The Bank Bailout Was Actually $8 Trillion

largeAh, free-market capitalism — the economic system that works best, provided that one infuses $8 trillion to stave off total collapse. The Atlantic Wire writes:

Remember the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program with which the federal government came to the rescue of faltering banks in 2008? Well, according to a Bloomberg report, that was just a fraction of the financial help the Federal Reserve Bank wound up doling out to troubled lenders. The real total was reportedly closer to $8 trillion, after you add up benefits outside TARP, including emergency loans given at below-market rates:

The amount of money the central bank parceled out was surprising even to Gary H. Stern, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1985 to 2009, who says he “wasn’t aware of the magnitude.” It dwarfed the Treasury Department’s better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.

Bloomberg came up with that number after reviewing “29,000 pages of Fed documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and central bank records of more than 21,000 transactions.” Bloomberg adds, “The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day.” That’s nearly twice the amount made public in TARP.

, , , , , ,

  • MilkaPub

    The first sentence of this article is upseting. The author of that sentence must be totally unaware of the true principles of free-market capitalism. Huge government subsidies, government bailouts, banks creating money out of thin air… All that and so much more is not capitalism but the exact contrary of capitalism. Comparing free-market economy with the system we live in is like comparing anarchy with dictatorship, I’m not saying one is better than the other but let’s just not get things mixed up.

  • MilkaPub

    The first sentence of this article is upseting. The author of that sentence must be totally unaware of the true principles of free-market capitalism. Huge government subsidies, government bailouts, banks creating money out of thin air… All that and so much more is not capitalism but the exact contrary of capitalism. Comparing free-market economy with the system we live in is like comparing anarchy with dictatorship, I’m not saying one is better than the other but let’s just not get things mixed up.

    • Jin The Ninja

      Oh Bullsh*t. “Free Market” Economics is slavery of the highest order. It is corrupt and un repetant. Have fun voting for Paul 2012.

      • MuppetMan

        Have fun voting for Obama…again.

        • Jin The Ninja

          LOL. except that i disdain Neo-Liberalism and Liberalism and would never have voted for Obama past or present… You really REALLY believe obama reflects an anti capitalist viewpoint!? lol.

          if you paul-fans had any modicum of sense and opinion, i would be open to hearing what you propose, but instead you ALL always use the same cut and paste points, like a 7 th grader would do on an assignment. It’s so entirely juvenile and redundant. Critical thought would nice for a change from one of you…

          • emc_0

            We use the same points because they are proven, and based on reality. Repeating a valid point does not make it any less valid.

            “i would be open to hearing what you propose”

            Apparently you’ve heard everything proponents of the free market have said, so lets hear how Jin’s perfect and fair economy would run!

          • Jin The Ninja

            The only free market countries i can think of are totalitarian single party states- so what exactly is “proven and valid”? Hayek, Rothbard, and the austrians are simple theorists. This is exactly i was referring to- faith in the market is simply esoteric.

            my own views, i have repeated ad naseum and at length, on many articles on this site. I highly doubt anyone is interested in reading ANOTHER post on anti-capitalist economics and it’s social structures…

            However if you ARE interested i am MORE than willing to do it;)

          • Jin The Ninja

            And there is no such thing as a “perfect economy” although their is such a thing as a “fair” economy- participatory economics, mutualist, municipalism all spring to mind. even a marxist economic model wherein workers themmselves own the means of production would largely be “fair” except to those with greed and power as their pathology

          • DeepCough

            Excuse me, but let’s be real here–Obama is NOT Liberal. In order to be Liberal, you have to support civil liberties.

          • Jin The Ninja

            deep, yes obama is center-right/right at best i concur totally, just in the terms of this discussion would i use ‘liberal’ as an epiphet- since i was referred to as one.

        • Jin The Ninja

          Your name should be like “Straw Man” or “whatevs”…

          • Smudgeservices

            why must you jump to personal attacks instead of participating in a constructive conversation? MilkaPub is right.
            what exactly is ‘slavery’ about free market economics? free markets are not corrupt until dis-honest politicians become corrupt and the people they represent choose apathy instead of education on their own powers and the fundamental paradigm in a republic. the market becomes corrupt when they look the other way to the issues which manipulate their economy and society. that corruption removes the ‘free’ from the market and turns it into what we have today.
            what would you propose instead of a free market economy? a Keynesian economy? that is what we have today. people have let the ‘free’ slip away. and look how well a keynesian economy works. A central power like the federal reserve which controls the monetary supply, holding power which suppress’ any opposition in opinion. a power which prints endless amounts of money of zero value and drives an economy into the ground. A central power economy as such is the “slavery of the highest order.”

          • Jin The Ninja

            Why is that anytime someone critiques (me) a market based economy- i IMMEDIATELY am labeled a keynesian or a democrat or a supporter of the fed!? i am in favour of de-centralised economics, and franklyr have no interest in a republican, democratic, keynesian,market or constitutionalist viewpoint. You could simply read a few past comments to confirm that…or in fact the comment right below your own! You act like i am here trolling comments, but in fact i am VERY world weary of paul fans like yourself co opting every single article and pretending as if you are the ONLY ones with an anti establishment viewpoint and the magical fairy land market can SAVE US all! it is endlessly exhausting to have to point by point demonstrate your intellectual reductionism and sophomoric understanding of democracy or economics. EVEN if i WAS a liberal/democrat (WHICH I AM NOT) it would be tiresome, and then i would even have a major party candidate to shill for…Oh Wait- So if you people are SO anti establishment then WHY do you back a REPUBLICAN!?!?!?

            WAKE UP!!

          • Smudgeservices

            sorry jin, i can understand your frustration as such. i’m just confused as to what kind of economy you are describing. i can understand not supporting any party because as a party, they are all terrible and mainstream control. im sorry for immediately labeling you but it’s unclear what school of thought you are coming from so by throwing out the schools in the conversation its easier to see where others stand.

            but what do you mean a de-centralized economy? wouldn’t that be an economy with no central power to control it? that just sounds like a free market to me, where economy is simply driven by the people and their level of participation in business. correct, there is no perfect economy but it is not possible to have no market.
            what do you mean by no interest in a constitutional viewpoint? are you a proponent of anarchy? as much as i hate authority and rules, rules are necessary. the constitution is simply a set of rules. if only they would be followed and the people held the rule breakers accountable…

          • Jin The Ninja

            I appreciate your apology, and i must apologise as well for not engaging in constructive dialogue- but as i noted it is tiresome to have to repeat what i am NOT- if i offer what i percieve to be a rational view.

            De-Centralised economics can refer to localised, worker-owned, or co operative production of goods/services. It would be easy to just reduce what is really an entire spectrum of theories on the subject to a few sentences, but my view point is an anti-capitalist , an ecological, and a humanist one.

            Yes, i am an anarchist (aka left libertarian, libertarian-socialist, anarcho-socialist, more specifically anarcho-indigenist/feminist aka ‘third world’/holistic anarchist), and NO an anarchist society is not one without rules….Human/Civil rights, Ecological Rights, Judicial System, Democracy
            and an economy are all facets of the above notion(s).

            best place to start: http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

            happy to answer any and all questions.

          • http://twitter.com/AnarchyArmyVet a guy for a penny

            You cant possibly think that free markets include government mandated currency, central bank created interest rates, legally protected corporations, “intellectual property”, private profits and public losses, licensing, endless tax regulations… There is literally nothing ‘free’ about our economy.

            I am also an ‘anarchist’.. If I produce a product I dont think you or anyone else should be able to tell me what I do with it. Who are you to tell me what units of exchange or trades I can make by your sense of ‘social justice’ or ‘civil rights’ or ‘ecology’… If you want to get a group together and try out that model of society, rad, good luck with it, but I’m betting you’d all starve to death within a year. Without supply, demand, and cost, there is no way to determine how much of something to produce. Your system is basically decentralized oppression by the masses creating a bunch of micro soviet unions. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I have a feeling I wouldnt be.

          • Mr Willow

            I am also an ‘anarchist’.

            Somebody didn’t get the memo that anarcho-capitalism isn’t actually anarchism at all. 

            Anarchism, as a socio-economic and political philosophy, aims to create a stateless society based upon coöperation, shared resources, and publicly owned production. It has often been referred to and summarised as ‘stateless socialism’. As such, it is antithetical to capitalism, which is based upon (or at least touted as being) competition and private ownership of the means of production. 

            Also, if you produce a harmful product (especially if you know beforehand that it is harmful), or are attempting to revive the market composed of the various quack medical devices of the 1800s—or its equivalent in any other market—I think society has a general obligation to shut down such an enterprise.

          • Jin The Ninja

            what you said:P

          • http://twitter.com/AnarchyArmyVet a guy for a penny

            The problem with publicly owned production is that it has never worked. It starves innovation because you have to convince ‘the public’ to produce something new. Even if you have a system that is decentralized, you still have controls on price and production which always lead to a lack of productivity and production.

            If you have a harmful product, (as you always will, lead toys from China for example) there is very little anyone can do to stop it until after it is produced, some consumer group tests it, and information is distributed through the media or internet. The trust in a company to produce safe products and their reputation for safe products is essential to their own survival. The enterprises that produce goods that are harmful will be very quickly shut down, because people will not buy or trust companies that produce such things.

            And I am all for cooperation and sharing resources, That is what capitalism or free markets are supposed to be. People having an idea or producing something, pooling their capital and producing things people want to buy or trade for other things.

            When you have production by either top down or mass control and abolish money as anarcho-communists want to do, things like insulin would be impossible to produce. Not every town would have a pharmaceutical company in their area that could bring products that are required to keep people alive. Not fake depression drugs big pharma is pumping for money, real medicine that people need to live.

            And I actually support your philosophical goals, but abolishing all coercion and cost is impossible. Once you remove price, it becomes impossible to control or continue or expand production. Once you start declaring rights like medical care or education, you make slaves of people that provide labor that produce those services. And you may have some variation of those beliefs and everything I said may not apply to you personally. Also, I’m not even opposed to ‘stateless socialism’ so long as it is voluntary. I personally dont think it will work because it defies all basic rules of economics. I’m all for the experiment. And I’m sure we can agree that the state is immoral and needs to go. After that, we can debate what comes next. I think people should be free to do what works best for them afterwards so long as they dont use force against others to make it happen.

          • Mr Willow

            Well, I certainly appreciate a reply not filled with anger or disdain (as is so prevalent on ‘the interwebs’). Nonetheless, I do disagree with you on a few points. 

            The problem with publicly owned production is that it has never worked.

            All the various mediæval guilds, the abandoned businesses that existed as public (through the employee ownership—which I see as only slightly different) during the Paris Commune, the BBC, and the Green Bay Packers (among a plethora of other entities and enterprises) will all disagree with (and would probably laugh at) that statement. 

            It starves innovation because you have to convince ‘the public’ to produce something new.

            Private companies have to convince ‘the public’ to purchase whatever they make, that’s all advertising is. They also have the benefit of not having to convince their employees to make whatever it is they are to sell. Instead, they force them through the coërcive method of dangling a paycheck in front of them and saying “You want it, then you do as I say,” which effectively transforms a ‘business owner’ into a labour camp warden. In neither case is the person actually involved in the manufacture of the product free, the only difference is the mouth barking orders—a government official or a CEO. 

            Also, I am of the opinion that there is a multitude of products on the market that are utterly pointless, and under a public system all the wasted energy used to make them would be used to make something of use. A good product—i.e. a good shoe, an engine that doesn’t pollute, a warm jacket, a house that doesn’t fall down, a vaccine, a means of more effective communication, a fun toy—is based entirely upon a good idea.  Your phrasing implies the ideas for new products will cease to be imagined. 

            The problem today, in relation to products, is that nobody has any good ideas because if they are thinking of an idea for a product or service, their thoughts are almost always preöccupied with ‘will this make me rich’, not necessarily, ‘will this be of benefit to someone, will people find use in it, will people find it entertaining, will it work every time it is used’. In short, they don’t necessarily care if you buy it and it then breaks, or doesn’t work to begin with, or you find it so boring that you stick it on a shelf and don’t use it; they have your money, and that’s all that matters. 

            Not to mention, returning to workers’ concerns, the method most companies have of relating to their employees. What is their opinion of the thing they are meant to actually produce? Do they feel it is meaningless? Do they have ways in which it may be improved? None of these things are ever considered. They are supposed to do the job allotted to them and shut up. 

            The trust in a company to produce safe products and their reputation for safe products is essential to their own survival.

            The fact that Pfizer still exists (as just one example among hundreds *cough* Monsanto) proves that entirely false. 

            And I am all for cooperation and sharing resources, That is what capitalism or free markets are supposed to be.

            The history of capitalism and ‘free markets’ has been just the opposite: consolidation of both resources and wealth into the hands of a few (robber barons ring a bell?). If you wish to believe current Republican lectures regarding capitalism, it is based upon competition, but that is a lie as well, as the companies involved are all trying to reduce the number of competitors they have through either crushing them or purchasing them. And please be aware that I am not trying to imply that you are a Republican. 

            top down or mass control

            More of a clarification, but these to things are polar opposites in my opinion. The former implies hierarchical structure, the latter implies democracy. Top-down is how nearly every institution currently operates. Corporations are the worst offenders (you can see my post below, where I equate them with dictatorships), but the government and academia (among other things) also operate in this way to a greater or lesser extent—a certain authority that is, not necessarily beyond criticism, but to do so would seem insolent. Mass control is generally what I equate most with anarchism (it is most synonymous with ‘pure’ democracy, in my opinion), where power is spread evenly throughout the population, and decisions concerning the community/county/state/nation are made through the opinions of every member contained within it. 

            Once you start declaring rights like medical care or education, you make slaves of people that provide labor that produce those services.

            Not so, so long as people are more concentrated on providing a quality service instead of getting payed. A teacher should be a teacher because they want to teach, a doctor should be a doctor because they wish to heal the sick, a carpenter should be a carpenter because they wish to build things, and so on and so forth for every profession one may imagine. If you attach cost to something like medicine or education, then you make them the privilege of fewer people. If people are not educated, they cannot have ideas, or if they have ideas, they lack the know-how to realise them, and if they are ill with an inability to be made well, then they are of use to noöne, including themselves.

          • http://twitter.com/AnarchyArmyVet a guy for a penny

            All
            the various mediæval guilds, the abandoned businesses that existed as
            public (through the employee ownership—which I see as only slightly
            different) during the Paris Commune, the BBC, and the Green Bay Packers
            (among a plethora of other entities and enterprises) will all disagree
            with (and would probably laugh at) that statement.

            The Paris Commune (and the free areas in Spain and Ukraine) were too brief to really judge one way or another. We know that State Communism fails and we are watching soft Fascism (in the US) fail as well. As for communally owned businesses or self employment, I’m all for them. I’m self employed for exactly the reasons you seem concerned with. I’d say the BBC is a poor example because that operates with heavy subsidies and state mandates, but otherwise yes, obviously cooperatively owned businesses can work and shouldnt be prevented from working. My main concern with things like ‘direct democracy’ is that you are just handing over power from a few to many, not abolishing that power all together. I dont think anyone has the right to take power away from others through the use of force.

            Private
            companies have to convince ‘the public’ to purchase whatever they make,
            that’s all advertising is. They also have the benefit of not having to
            convince their employees to make whatever it is they are to sell.
            Instead, they force them through the coërcive method of dangling a
            paycheck in front of them and saying “You want it, then you do as I
            say,” which effectively transforms a ‘business owner’ into a labour camp
            warden. In neither case is the person actually involved in the
            manufacture of the product free, the only difference is the mouth
            barking orders—a government official or a CEO.

            Dangling a paycheck isn’t coercion, it is mutually agreeable. Personally I agree with you. I dont want to work for someone else and think it is akin to slavery, but not all people agree. There is significant risk involved in owning and operating your own business that some people want to avoid, my father for example has always worked for a wage, and I dont think I could ever talk him out of it. He thought I was nuts to quit my ‘good job’ and start my own business. Its his choice. He changes jobs based on how he is treated and payed.

            If I hire someone to work for me for an hourly wage, they accept that I am in control of what happens in that business. I might try to increase their productivity by giving them a percentage of the business, giving them a bonus, or I may avoid giving them any control over it whatsoever if they arent capable of responsibility. If they are unhappy with the arrangement, they can leave, start a competing company, or whatever they want. Starting out working for a wage also allows people to develop skills that allow them to be productive in the future. 

            Also, I am of
            the opinion that there is a multitude of products on the market that are
            utterly pointless, and under a public system all the wasted energy used
            to make them would be used to make something of use. A good
            product—i.e. a good shoe, an engine that doesn’t pollute, a warm
            jacket, a house that doesn’t fall down, a vaccine, a means of more
            effective communication, a fun toy—is based entirely upon a good idea.
             Your phrasing implies the ideas for new products will cease to be
            imagined. 

            The problem today, in relation to products, is that
            nobody has any good ideas because if they are thinking of an idea for a
            product or service, their thoughts are almost always preöccupied with
            ‘will this make me rich’, not necessarily, ‘will this be of benefit to
            someone, will people find use in it, will people find it entertaining,
            will it work every time it is used’. In short, they don’t necessarily
            care if you buy it and it then breaks, or doesn’t work to begin with, or
            you find it so boring that you stick it on a shelf and don’t use it;
            they have your money, and that’s all that matters. 

            Not to
            mention, returning to workers’ concerns, the method most companies have
            of relating to their employees. What is their opinion of the thing they
            are meant to actually produce? Do they feel it is meaningless? Do they
            have ways in which it may be improved? None of these things are ever
            considered. They are supposed to do the job allotted to them and shut
            up.

            Most products are crap. There’s no arguing that, but it is also peoples right to waste their money. I think video games and professional sports are a waste of time, but if they were banned, people would probably riot over it. And if the kind of products you mentioned could be produced with the technology we have, I’m sure people would produce them. Also, patent laws (another state invention) create huge impediments to those type of innovations because they compete with corporations that are protected by the state.  

            The fact that Pfizer still exists (as just one example among hundreds *cough* Monsanto) proves that entirely false.

            Once again, protected by the state though loopholes small competition cant compete with, favorable “regulations”, subsidies, grants, intellectual property and copyright laws etc etc etc… These things arent there to protect the people, although that is how it is sold to them, it is there to protect corporations.

            The
            history of capitalism and ‘free markets’ has been just the opposite:
            consolidation of both resources and wealth into the hands of a few
            (robber barons ring a bell?). If you wish to believe current Republican
            lectures regarding capitalism, it is based upon competition, but that is
            a lie as well, as the companies involved are all trying to reduce the
            number of competitors they have through either crushing them or
            purchasing them. And please be aware that I am not trying to imply that
            you are a Republican.

            I’m guessing that you would agree that the larger the state has gotten (last 100 years), the more resources have gone to fewer people, the more money has gotten concentrated in fewer hands, the higher the CEO’s pay and the lower the average persons pay has gotten. Also, the inflation resulting from government overspending and central banking has made costs increase that has effectively wiped out the middle class, and created an environment that requires both parents to work and our children have suffered for it, the culture degraded, and basically everything has gotten worse. As far as Republicans go, they are a joke. tweaking a tax 2% lower or repealing a thousand regulations that benefit huge corporations and not everyone else is not what I advocate.

            More
            of a clarification, but these to things are polar opposites in my
            opinion. The former implies hierarchical structure, the latter implies
            democracy. Top-down is how nearly every institution currently operates.
            Corporations are the worst offenders (you can see my post below, where I
            equate them with dictatorships), but the government and academia (among
            other things) also operate in this way to a greater or lesser
            extent—a certain authority that is, not necessarily beyond criticism,
            but to do so would seem insolent. Mass control is generally what I
            equate most with anarchism (it is most synonymous with ‘pure’ democracy,
            in my opinion), where power is spread evenly throughout the population,
            and decisions concerning the community/county/state/nation are made
            through the opinions of every member contained within it.

            I’d say that democracy is just as scary to me as authoritarianism. The majority have the right to impose their will on the minority through force. Force is the problem. Corporations are not dictatorships because the owner of starbucks cant send armed men to my house and make me work for them or buy their products. Also, most of the huge corporations would fail without state protections.

            Not
            so, so long as people are more concentrated on providing a quality
            service instead of getting payed. A teacher should be a teacher because
            they want to teach, a doctor should be a doctor because they wish to
            heal the sick, a carpenter should be a carpenter because they wish to
            build things, and so on and so forth for every profession one may
            imagine. If you attach cost to something like medicine or education,
            then you make them the privilege of fewer people.

            People can be motivated by whatever they want to. I am only interested in either friendship with them because of common interests or for the services they provide. Most people that go into the medical profession and stay there do so because they want to help people. Same with teaching. They have every right to charge whatever people will pay for their services, or to give them away, create payment plans for people or whatever they want for their services. I dont have the right to tell them what they should do or charge for their services any more than I do with a plumber or mechanic. I do have the right to go to a competitor who charges less or will work with me.

            I’m not against people doing what they want to make themselves or the world better, I’m against the use of force on people who disagree.

          • Mr Willow

            Dangling a paycheck isn’t coercion, it is mutually agreeable. . . I dont want to work for someone else and think it is akin to slavery, . . If I hire someone to work for me for an hourly wage, they accept that I am in control of what happens in that business. I might try to increase their productivity by giving them a percentage of the business, giving them a bonus, or I may avoid giving them any control over it whatsoever if they arent capable of responsibility. If they are unhappy with the arrangement, they can leave, 

            You must be joking.  So, you think it is terrible to be treated as a slave, but it is perfectly fine for you to treat others as slaves, so long as they ‘agree’ to it? 

            This is always where the entire idea of Anarcho-Capitalism falls apart for me. This mentality of ‘Don’t tread on me by restricting me from treading upon others.’ 

            If you believed (from higher up your post):

            My main concern with things like ‘direct democracy’ is that you are just handing over power from a few to many, not abolishing that power all together.

            you would see all you ‘hire’ as being a partner to you within the company, as an equal, not an employee to whom you can allot control where you see fit, while keeping total control for yourself, the exact opposite of democracy. Control is power, whoever has more control, has more power, and by asserting yourself as the one in control, you become a dictator. 

            Power in itself is akin to energy: it can be neither created nor destroyed, only change forms (or hands). Total power may be destroyed by breaking it. Abolish total power by giving power to the People.

            Once again, protected by the state though loopholes small competition cant compete with, favorable “regulations”, subsidies, grants, intellectual property and copyright laws etc etc etc… These things arent there to protect the people, although that is how it is sold to them, it is there to protect corporations. 

            You seem to be under the impression that ‘the government’ just one day decided it was best for ‘the market’ and the economy to create loopholes and regulations that benefit corporations, worked all of it out of their own free will, and twisted CEO’s arms to make them take all the subsidies and grants, when it is quite the contrary.

            The majority of that happened in the 1980s (thank you Reagan), when the CEOs not so much twisted the arms of congressmen, but instead bribed them with an obscene amount of campaign contributions (do as we say or all that money goes to someone who will) and an army of advisers (read as lobbyists) to remove regulations that prevented them from having monopolies (among other things) and writing laws that benefited their corporations instead. A regulation is only a rule—you can’t do this or that because it is either unfair to the supposed competitors you’re trying to foster or it is harmful to the people buying whatever it is you’re selling. All ‘deregulation’ did (and does) is change the rules to benefit the greedy businessman instead of the people working in his coal mine, steel factory, or buying his hats laced with mercury. 

            This is the only function the ‘State’ potentially has in my view, to protect those who are wronged by injustices perpetrated in the name of profit. A shocking admittance, from an anarchist, I know, but I consider ‘the government’ as only the enforcer of the wishes of the public, and I have said on more than one occasion the government should be composed of the public—direct governance. It needn’t be more than a committee. Personally, I would prefer a purely anarchist society, but I know the majority of people wouldn’t agree to it, so short of that, this is the ‘government’ I would want. I would also consider the ‘State’ or the ‘government’, especially in relation to the US, as being identical to the public. We are The Government.

            I’m guessing that you would agree that the larger the state has gotten (last 100 years), the more resources have gone to fewer people, the more money has gotten concentrated in fewer hands, the higher the CEO’s pay and the lower the average persons pay has gotten.

            Again, the ‘State’ hasn’t grown, it has only been consumed by—informed by, colluded with, is populated with—the aristocracy of Corporate America and their lackeys. 

            Corporations are not dictatorships because the owner of starbucks cant send armed men to my house and make me work for them or buy their products.

            But they can force you to buy their products when both of them are owned by a single corporate entity, which has systematically crushed all competition, which is what has occurred (and is continuing to occur). When they’re the only game in town, you might as well have a gun to your head.

          • Jin The Ninja

            What part of non coercive is difficult to understand?

            Property of the Commons is different than state ownership.

            The soviet union was totalitarian state capitalism…

            i feel like i am wasting my time, but i do have a good argument about why the environment deserves rights…maybe next time…

          • Jin The Ninja

            double post…

          • Smudgeservices

            i don think Paul supporters are the only ones with an anti-establishment viewpoint, just the only realistic opposing view that has a large support and a realistic chance to restore/change america today. that is the whole reason Ron Paul is running as a republican like you say. look up his views on why he runs republican, youtube it, he himself sees the republican party as having gone to hell. he only runs as such because america is so black and white, republican vs democrat as the only two options that in order to even have a chance you have to run as one or the other. haha, even the republican’s themselves don’t like him. the mainstream news and other republicans constantly shun him and try to make a mockery of him.

        • Jin The Ninja

          and whomever ‘liked’ that comment is a dimwit because as per my response below i do not, have not, will never support a mainstream party candidate (or even 3rd party) candidate in an representative election.

      • dfdfsfsdtgdfg

        Avoid a response to what MilkaPub was actually saying. The author of this article made a factually incorrect statement regarding ‘free’ market capitalism, government ensuring mortgages, bailouts- it simply does not matter whether you agreee with free market capitalism or disagree, the author was wrong.

        • Jin The Ninja

          liberalisation of the markets in the form of neo-liberalism is in the mind of many economists very close to a ‘free’ market. singapore has a few elements of planned economy, but generally is considered to have one of the most liberalised markets in the world. i would assert that the result of the procceses of market liberalisation can be best demonstrated in the post 97 asian bubble and of course in the post clinton era US, where large multi nationals have dominated and monopolised the largest segments of marketshare, and have deeply affected and influenced politics. rand results in fascism, and notably she was a big fan of mussolini. if market forces control the gov’t as they do in the above examples, it would be in their interest to have pro market policies implemented by the proxy gov’t.
          I think this proves that the market is inherently dependent on social control. if the author was incorrect i think is a matter os perspective.

      • dfdfsfsdtgdfg

        Avoid a response to what MilkaPub was actually saying. The author of this article made a factually incorrect statement regarding ‘free’ market capitalism, government ensuring mortgages, bailouts- it simply does not matter whether you agreee with free market capitalism or disagree, the author was wrong.

    • Mr Willow

      The inerrant ‘Free-Market’ that everyone keeps blathering on about is simply exchanging a perceived governmental dictatorship for dictatorship via industry and corporations. 

      Give me anarchy (edit: read as anarchism) any day.

      • Jin The Ninja

        and everyday.

        • Monkey See Monkey Do

          and all day.

  • Tyler Shotwell

    I just wrote about the $16 trillion in 0% loans found after the Fed was audited, and why no one is talking about these things at talkbackty.blogspot.com 

    Thanks for being one of the few sites that mentions what no one else seems to.

  • Tyler Shotwell

    I just wrote about the $16 trillion in 0% loans found after the Fed was audited, and why no one is talking about these things at talkbackty.blogspot.com 

    Thanks for being one of the few sites that mentions what no one else seems to.

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    Oh Bullsh*t. “Free Market” Economics is slavery of the highest order. It is corrupt and un repetant. Have fun voting for Paul 2012.

  • MuppetMan

    Have fun voting for Obama…again.

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    LOL. except that i disdain Neo-Liberalism and Liberalism and would never have voted for Obama past or present… You really REALLY believe obama reflects an anti capitalist viewpoint!? lol! direct democracy, and no BS;)

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    Your name should be like “Straw Man” or “whatevs”…

  • Anonymous

    We use the same points because they are proven, and based on reality. Repeating a valid point does not make it any less valid.

    “i would be open to hearing what you propose”

    Apparently you’ve heard everything proponents of the free market have said, so lets hear how Jin’s perfect and fair economy would run!

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    The only free market countries i can think of are totalitarian single party states- so what exactly is “proven and valid”? Hayek, Rothbard, and the austrians are simple theorists. This is exactly i was referring to- faith in the market is simply esoteric.

    my own views, i have repeated ad naseum and at length, on many articles on this site. I highly doubt anyone is interested in reading ANOTHER post on anti-capitalist economics and it social structures…

    However if you ARE interested i am MORE than willing to do it;)

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    and whomever ‘liked’ that comment is a dimwit because as per my response below i do not, have not, will never support a mainstream party candidate (or even 3rd party) candidate in an representative election.

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    And there is no such thing as a “perfect economy” although their is such a thing as a “fair” economy- participatory economics, mutualist, municipalism all spring to mind. even a marxist economic model wherein workers themmselves own the means of production would largely be “fair” except to those with greed and power as their pathology

  • Smudgeservices

    why must you jump to personal attacks instead of participating in a constructive conversation? MilkaPub is right.
    what exactly is ‘slavery’ about free market economics? free markets are not corrupt until dis-honest politicians become corrupt and the people they represent choose apathy instead of education on their own powers and the fundamental paradigm in a republic. the market becomes corrupt when they look the other way to the issues which manipulate their economy and society. that corruption removes the ‘free’ from the market and turns it into what we have today.
    what would you propose instead of a free market economy? a Keynesian economy? that is what we have today. people have let the ‘free’ slip away. and look how well a keynesian economy works. A central power like the federal reserve which controls the monetary supply, holding power which suppress’ any opposition in opinion. a power which prints endless amounts of money of zero value and drives an economy into the ground. A central power economy as such is the “slavery of the highest order.”

  • Mr Willow

    The inerrant ‘Free-Market’ that everyone keeps blathering on about is simply exchanging a perceived governmental dictatorship for dictatorship via corporations. 

    Give me anarchism any day.

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    Why is that anytime someone critiques (me) a market based economy- i IMMEDIATELY am labeled a keynesian or a democrat or a supporter of the fed!? i am in favour of de-centralised economics, and franklyr have no interest in a republican, democratic, keynesian,market or constitutionalist viewpoint. You could simply read a few past comments to confirm that…or in fact the comment right below your own! You act like i am here trolling comments, but in fact i am VERY world weary of paul fans like yourself co opting every single article and pretending as if you are the ONLY ones with an anti establishment viewpoint and the magical fairy land market can SAVE US all! it is endlessly exhausting to have to point by point demonstrate your intellectual reductionism and sophomoric understanding of democracy or economics. EVEN if i WAS a liberal/democrat (WHICH I AM NOT) it would be tiresome, and then i would even have a major party candidate to shill for…Oh Wait- So if you people are SO anti establishment then WHY do you back a REPUBLICAN!?!?!?

    WAKE UP!!

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    and everyday.

  • Smudgeservices

    sorry jin, i can understand your frustration as such. i’m just confused as to what kind of economy you are describing. i can understand not supporting any party because as a party, they are all terrible and mainstream control. im sorry for immediately labeling you but it’s unclear what school of thought you are coming from so by throwing out the schools in the conversation its easier to see where others stand.

    but what do you mean a de-centralized economy? wouldn’t that be an economy with no central power to control it? that just sounds like a free market to me, where economy is simply driven by the people and their level of participation in business. correct, there is no perfect economy but it is not possible to have no market.
    what do you mean by no interest in a constitutional viewpoint? are you a proponent of anarchy? as much as i hate authority and rules, rules are necessary. the constitution is simply a set of rules. if only they would be followed and the people held the rule breakers accountable…

  • Smudgeservices

    i don think Paul supporters are the only ones with an anti-establishment viewpoint, just the only realistic opposing view that has a large support and a realistic chance to restore/change america today. that is the whole reason Ron Paul is running as a republican like you say. look up his views on why he runs republican, youtube it, he himself sees the republican party as having gone to hell. he only runs as such because america is so black and white, republican vs democrat as the only two options that in order to even have a chance you have to run as one or the other. haha, even the republican’s themselves don’t like him. the mainstream news and other republicans constantly shun him and try to make a mockery of him.

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    I appreciate your apology, and i must apologise as well for not engaging in constructive dialogue- but as i noted it is tiresome to have to repeat what i am NOT- if i offer what i percieve to be a rational view.

    De-Centralised economics can refer to localised, worker-owned, or co operative production of goods/services. It would be easy to just reduce what is really an entire spectrum of theories on the subject to a few sentences, but my view point is an anti-capitalist , an ecological, and a humanist one.

    Yes, i am an anarchist (aka left libertarian, libertarian-socialist, anarcho-socialist, more specifically anarcho-indigenist/feminist aka ‘third world’/holistic anarchist), and NO an anarchist society is not one without rules….Human/Civil rights, Ecological Rights, Judicial System, Democracy
    and an economy are all facets of the above notion(s).

    best place to start: http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

    happy to answer any and all questions.

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    double post…

  • seanooski

    If an enterprise is too big to fail, then it shouldn’t need a bailout. The destruction of the language is part and parcel of the destruction of civilization itself.

  • seanooski

    If an enterprise is too big to fail, then it shouldn’t need a bailout. The destruction of the language is part and parcel of the destruction of civilization itself.

  • DeepCough

    Excuse me, but let’s be real here–Obama is NOT Liberal. In order to be Liberal, you have to support civil liberties.

  • http://twitter.com/AnarchyArmyVet a guy for a penny

    There is nothing free market until the Fed is thrown in the trash can of history.

  • http://twitter.com/AnarchyArmyVet a guy for a penny

    There is nothing free market until the Fed is thrown in the trash can of history.

  • http://twitter.com/AnarchyArmyVet a guy for a penny

    You cant possibly think that free markets include government mandated currency, central bank created interest rates, legally protected corporations, “intellectual property”, private profits and public losses, licensing, endless tax regulations… There is literally nothing ‘free’ about our economy.

    I am also an ‘anarchist’.. If I produce a product I dont think you or anyone else should be able to tell me what I do with it. Who are you to tell me what units of exchange or trades I can make by your sense of ‘social justice’ or ‘civil rights’ or ‘ecology’… If you want to get a group together and try out that model of society, rad, good luck with it, but I’m betting you’d all starve to death within a year. Without supply, demand, and cost, there is no way to determine how much of something to produce. Your system is basically decentralized oppression by the masses creating a bunch of micro soviet unions. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I have a feeling I wouldnt be.

  • http://twitter.com/AnarchyArmyVet a guy for a penny

    You cant possibly think that free markets include government mandated currency, central bank created interest rates, legally protected corporations, “intellectual property”, private profits and public losses, licensing, endless tax regulations… There is literally nothing ‘free’ about our economy.

    I am also an ‘anarchist’.. If I produce a product I dont think you or anyone else should be able to tell me what I do with it. Who are you to tell me what units of exchange or trades I can make by your sense of ‘social justice’ or ‘civil rights’ or ‘ecology’… If you want to get a group together and try out that model of society, rad, good luck with it, but I’m betting you’d all starve to death within a year. Without supply, demand, and cost, there is no way to determine how much of something to produce. Your system is basically decentralized oppression by the masses creating a bunch of micro soviet unions. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I have a feeling I wouldnt be.

  • Mr Willow

    I am also an ‘anarchist’.

    Somebody didn’t get the memo that anarcho-capitalism isn’t actually anarchism at all. 

    Anarchism, as a socio-economic philosophy, aims to create a stateless society based upon coöperation, shared resources, and publicly owned production. It has often been referred to and summarised as ‘stateless socialism’. As such, it is antithetical to capitalism, which is based upon (or at least touted as being) competition and private ownership of the means of production. 

    Also, if you produce a harmful product, or are attempting to revive the market composed of the various quack medical devices of the 1800s—or its equivalent in any other market—I think society has a general obligation to shut you down.

  • Mr Willow

    I am also an ‘anarchist’.

    Somebody didn’t get the memo that anarcho-capitalism isn’t actually anarchism at all. 

    Anarchism, as a socio-economic philosophy, aims to create a stateless society based upon coöperation, shared resources, and publicly owned production. It has often been referred to and summarised as ‘stateless socialism’. As such, it is antithetical to capitalism, which is based upon (or at least touted as being) competition and private ownership of the means of production. 

    Also, if you produce a harmful product, or are attempting to revive the market composed of the various quack medical devices of the 1800s—or its equivalent in any other market—I think society has a general obligation to shut you down.

  • jefe

    i cannot help but laugh at those who scream “bailouts” and “subsidies” are not “capitalism.”  or “regulations” restrict capitalism, and the “real” capitalism and the “free market” cannot exist.  bullshit!  for starters, those corporate entities receiving the “special treatment” arrived at their present position BECAUSE OF CAPITALISM.  second, if such entities dominate because of their “practicing” capitalism (meaning: if the end goal is profit, then infiltration and bribery of governments are capitalistic actions; acquiring and securing the power of economic entities is a capitalistic position), then wouldn’t the utopian “free market” depend on heavy regulation, in order to prevent monopolistic control and the supposed “vulgarization” of “capitalistic principles”?

    newsflash: as long as exchange-value dominates use-value, as long as labor is abstracted and alienated, and as long as the quantitative formal rationalism of the socioeconomic superstructure continues to dominate the arena of cultural reproduction, then capitalism will continue to plague us.  since the 19th century, many variables may have mutated but the aspects and fundamentals that make this system “capitalistic” remain.  i suppose those whiners are only spewing their market utopian IDEALISM because the blatant systemic contradictions are more apparent than ever, thereby delegitimizing their archaic (and historically devoid) position.  or perhaps their whining is even more alarming: to them, capitalism is “natural,” and so instead of pursuing a qualitative solution to the inherent (systemic) contradictions, their (non) “solution” is to romanticize the (failed) bourgeois revolutions and to further rape the historical perspective by only further supporting/enhancing the established (cultural) lack of historical consciousness.

    instead of coming to terms with the present moment as historical, and not “eternal,” these “stormtroopers” of the bourgeois imperative, i fear, will seek to establish a reactionary hegemonic alternative to the current (failed) system (instead of establishing a hegemonic alternative to the exploitative “commodity form”).  we need to prepare for a real, historical, challenge–and unfortunately its content is the material from our worst nightmares.

    • Jin The Ninja

      x2.

    • Guest

      No shit, sherlock.

    • http://twitter.com/AnarchyArmyVet a guy for a penny

      You’re confusing free markets with state capitalism and democracy (democracy being the system where the majority uses government to oppress the minority). They are not the same. The problem isnt the market, it is the government.

      “Regulation” in the free market is the choice to buy a product or not and the price that the product can command vs the cost required to produce it. Prices should go down in a free market but our government and banking system require prices to always increase, which affects the poor the most. In the free market, your goal would be to produce your own wealth through your talents, not to become a wage slave because the government preventing you to do so through licensing, taxes, and mandates. We have a system that makes it easier to get a corporate job somewhere because starting your own business requires a legal team.

      You’re acting like what we’ve had for the last 100 years is a free market, and it is not and never has been. What exactly is free about it? Monopolies have never existed except for government programs enforced by law, like our monopoly money. Standard oil was great for the poor. They had 150 competitors, and could produce the cheapest and most widely used product, cheapest product that also benefited the poor. After they broke up, heating oil and gasoline prices went up, not down. So where was the price gouging? Who benefited? Certainly not the poor you claim to care about…

      • Monkey See Monkey Do

        So let me get this straight. Your a social darwinist, right?

        Your screen-name suits you.

        • http://twitter.com/AnarchyArmyVet a guy for a penny

          Yep, advocating the system that most efficiently eliminates poverty is social darwinism. Your screen name suits you too, a monkey could have written your post.

          • Jin The Ninja

            exactly how and when has this so-called system ‘eliminated’ poverty? i would like facts and figures, and perhaps a response detailing how this same system equalizes social relationships, protects the environment, and promotes democracy.

  • jefe

    i cannot help but laugh at those who scream “bailouts” and “subsidies” are not “capitalism.”  or “regulations” restrict capitalism, and the “real” capitalism and the “free market” cannot exist.  bullshit!  for starters, those corporate entities receiving the “special treatment” arrived at their present position BECAUSE OF CAPITALISM.  second, if such entities dominate because of their “practicing” capitalism (meaning: if the end goal is profit, then infiltration and bribery of governments are capitalistic actions; acquiring and securing the power of economic entities is a capitalistic position), then wouldn’t the utopian “free market” depend on heavy regulation, in order to prevent monopolistic control and the supposed “vulgarization” of “capitalistic principles”?

    newsflash: as long as exchange-value dominates use-value, as long as labor is abstracted and alienated, and as long as the quantitative formal rationalism of the socioeconomic superstructure continues to dominate the arena of cultural reproduction, then capitalism will continue to plague us.  since the 19th century, many variables may have mutated but the aspects and fundamentals that make this system “capitalistic” remain.  i suppose those whiners are only spewing their market utopian IDEALISM because the blatant systemic contradictions are more apparent than ever, thereby delegitimizing their archaic (and historically devoid) position.  or perhaps their whining is even more alarming: to them, capitalism is “natural,” and so instead of pursuing a qualitative solution to the inherent (systemic) contradictions, their (non) “solution” is to romanticize the (failed) bourgeois revolutions and to further rape the historical perspective by only further supporting/enhancing the established (cultural) lack of historical consciousness.

    instead of coming to terms with the present moment as historical, and not “eternal,” these “stormtroopers” of the bourgeois imperative, i fear, will seek to establish a reactionary hegemonic alternative to the current (failed) system (instead of establishing a hegemonic alternative to the exploitative “commodity form”).  we need to prepare for a real, historical, challenge–and unfortunately its content is the material from our worst nightmares.

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    deep, yes obama is center-right/right at best i concur totally, just in the terms of this discussion would i use ‘liberal’ as an epiphet- since i was referred to as one.

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    what you said:P

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    x2.

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    What part of non coercive is difficult to understand?

    Property of the Commons is different than state ownership.

    The soviet union was totalitarian state capitalism…

    i feel like i am wasting my time, but i do have a good argument about why the environment deserves rights…maybe next time…

  • Guest

    No shit, sherlock.

  • http://twitter.com/AnarchyArmyVet a guy for a penny

    The problem with publicly owned production is that it has never worked. It starves innovation because you have to convince ‘the public’ to produce something new. Even if you have a system that is decentralized, you still have controls on price and production which always lead to a lack of productivity and production.

    If you have a harmful product, (as you always will, lead toys from China for example) there is very little anyone can do to stop it until after it is produced, some consumer group tests it, and information is distributed through the media or internet. The trust in a company to produce safe products and their reputation for safe products is essential to their own survival. The enterprises that produce goods that are harmful will be very quickly shut down, because people will not buy or trust companies that produce such things.

    And I am all for cooperation and sharing resources, That is what capitalism or free markets are supposed to be. People having an idea or producing something, pooling their capital and producing things people want to buy or trade for other things.

    When you have production by either top down or mass control and abolish money as anarcho-communists want to do, things like insulin would be impossible to produce. Not every town would have a pharmaceutical company in their area that could bring products that are required to keep people alive. Not fake depression drugs big pharma is pumping for money, real medicine that people need to live.

    And I actually support your philosophical goals, but abolishing all coercion and cost is impossible. Once you remove price, it becomes impossible to control or continue or expand production. Once you start declaring rights like medical care or education, you make slaves of people that provide labor that produce those services. And you may have some variation of those beliefs and everything I said may not apply to you personally. Also, I’m not even opposed to ‘stateless socialism’ so long as it is voluntary. I personally dont think it will work because it defies all basic rules of economics. I’m all for the experiment. And I’m sure we can agree that the state is immoral and needs to go. After that, we can debate what comes next. I think people should be free to do what works best for them afterwards so long as they dont use force against others to make it happen.

  • Insidertrader

    Of course it was 8 trillion .  You need a lot of ‘hush’ money to keep mouths shut for awhile.  You have to wait so that  years have passed and everyone has forgotten about the Wall Street debacle.  And everyone wondered about that article awhile back that stated HOR people/politicians got wealthier during the recession.  That’s how they got wealthy. And the best part is they left us all up shit creek without a boat, paddle, or life preserver.  God bless america !

  • Insidertrader

    Of course it was 8 trillion .  You need a lot of ‘hush’ money to keep mouths shut for awhile.  You have to wait so that  years have passed and everyone has forgotten about the Wall Street debacle.  And everyone wondered about that article awhile back that stated HOR people/politicians got wealthier during the recession.  That’s how they got wealthy. And the best part is they left us all up shit creek without a boat, paddle, or life preserver.  God bless america !

  • http://twitter.com/AnarchyArmyVet a guy for a penny

    You’re confusing free markets with state capitalism and democracy (democracy being the system where the majority uses government to oppress the minority). They are not the same. The problem isnt the market, it is the government.

    “Regulation” in the free market is the choice to buy a product or not and the price that the product can command vs the cost required to produce it. Prices should go down in a free market but our government and banking system require prices to always increase, which affects the poor the most. In the free market, your goal would be to produce your own wealth through your talents, not to become a wage slave because the government preventing you to do so through licensing, taxes, and mandates. We have a system that makes it easier to get a corporate job somewhere because starting your own business requires a legal team.

    You’re acting like what we’ve had for the last 100 years is a free market, and it is not and never has been. What exactly is free about it? Monopolies have never existed except for government programs enforced by law, like our monopoly money. Standard oil was great for the poor. They had 150 competitors, and could produce the cheapest and most widely used product, cheapest product that also benefited the poor. After they broke up, heating oil and gasoline prices went up, not down. So where was the price gouging? Who benefited? Certainly not the poor you claim to care about…

  • Mr Willow

    Well, I certainly appreciate a reply not filled with anger or disdain (as is so prevalent on ‘the interwebs’). Nonetheless, I do disagree with you on a few points. 

    The problem with publicly owned production is that it has never worked.

    All the various mediæval guilds, the abandoned businesses that existed as public (through the employee ownership—which I see as only slightly different) during the Paris Commune, the BBC, and the Green Bay Packers (among a plethora of other entities and enterprises) will all disagree with (and would probably laugh at) that statement. 

    It starves innovation because you have to convince ‘the public’ to produce something new.

    Private companies have to convince ‘the public’ to purchase whatever they make, that’s all advertising is. They also have the benefit of not having to convince their employees to make whatever it is they are to sell. Instead, they force them through the coërcive method of dangling a paycheck in front of them and saying “You want it, then you do as I say,” which effectively transforms a ‘business owner’ into a labour camp warden. In neither case is the person actually involved in the manufacture of the product free, the only difference is the mouth barking orders—a government official or a CEO. 

    Also, I am of the opinion that there is a multitude of products on the market that are utterly pointless, and under a public system all the wasted energy used to make them would be used to make something of use. A good product—i.e. a good shoe, an engine that doesn’t pollute, a warm jacket, a house that doesn’t fall down, a vaccine, a means of more effective communication, a fun toy—is based entirely upon a good idea.  Your phrasing implies the ideas for new products will cease to be imagined. 

    The problem today, in relation to products, is that nobody has any good ideas because if they are thinking of an idea for a product or service, their thoughts are almost always preöccupied with ‘will this make me rich’, not necessarily, ‘will this be of benefit to someone, will people find use in it, will people find it entertaining, will it work every time it is used’. In short, they don’t necessarily care if you buy it and it then breaks, or doesn’t work to begin with, or you find it so boring that you stick it on a shelf and don’t use it; they have your money, and that’s all that matters. 

    Not to mention, returning to workers’ concerns, the method most companies have of relating to their employees. What is their opinion of the thing they are meant to actually produce? Do they feel it is meaningless? Do they have ways in which it may be improved? None of these things are ever considered. They are supposed to do the job allotted to them and shut up. 

    The trust in a company to produce safe products and their reputation for safe products is essential to their own survival.

    The fact that Pfizer still exists (as just one example among hundreds *cough* Monsanto) proves that entirely false. 

    And I am all for cooperation and sharing resources, That is what capitalism or free markets are supposed to be.

    The history of capitalism and ‘free markets’ has been just the opposite: consolidation of both resources and wealth into the hands of a few (robber barons ring a bell?). If you wish to believe current Republican lectures regarding capitalism, it is based upon competition, but that is a lie as well, as the companies involved are all trying to reduce the number of competitors they have through either crushing them or purchasing them. And please be aware that I am not trying to imply that you are a Republican. 

    top down or mass control

    More of a clarification, but these to things are polar opposites in my opinion. The former implies hierarchical structure, the latter implies democracy. Top-down is how nearly every institution currently operates. Corporations are the worst offenders (you can see my post below, where I equate them with dictatorships), but the government and academia (among other things) also operate in this way to a greater or lesser extent—a certain authority that is, not necessarily beyond criticism, but to do so would seem insolent. Mass control is generally what I equate most with anarchism (it is most synonymous with ‘pure’ democracy, in my opinion), where power is spread evenly throughout the population, and decisions concerning the community/county/state/nation are made through the opinions of every member contained within it. 

    Once you start declaring rights like medical care or education, you make slaves of people that provide labor that produce those services.

    Not so, so long as people are more concentrated on providing a quality service instead of getting payed. A teacher should be a teacher because they want to teach, a doctor should be a doctor because they wish to heal the sick, a carpenter should be a carpenter because they wish to build things, and so on and so forth for every profession one may imagine. If you attach cost to something like medicine or education, then you make them the privilege of fewer people. If people are not educated, they cannot have ideas, or if they have ideas, they lack the know-how to realise them, and if they are ill with an inability to be made well, then they are of use to noöne, including themselves. 

  • Monkey See Monkey Do

    So let me get this straight. Your a social darwinist, right?

    Your screen-name suits you.

  • http://twitter.com/AnarchyArmyVet a guy for a penny

    All
    the various mediæval guilds, the abandoned businesses that existed as
    public (through the employee ownership—which I see as only slightly
    different) during the Paris Commune, the BBC, and the Green Bay Packers
    (among a plethora of other entities and enterprises) will all disagree
    with (and would probably laugh at) that statement.

    The Paris Commune (and the free areas in Spain and Ukraine) were too brief to really judge one way or another. We know that State Communism fails and we are watching soft Fascism (in the US) fail as well. As for communally owned businesses or self employment, I’m all for them. I’m self employed for exactly the reasons you seem concerned with. I’d say the BBC is a poor example because that operates with heavy subsidies and state mandates, but otherwise yes, obviously cooperatively owned businesses can work and shouldnt be prevented from working. My main concern with things like ‘direct democracy’ is that you are just handing over power from a few to many, not abolishing that power all together. I dont think anyone has the right to take power away from others through the use of force.

    Private
    companies have to convince ‘the public’ to purchase whatever they make,
    that’s all advertising is. They also have the benefit of not having to
    convince their employees to make whatever it is they are to sell.
    Instead, they force them through the coërcive method of dangling a
    paycheck in front of them and saying “You want it, then you do as I
    say,” which effectively transforms a ‘business owner’ into a labour camp
    warden. In neither case is the person actually involved in the
    manufacture of the product free, the only difference is the mouth
    barking orders—a government official or a CEO.

    Dangling a paycheck isn’t coercion, it is mutually agreeable. Personally I agree with you. I dont want to work for someone else and think it is akin to slavery, but not all people agree. There is significant risk involved in owning and operating your own business that some people want to avoid, my father for example has always worked for a wage, and I dont think I could ever talk him out of it. He thought I was nuts to quit my ‘good job’ and start my own business. Its his choice. He changes jobs based on how he is treated and payed.

    If I hire someone to work for me for an hourly wage, they accept that I am in control of what happens in that business. I might try to increase their productivity by giving them a percentage of the business, giving them a bonus, or I may avoid giving them any control over it whatsoever if they arent capable of responsibility. If they are unhappy with the arrangement, they can leave, start a competing company, or whatever they want. Starting out working for a wage also allows people to develop skills that allow them to be productive in the future. 

    Also, I am of
    the opinion that there is a multitude of products on the market that are
    utterly pointless, and under a public system all the wasted energy used
    to make them would be used to make something of use. A good
    product—i.e. a good shoe, an engine that doesn’t pollute, a warm
    jacket, a house that doesn’t fall down, a vaccine, a means of more
    effective communication, a fun toy—is based entirely upon a good idea.
     Your phrasing implies the ideas for new products will cease to be
    imagined. 

    The problem today, in relation to products, is that
    nobody has any good ideas because if they are thinking of an idea for a
    product or service, their thoughts are almost always preöccupied with
    ‘will this make me rich’, not necessarily, ‘will this be of benefit to
    someone, will people find use in it, will people find it entertaining,
    will it work every time it is used’. In short, they don’t necessarily
    care if you buy it and it then breaks, or doesn’t work to begin with, or
    you find it so boring that you stick it on a shelf and don’t use it;
    they have your money, and that’s all that matters. 

    Not to
    mention, returning to workers’ concerns, the method most companies have
    of relating to their employees. What is their opinion of the thing they
    are meant to actually produce? Do they feel it is meaningless? Do they
    have ways in which it may be improved? None of these things are ever
    considered. They are supposed to do the job allotted to them and shut
    up.

    Most products are crap. There’s no arguing that, but it is also peoples right to waste their money. I think video games and professional sports are a waste of time, but if they were banned, people would probably riot over it. And if the kind of products you mentioned could be produced with the technology we have, I’m sure people would produce them. Also, patent laws (another state invention) create huge impediments to those type of innovations because they compete with corporations that are protected by the state.  

    The fact that Pfizer still exists (as just one example among hundreds *cough* Monsanto) proves that entirely false.

    Once again, protected by the state though loopholes small competition cant compete with, favorable “regulations”, subsidies, grants, intellectual property and copyright laws etc etc etc… These things arent there to protect the people, although that is how it is sold to them, it is there to protect corporations.

    The
    history of capitalism and ‘free markets’ has been just the opposite:
    consolidation of both resources and wealth into the hands of a few
    (robber barons ring a bell?). If you wish to believe current Republican
    lectures regarding capitalism, it is based upon competition, but that is
    a lie as well, as the companies involved are all trying to reduce the
    number of competitors they have through either crushing them or
    purchasing them. And please be aware that I am not trying to imply that
    you are a Republican.

    I’m guessing that you would agree that the larger the state has gotten (last 100 years), the more resources have gone to fewer people, the more money has gotten concentrated in fewer hands, the higher the CEO’s pay and the lower the average persons pay has gotten. Also, the inflation resulting from government overspending and central banking has made costs increase that has effectively wiped out the middle class, and created an environment that requires both parents to work and our children have suffered for it, the culture degraded, and basically everything has gotten worse. As far as Republicans go, they are a joke. tweaking a tax 2% lower or repealing a thousand regulations that benefit huge corporations and not everyone else is not what I advocate.

    More
    of a clarification, but these to things are polar opposites in my
    opinion. The former implies hierarchical structure, the latter implies
    democracy. Top-down is how nearly every institution currently operates.
    Corporations are the worst offenders (you can see my post below, where I
    equate them with dictatorships), but the government and academia (among
    other things) also operate in this way to a greater or lesser
    extent—a certain authority that is, not necessarily beyond criticism,
    but to do so would seem insolent. Mass control is generally what I
    equate most with anarchism (it is most synonymous with ‘pure’ democracy,
    in my opinion), where power is spread evenly throughout the population,
    and decisions concerning the community/county/state/nation are made
    through the opinions of every member contained within it.

    I’d say that democracy is just as scary to me as authoritarianism. The majority have the right to impose their will on the minority through force. Force is the problem. Corporations are not dictatorships because the owner of starbucks cant send armed men to my house and make me work for them or buy their products. Also, most of the huge corporations would fail without state protections.

    Not
    so, so long as people are more concentrated on providing a quality
    service instead of getting payed. A teacher should be a teacher because
    they want to teach, a doctor should be a doctor because they wish to
    heal the sick, a carpenter should be a carpenter because they wish to
    build things, and so on and so forth for every profession one may
    imagine. If you attach cost to something like medicine or education,
    then you make them the privilege of fewer people.

    People can be motivated by whatever they want to. I am only interested in either friendship with them because of common interests or for the services they provide. Most people that go into the medical profession and stay there do so because they want to help people. Same with teaching. They have every right to charge whatever people will pay for their services, or to give them away, create payment plans for people or whatever they want for their services. I dont have the right to tell them what they should do or charge for their services any more than I do with a plumber or mechanic. I do have the right to go to a competitor who charges less or will work with me.

    I’m not against people doing what they want to make themselves or the world better, I’m against the use of force on people who disagree.

  • http://twitter.com/AnarchyArmyVet a guy for a penny

    Yep, advocating the system that most efficiently eliminates poverty is social darwinism. Your screen name suits you too, a monkey could have written your post.

  • Mr Willow

    Dangling a paycheck isn’t coercion, it is mutually agreeable. . . I dont want to work for someone else and think it is akin to slavery, . . If I hire someone to work for me for an hourly wage, they accept that I am in control of what happens in that business. I might try to increase their productivity by giving them a percentage of the business, giving them a bonus, or I may avoid giving them any control over it whatsoever if they arent capable of responsibility. If they are unhappy with the arrangement, they can leave, 

    You must be joking.  So, you think it is terrible to be treated as a slave, but it is perfectly fine for you to treat others as slaves, so long as they ‘agree’ to it? 

    This is always where the entire idea of Anarcho-Capitalism falls apart for me. This mentality of ‘Don’t tread on me by restricting me from treading upon others.’ 

    If you believed (from higher up your post) My main concern with things like ‘direct democracy’ is that you are just handing over power from a few to many, not abolishing that power all together. you would see all you ‘hire’ as being a partner to you within the company, as an equal, not an employee to whom you can allot control where you see fit, while keeping total control for yourself, the exact opposite of democracy. Control is power, whoever has more control, has more power, and by asserting yourself as the one in control, you become a dictator. 

    Abolish total power by giving power to the People.

    Once again, protected by the state though loopholes small competition cant compete with, favorable “regulations”, subsidies, grants, intellectual property and copyright laws etc etc etc… These things arent there to protect the people, although that is how it is sold to them, it is there to protect corporations. 

    A very common misconception. You seem to be under the impression that ‘the government’ just one day decided it was best for ‘the market’ and the economy to create loopholes and regulations that benefit corporations, worked all of it out of their own free will, and twisted CEO’s arms to make them take all the subsidies and grants, when it is quite the contrary.

    The majority of that happened in the 1980s (thank you Reagan), when the CEOs not so much twisted the arms of congressmen, but instead bribed them with an obscene amount of campaign contributions (do as we say or all that money goes to someone who will) and an army of advisers (read as lobbyists) to remove regulations that prevented them from having monopolies (among other things) and writing laws that benefited their corporations instead. A regulation is only a rule—you can’t do this or that because it is either unfair to the supposed competitors you’re trying to foster or it is harmful to the people buying whatever it is you’re selling. All ‘deregulation’ did (and does) is change the rules to benefit the greedy businessman instead of the people working in his coal mine, steel factory, or buying his hats laced with mercury. 

    This is the only function the ‘State’ potentially has in my view, to protect those who are wronged by injustices perpetrated in the name of profit. A shocking admittance, from an anarchist, I know, but I consider ‘the government’ as only the enforcer of the wishes of the public, and I have said on more than one occasion the government should be composed of the public—direct governance. It needn’t be more than a committee. Personally, I would prefer a purely anarchist society, but I know the majority of people wouldn’t agree to it, so short of that, this is the ‘government’ I would want. 

    I’m guessing that you would agree that the larger the state has gotten (last 100 years), the more resources have gone to fewer people, the more money has gotten concentrated in fewer hands, the higher the CEO’s pay and the lower the average persons pay has gotten.

    Again, the ‘State’ hasn’t grown, it has only been consumed by—informed by, colluded with, is populated with—the aristocracy of Corporate America and their lackeys. 

    Corporations are not dictatorships because the owner of starbucks cant send armed men to my house and make me work for them or buy their products.

    But they can force you to buy their products when both of them are owned by a single corporate entity, which has systematically crushed all competition, which is what has occurred (and is continuing to occur). When they’re the only game in town, you might as well have a gun to your head. 

  • Mr Willow

    Dangling a paycheck isn’t coercion, it is mutually agreeable. . . I dont want to work for someone else and think it is akin to slavery, . . If I hire someone to work for me for an hourly wage, they accept that I am in control of what happens in that business. I might try to increase their productivity by giving them a percentage of the business, giving them a bonus, or I may avoid giving them any control over it whatsoever if they arent capable of responsibility. If they are unhappy with the arrangement, they can leave, 

    You must be joking.  So, you think it is terrible to be treated as a slave, but it is perfectly fine for you to treat others as slaves, so long as they ‘agree’ to it? 

    This is always where the entire idea of Anarcho-Capitalism falls apart for me. This mentality of ‘Don’t tread on me by restricting me from treading upon others.’ 

    If you believed (from higher up your post) My main concern with things like ‘direct democracy’ is that you are just handing over power from a few to many, not abolishing that power all together. you would see all you ‘hire’ as being a partner to you within the company, as an equal, not an employee to whom you can allot control where you see fit, while keeping total control for yourself, the exact opposite of democracy. Control is power, whoever has more control, has more power, and by asserting yourself as the one in control, you become a dictator. 

    Abolish total power by giving power to the People.

    Once again, protected by the state though loopholes small competition cant compete with, favorable “regulations”, subsidies, grants, intellectual property and copyright laws etc etc etc… These things arent there to protect the people, although that is how it is sold to them, it is there to protect corporations. 

    A very common misconception. You seem to be under the impression that ‘the government’ just one day decided it was best for ‘the market’ and the economy to create loopholes and regulations that benefit corporations, worked all of it out of their own free will, and twisted CEO’s arms to make them take all the subsidies and grants, when it is quite the contrary.

    The majority of that happened in the 1980s (thank you Reagan), when the CEOs not so much twisted the arms of congressmen, but instead bribed them with an obscene amount of campaign contributions (do as we say or all that money goes to someone who will) and an army of advisers (read as lobbyists) to remove regulations that prevented them from having monopolies (among other things) and writing laws that benefited their corporations instead. A regulation is only a rule—you can’t do this or that because it is either unfair to the supposed competitors you’re trying to foster or it is harmful to the people buying whatever it is you’re selling. All ‘deregulation’ did (and does) is change the rules to benefit the greedy businessman instead of the people working in his coal mine, steel factory, or buying his hats laced with mercury. 

    This is the only function the ‘State’ potentially has in my view, to protect those who are wronged by injustices perpetrated in the name of profit. A shocking admittance, from an anarchist, I know, but I consider ‘the government’ as only the enforcer of the wishes of the public, and I have said on more than one occasion the government should be composed of the public—direct governance. It needn’t be more than a committee. Personally, I would prefer a purely anarchist society, but I know the majority of people wouldn’t agree to it, so short of that, this is the ‘government’ I would want. 

    I’m guessing that you would agree that the larger the state has gotten (last 100 years), the more resources have gone to fewer people, the more money has gotten concentrated in fewer hands, the higher the CEO’s pay and the lower the average persons pay has gotten.

    Again, the ‘State’ hasn’t grown, it has only been consumed by—informed by, colluded with, is populated with—the aristocracy of Corporate America and their lackeys. 

    Corporations are not dictatorships because the owner of starbucks cant send armed men to my house and make me work for them or buy their products.

    But they can force you to buy their products when both of them are owned by a single corporate entity, which has systematically crushed all competition, which is what has occurred (and is continuing to occur). When they’re the only game in town, you might as well have a gun to your head. 

  • Mr Willow

    Dangling a paycheck isn’t coercion, it is mutually agreeable. . . I dont want to work for someone else and think it is akin to slavery, . . If I hire someone to work for me for an hourly wage, they accept that I am in control of what happens in that business. I might try to increase their productivity by giving them a percentage of the business, giving them a bonus, or I may avoid giving them any control over it whatsoever if they arent capable of responsibility. If they are unhappy with the arrangement, they can leave, 

    You must be joking.  So, you think it is terrible to be treated as a slave, but it is perfectly fine for you to treat others as slaves, so long as they ‘agree’ to it? 

    This is always where the entire idea of Anarcho-Capitalism falls apart for me. This mentality of ‘Don’t tread on me by restricting me from treading upon others.’ 

    If you believed (from higher up your post) My main concern with things like ‘direct democracy’ is that you are just handing over power from a few to many, not abolishing that power all together. you would see all you ‘hire’ as being a partner to you within the company, as an equal, not an employee to whom you can allot control where you see fit, while keeping total control for yourself, the exact opposite of democracy. Control is power, whoever has more control, has more power, and by asserting yourself as the one in control, you become a dictator. 

    Abolish total power by giving power to the People.

    Once again, protected by the state though loopholes small competition cant compete with, favorable “regulations”, subsidies, grants, intellectual property and copyright laws etc etc etc… These things arent there to protect the people, although that is how it is sold to them, it is there to protect corporations. 

    A very common misconception. You seem to be under the impression that ‘the government’ just one day decided it was best for ‘the market’ and the economy to create loopholes and regulations that benefit corporations, worked all of it out of their own free will, and twisted CEO’s arms to make them take all the subsidies and grants, when it is quite the contrary.

    The majority of that happened in the 1980s (thank you Reagan), when the CEOs not so much twisted the arms of congressmen, but instead bribed them with an obscene amount of campaign contributions (do as we say or all that money goes to someone who will) and an army of advisers (read as lobbyists) to remove regulations that prevented them from having monopolies (among other things) and writing laws that benefited their corporations instead. A regulation is only a rule—you can’t do this or that because it is either unfair to the supposed competitors you’re trying to foster or it is harmful to the people buying whatever it is you’re selling. All ‘deregulation’ did (and does) is change the rules to benefit the greedy businessman instead of the people working in his coal mine, steel factory, or buying his hats laced with mercury. 

    This is the only function the ‘State’ potentially has in my view, to protect those who are wronged by injustices perpetrated in the name of profit. A shocking admittance, from an anarchist, I know, but I consider ‘the government’ as only the enforcer of the wishes of the public, and I have said on more than one occasion the government should be composed of the public—direct governance. It needn’t be more than a committee. Personally, I would prefer a purely anarchist society, but I know the majority of people wouldn’t agree to it, so short of that, this is the ‘government’ I would want. 

    I’m guessing that you would agree that the larger the state has gotten (last 100 years), the more resources have gone to fewer people, the more money has gotten concentrated in fewer hands, the higher the CEO’s pay and the lower the average persons pay has gotten.

    Again, the ‘State’ hasn’t grown, it has only been consumed by—informed by, colluded with, is populated with—the aristocracy of Corporate America and their lackeys. 

    Corporations are not dictatorships because the owner of starbucks cant send armed men to my house and make me work for them or buy their products.

    But they can force you to buy their products when both of them are owned by a single corporate entity, which has systematically crushed all competition, which is what has occurred (and is continuing to occur). When they’re the only game in town, you might as well have a gun to your head. 

  • Juliussmith

    first half is kinda chaotic and confusing, second half is dead on.

  • Juliussmith

    first half is kinda chaotic and confusing, second half is dead on.

  • dfdfsfsdtgdfg

    Avoid a response to what MilkaPub was actually saying. The author of this article made a factually incorrect statement regarding ‘free’ market capitalism, government ensuring mortgages, bailouts- it simply does not matter whether you agreee with free market capitalism or disagree, the author was wrong.

  • dfdfsfsdtgdfg

    Avoid a response to what MilkaPub was actually saying. The author of this article made a factually incorrect statement regarding ‘free’ market capitalism, government ensuring mortgages, bailouts- it simply does not matter whether you agreee with free market capitalism or disagree, the author was wrong.

  • dfdfsfsdtgdfg

    Avoid a response to what MilkaPub was actually saying. The author of this article made a factually incorrect statement regarding ‘free’ market capitalism, government ensuring mortgages, bailouts- it simply does not matter whether you agreee with free market capitalism or disagree, the author was wrong.

  • Monkey See Monkey Do

    and all day.

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    liberalisation of the markets in the form of neo-liberalism is in the mind of many economists very close to a ‘free’ market. singapore has a few elements of planned economy, but generally is considered to have one of the most liberalised markets in the world. i would assert that the result of the procceses of market liberalisation can be best demonstrated in the post 97 asian bubble and of course in the post clinton era US, where large multi nationals have dominated and monopolised the largest segments of marketshare, and have deeply affected and influenced politics. rand results in fascism, and notably she was a big fan of mussolini. if market forces control the gov’t as they do in the above examples, it would be in their interest to have pro market policies implemented by the proxy gov’t.
    I think this proves that the market is inherently dependent on social control. if the author was incorrect i think is a matter os perspective.

  • Tgal

    When people state that we made a profit on TARP, is this because of the 7.7 trillion FED bailout? Also, the CEOs of major banks stated they were in stable condition while receiving these gigantic loans, this is blatant misleading of investors. Starting to rethink this End the Fed Paul idea.

  • Tgal

    When people state that we made a profit on TARP, is this because of the 7.7 trillion FED bailout? Also, the CEOs of major banks stated they were in stable condition while receiving these gigantic loans, this is blatant misleading of investors. Starting to rethink this End the Fed Paul idea.

  • Jin (仁)

    exactly how and when has this so-called system ‘eliminated’ poverty? i would like facts and figures, and perhaps a response detailing how this same system equalizes social relationships, protects the environment, and promotes democracy.

21