Comments on: And Another Thing http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/ Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration. Sun, 12 Oct 2008 06:52:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: Daryl http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-276861 Sat, 01 Sep 2007 19:11:56 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-276861 I remember reading a letter Lincoln wrote in 1864 where he stated that he felt confident the North would win but there was something worse on the horizon. Lincoln saw how corporations had grown more powerful (and wealthy) during the war while for the most part providing shoddy equipment and supplies to the Union Army. He worried that corporations would get enthroned with no way out for the rest of us. Of course he was proven right with the Gilded Age. It took two Roosevelts and a Wilson to at least bring a timeout to that 19th century madness. But the corporations live on. Always saying they are the only ones who can save democracy - which they've always hated- while doing everything in their power to destroy it. This partly explains the media's obsession with Di, Charles, William, Liz II and whoever happens to be staying at the Montbatten Manor. They really do want a monarchy. I remember reading a letter Lincoln wrote in 1864 where he stated that he felt confident the North would win but there was something worse on the horizon. Lincoln saw how corporations had grown more powerful (and wealthy) during the war while for the most part providing shoddy equipment and supplies to the Union Army. He worried that corporations would get enthroned with no way out for the rest of us.

Of course he was proven right with the Gilded Age. It took two Roosevelts and a Wilson to at least bring a timeout to that 19th century madness. But the corporations live on. Always saying they are the only ones who can save democracy - which they’ve always hated- while doing everything in their power to destroy it.

This partly explains the media’s obsession with Di, Charles, William, Liz II and whoever happens to be staying at the Montbatten Manor. They really do want a monarchy.

]]> by: The Mahablog » The Road to Serfdom http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-276609 Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:36:22 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-276609 [...] Of course, the Right cannot abide the thought of citizens using their own government to solve problems. Even though they mostly support the Republican Party, the Right doesn’t seem to grasp republican government. They think like 19th century imperialists who saw the “underclasses” as an intractable burden, and their “let it rot” attitude toward New Orleans is reminiscent of Britain’s treatment of Ireland during the Hunger. [...] […] Of course, the Right cannot abide the thought of citizens using their own government to solve problems. Even though they mostly support the Republican Party, the Right doesn’t seem to grasp republican government. They think like 19th century imperialists who saw the “underclasses” as an intractable burden, and their “let it rot” attitude toward New Orleans is reminiscent of Britain’s treatment of Ireland during the Hunger. […]

]]> by: The Mahablog » Let Them Eat Gold-Plated Cake http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-74016 Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:55:39 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-74016 [...] As I wrote here — once upon a time the British government chose not to provide food aid during the Irish potato famine because (they believed) the Irish were lazy and backward and too accustomed to being impoverished farm laborers, and a little hunger might make them more ambitious. Beside, importing cheap food undercut food prices (bad for business), and if the Irish were given food without working for it they’d become dependent on government handouts. [...] […] As I wrote here — once upon a time the British government chose not to provide food aid during the Irish potato famine because (they believed) the Irish were lazy and backward and too accustomed to being impoverished farm laborers, and a little hunger might make them more ambitious. Beside, importing cheap food undercut food prices (bad for business), and if the Irish were given food without working for it they’d become dependent on government handouts. […]

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-58914 Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:39:58 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-58914 <i>Capitalism isn’t the real issue. We can fight hunger and poverty through non-governmental organization and voluntary solidarity, which can happen in both non-capitalist and capitalist environments.</i> I agree that capitalism per se isn't the real issue, but if you think hunger and poverty can be effectively addressed without involvement of government -- on what planet, sir? Capitalism isn’t the real issue. We can fight hunger and poverty through non-governmental organization and voluntary solidarity, which can happen in both non-capitalist and capitalist environments.

I agree that capitalism per se isn’t the real issue, but if you think hunger and poverty can be effectively addressed without involvement of government — on what planet, sir?

]]> by: Scott Hughes http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-58840 Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:54:58 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-58840 Capitalism isn't the real issue. We can fight hunger and poverty through non-governmental organization and voluntary solidarity, which can happen in both non-capitalist and capitalist environments. Thanks, Scott Hughes <a href="http://forums.millionsofmouths.com" rel="nofollow">Hunger &#38; Poverty Forums</a> Capitalism isn’t the real issue. We can fight hunger and poverty through non-governmental organization and voluntary solidarity, which can happen in both non-capitalist and capitalist environments.

Thanks,
Scott Hughes
Hunger & Poverty Forums

]]> by: paulywood http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-58717 Wed, 20 Dec 2006 02:37:41 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-58717 Mr. Hawkins doesn't seem to really understand human nature or capitalism very well... Selfishness doesn't lead businessmen to hire more workers to increase their profits. Selfishness leads them increase their profits by exploiting / overworking their existing employees to the greatest possible / legal extent before paying additional wages. Selfishness doesn't lead businessmen to earn more money to pay taxes, it leads them to utilize every available legal loophole to avoid paying taxes in wartime. Selfishness doesn't lead businessmen to create products or services that people and society will use. Innovation and imagination do that. Selfishness is what leads them to create useless, wasteful novelties that will generate a profit regardless of any further or subsequent benfit to anyone. Selfishness leads businessmen to maximize profits by minimizing the benefits that their employees can earn, thereby reducing motivation to "go the extra mile". Selfishness is precisely what sensible business regulations should exist to regulate. Mr. Hawkins doesn’t seem to really understand human nature or capitalism very well…

Selfishness doesn’t lead businessmen to hire more workers to increase their profits. Selfishness leads them increase their profits by exploiting / overworking their existing employees to the greatest possible / legal extent before paying additional wages.

Selfishness doesn’t lead businessmen to earn more money to pay taxes, it leads them to utilize every available legal loophole to avoid paying taxes in wartime.

Selfishness doesn’t lead businessmen to create products or services that people and society will use. Innovation and imagination do that. Selfishness is what leads them to create useless, wasteful novelties that will generate a profit regardless of any further or subsequent benfit to anyone.

Selfishness leads businessmen to maximize profits by minimizing the benefits that their employees can earn, thereby reducing motivation to “go the extra mile”.

Selfishness is precisely what sensible business regulations should exist to regulate.

]]> by: Doug Hughes http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-58712 Wed, 20 Dec 2006 02:11:05 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-58712 "Sooner or later the rich and powerful will find a way to game they system, whatever it is, to their advantage." Under conservative philosophy, the cost of labor is supposed to float; wages should rise when economic conditions are good, because as production increases, labor becomes more scarce. The economic recovery we are in has been great for Wall Street, but has been pathetic for the worker. One way the system is being 'gamed' is with cheap illegal labor. Wages in the construction industry through the building boom were flat, largely because it was take it - or leave it; we can hire and build with 'undocumented' labor. Wages in the meatpacking industry have fallen over the last 20 years from $20 per hr to $12 per hour, and many companies are accused of actively working with recruiters to flood the workplace with illegals, diluting any bargaining power the union had. The situation has a correlary in skilled labor; big business is seeking to expand, to an almost unimited level, the ability to hire foreign skilled workers to wotk in the US in software and engineering since they will work for LESS than an American college grad (who has 100K in college debt). Significant campaign contributions to BOTH parties buys support for these programs. Welcome to the sweatshop.. it's the future for America regardless of who's in DC. They have ALL sold us out. “Sooner or later the rich and powerful will find a way to game they system, whatever it is, to their advantage.”

Under conservative philosophy, the cost of labor is supposed to float; wages should rise when economic conditions are good, because as production increases, labor becomes more scarce. The economic recovery we are in has been great for Wall Street, but has been pathetic for the worker. One way the system is being ‘gamed’ is with cheap illegal labor.

Wages in the construction industry through the building boom were flat, largely because it was take it - or leave it; we can hire and build with ‘undocumented’ labor. Wages in the meatpacking industry have fallen over the last 20 years from $20 per hr to $12 per hour, and many companies are accused of actively working with recruiters to flood the workplace with illegals, diluting any bargaining power the union had.

The situation has a correlary in skilled labor; big business is seeking to expand, to an almost unimited level, the ability to hire foreign skilled workers to wotk in the US in software and engineering since they will work for LESS than an American college grad (who has 100K in college debt). Significant campaign contributions to BOTH parties buys support for these programs.

Welcome to the sweatshop.. it’s the future for America regardless of who’s in DC. They have ALL sold us out.

]]> by: patrick http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-58711 Wed, 20 Dec 2006 02:06:10 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-58711 A particular kind of libertarian ideology has permeated virtually all levels of public discourse in the US: the notion that Capitalism rather than representative self-government is our founding principle. That is, libertarians and other economic “conservatives” exalt Capitalism as if it were a system of government, complete in itself rather than an economic system that can be constrained by popular will. To be sure, it's the rare figure who makes that argument directly, but the assumption underpins not only these false "constitutional" arguments libertarians make (and that you've illuminated so well in these recent posts), but also, frankly, the entire thrust of US foreign policy. When we hear the president talk about "Freedom," does anyone doubt that the principal freedom under consideration is freedom of the markets for western investment? I suppose the (somewhat) intellectually honest version of the foreign policy argument is something along the lines of, economic freedom is a "gateway" freedom: let people earn money and pretty soon the other freedoms will follow apace. You know, like they have in China and Chechnya. And like they did in the US: it took us, like, practically no time at all to achieve total freedom and equality for everyone as soon as we established Capitalism as our economic system. Right? Well, I digress. Here's the thing: it should be obvious that democracy and capitalism are two different things, yet in our rhetoric (generally speaking) we treat them as the same in the US. And in our policies, we actively subordinate democracy to capitalism. If we care about Freedom (other than, say, Wal-Mart's freedom to do whatever it wants to its employees), maybe it's worth making this point that should be a no-brainer over and over again, until it actually becomes a no-brainer. A particular kind of libertarian ideology has permeated virtually all levels of public discourse in the US: the notion that Capitalism rather than representative self-government is our founding principle. That is, libertarians and other economic “conservatives” exalt Capitalism as if it were a system of government, complete in itself rather than an economic system that can be constrained by popular will.

To be sure, it’s the rare figure who makes that argument directly, but the assumption underpins not only these false “constitutional” arguments libertarians make (and that you’ve illuminated so well in these recent posts), but also, frankly, the entire thrust of US foreign policy. When we hear the president talk about “Freedom,” does anyone doubt that the principal freedom under consideration is freedom of the markets for western investment? I suppose the (somewhat) intellectually honest version of the foreign policy argument is something along the lines of, economic freedom is a “gateway” freedom: let people earn money and pretty soon the other freedoms will follow apace. You know, like they have in China and Chechnya. And like they did in the US: it took us, like, practically no time at all to achieve total freedom and equality for everyone as soon as we established Capitalism as our economic system. Right?

Well, I digress. Here’s the thing: it should be obvious that democracy and capitalism are two different things, yet in our rhetoric (generally speaking) we treat them as the same in the US. And in our policies, we actively subordinate democracy to capitalism. If we care about Freedom (other than, say, Wal-Mart’s freedom to do whatever it wants to its employees), maybe it’s worth making this point that should be a no-brainer over and over again, until it actually becomes a no-brainer.

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-58669 Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:08:40 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-58669 The "Tragedy of the Commons" reminds me of Jared Diamond's book "<a href="http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2005/02/08/kavanagh-collapse/" rel="nofollow">Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed</a>." That's definitely a book every libertarian should read. The “Tragedy of the Commons” reminds me of Jared Diamond’s book “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.” That’s definitely a book every libertarian should read.

]]> by: idlemind http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-58665 Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:53:03 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/19/and-another-thing/#comment-58665 “An Irishman will soon be as rare as a red man on the banks of Manhattan...” Let it never be said that the British couldn't learn from their former colonies. “An Irishman will soon be as rare as a red man on the banks of Manhattan…”

Let it never be said that the British couldn’t learn from their former colonies.

]]>