution" in another words, maybe it's easier for you to understand:

consciousness, self-realization, unification, reality, universal mind.

If none of this words make sense for you, well, then it's not for me to show the way. I would add though, that's not through mind. It can never be understood with such a primitive tool. Mind is like a curtain that doesn't allow you to see. In order to graduate and climb to a higher level, one must let go of the mind.

"Indoor work with no heavy lifting", as Saint Terry says. :-)

I won't take this discussion any further, as our positions are irreconcilable and I doubt any purpose will be served by it. Have a good <whatever time of day it is in Singapore>!

Pity! Good luck and have a good day too! :)

In Lak’ech...