Business as Usual
The Republican Party has been known for some time as the party of businessmen and business in general. They have championed the deregulation
of markets and the reduction of corporate taxes as well as reduced taxation of
the wealthy in America with increased vigor in the last 28 years. Now as we see Max Baucus & Co.
doing their song and dance on Capitol Hill, we are beginning to see how the
Democratic Party has come to be a protector of big business's interests as
well. The power of business is money,
and business's financial resources are vast. The lobbyists representing corporate interests in Washington
D.C. know precisely how to administer it in order to get the wheels of
democracy to turn if ever so slightly in the direction Big Business wants.
Today, the real opponents to reform in our country are likely not to be Republicans per se, nor the Democrats for that matter. The real powers arrayed to subvert sound public policy that will benefit us all are the corporations, and more particularly the very large corporations. Every law we write affects the status quo and the existing revenue streams staked out by big business as it navigates our labyrinthine tax code and public policy in search of financial enrichment. These revenue streams are guarded with no less self interest than were the privately owned ferries and toll roads of yesteryear and we are not invited to cross before payment has been extracted from us. One need only look at healthcare for which we pay twice as much as the rest of the world, and the corporate resistance to the kind of sweeping change our healthcare system so clearly demands. It's worth taking some time to know an adversary that challenges any change to policies which might adversely impact corporate profits, while instead favoring policies that further corporate self interest even at the expense of the public good. If we take the writings of Sun-Tzu and Machiavelli at face value, we would be fools to do otherwise.
Proponents of Business's philosophy will make the case that
America's own interests lie in conjunction with Business's interests. It is true that we benefit from a
strong economy in which business is expanding, and our system favors innovation in the marketplace which is all good, however the interests of business are not synonymous with the
interests of Americans or those of mankind. Business is at its' heart amoral, and it is only
through the force of the personalities conducting business that it can ever be
otherwise. The recurring refrain
we hear "that business is first and foremost accountable to its' shareholders" should be
of concern to all of us not vested in these corporations as well as those who
are shareholders. Some of our
largest corporations conducted 'business as usual' with the Nazi regime
up to and even after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Morality was not a consideration of this support born of ideological disdain for Communism which business feared worse than the Nazi regime that brought us the Holocaust as well as up to 71M other deaths worldwide. Business's products in general and armaments in particular have a way of
finding their way to any and all conflicts and to all political factions regardless of moral or ethical position. Unlike water seeking the lowest level, business's products seek all levels, as business is not bound by political, moral, and ideological apogees or perigees. If
there is money to be made, business will explore the avenues in which it can be
made without concern for ethics or regard for social altruism.
Our concern with the influence wielded by Big Business should be magnified by the size of multinational corporations today that now places 51 corporations in the top 100 economies on the planet. The remaining 49 are countries. Taking corporations in aggregate, our healthcare sector alone comprises an economy larger than Great Britain's. As such corporations have become extremely powerful entities in our current paradigm of the world, and we've extended extraordinary rights to them. We've seen the corporate flag of America. I wonder if some day there will be new corporate flags of the world, on which each corporation's client state's flags are engraved like a notch on the handle of a gunslinger's instrument of destruction.

Within the past six months, I poetically compared business to "locusts", entities that would feed on our financial and economic resources without concern for the depletion of our reserves, before moving off to the next field. That description was not entirely accurate. Big Business differs from a simple R selected species like the locust or grasshopper in one very important way. Business is shortsighted, but not stupid. Business will always make sure there is another field waiting for them before harvesting the resources of an existing field into depletion. We saw the tobacco companies abandon the American field when the political and judicial climate became too difficult for them here. They didn't miss a beat in expanding tobacco production and sales to China where 1.3 billion potential consumers awaited them with a zero probability of the company having to settle a multi-billion class action lawsuit on behalf of cancer victims.
Almost seventy per cent of our economy consists of consumer spending and yet the hallmark of Business's strategy to cope with our economic crisis has been an ongoing reduction in their workforce. Germany for example chose to subsidize reduced work weeks in exchange for turning employees out of their jobs and onto the unemployment roles while American government and corporations have chosen RIF as a solution to the economic crisis. I previously had thought the large percentage of our economy, which is tied to domestic spending would be a driving factor to align Big Business's self interest with the peoples self interest in preserving jobs at all costs if only to preserve revenue streams tied to the domestic economy. After all if Americans are out of work and concerned about their economic future, they will not be buying the products from which many of these companies make their profits. What I was not factoring into my reasoning was the 'enlightened locust' component of Big Business's strategy. I now am beginning to see that as America's domestic economy, fueled by 330M consumers shrinks, China's domestic economy, powered by 1.3B consumers is growing. It is a simple matter of mathematics. Small gains for the multinational corporations in the China market as well as other new markets will easily offset losses due to the displacement of American workers from their jobs.
China will be the third largest consumer nation by 2025. China will become the third largest consumer of luxury goods - by 2015 China will account for 29% of global luxury consumption.
The ability to weather regional economic calamity by switching
markets is largely what is meant when you hear advocates expound on the benefits
of a global economy.
Unfortunately, as individuals we don't exist globally as corporations
do. We are more or less
constrained to living locally. So
business and corporations are at a distinct advantage in the sense of being
able to bridge international markets as economic conditions dictate while the
citizens of the countries they do business in are consigned to adapt to
whatever conditions befall the economy in which they reside. This is exacerbated by the current
paradigm in DC where money seems to be defining all but the most public of
debates, and even then business and the financial clout the corporations wield
seems to enjoy an advantage. Even though President Obama was able to raise $750M from small individual donors in his recent campaign, the businesses who donate large sums of money to his and other politicians seem to have our politicians' ears to an inordinate degree as evidenced by the deal cut behind closed doors with PHARMA in healthcare reform as well as other signs sent to Big Business, more or less indicating that we Americans don't mind paying extra for what the rest of the world gets at a fraction of the cost.
Perhaps the most distressing fact of all is that the conditions that allowed our current economic debacle to occur were fostered as a direct result of Big Business's efforts to influence the political and regulatory climate in the US. And we have yet to meaningfully address the conditions which allowed our economy to deteriorate, dragging the rest of the world down with it. Small wonder that there are global undercurrents pushing for changing the world's reserve currency from the dollar to some new standard. Doing so would be another blow to the US and the advantages we enjoy by controlling the de facto reserve currency of the world. One might expect such high stakes to invoke a massive investigation into the events, manipulations, and mistakes that led up to the economic collapse so as to help avoid repeating such a scenario which would damage the dollar's reputation perhaps beyond repair. However to date the only investigation initiated is a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission created by Congress in May. In the words of Frank Rich this past Sunday:
It is still hiring staff. Its 10 members are dispersed throughout the country, and, according to a spokeswoman, have contemplated only a half-dozen public sessions over the next year. Such a panel, led by the former California state treasurer Phil Angelides, seems highly unlikely to match Congress's Depression-era Pecora commission.
We've been conditioned to think that as goes big business so goes the US. Certainly if you work for a fortune 500 company your personal fortune is intimately tied to the financial health of your employer. I think the rest of the country's relationship with Big Business is more complex than that. Business is as much adversary as it is ally in this day and age. The sooner we acknowledge that fact the better off we will be as a society in being able to institute economic and political policy that makes sense for us all and not just a few hundred entrenched corporations. Adopting the philosophy of Business as our own is akin to turning the reigns of our country and the world over to a tribe of Nihilists.
Note: In order to keep this blog to a more reasonable size, I've decided to break it into two parts. Tomorrow: PART 2: How to Improve your Sex Life, Make Money, and Lose Weight©
















“The capitalist class is represented by the Republican, Democratic, Populist and Prohibition parties, all of which stand for private ownership of the means of production, and the triumph of any one of which will mean continued wage-slavery to the working class.”
“The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles.”
The Republican and Democratic parties are alike capitalist parties — differing only in being committed to different sets of capitalist interests — they have the same principles under varying colors, are equally corrupt and are one in their subservience to capital and their hostility to labor.”
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
October 20, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
My grandfather would disown me if he were alive R., but I pretty much adore Eugene Debs.
October 20, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this excellent survey, Miguel, and I agree with almost all of it, except maybe a couple of rosy predictions about China, which is rapidly running out of water.
Beijing is already draining their very deep wells, and everywhere north of the Yangtze is likewise going dry. This problem can only be "fixed" by what you might call rapid de-urbanization, and that little window will soon close, too.
October 21, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can make water.
Not that China doesn't have widespread environmental problems (pollution, desertification, etc.). But In my opinion China's real problem is demographics.
Still there will be 300 million relatively rich consumers in the costal cities and throughout that can still provide the market that Miguel speaks of.
October 21, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the water supply is as impacted as Rootie's comment suggests, I imagine the large quantities used in industrial processes could ultimately put the brakes on economic growth in China. The Chinese are interested in promoting a consumer based economy, so they too may ultimately become less amenable to the pollution and depletion of resources that foreign investment is bound to bring with it.
October 21, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The chinese have been moving rivers for over 2500 years. They are not afraid of impossible engineering challenges. They would nuke mountains and steal the water out of the Himalayas that currently feeds India if they had too (and they have studied this). They will have no compunction about using geo-engineering either even if the ramifications are awful.
But its demographics and the burden of 800 million uneducated often stunted peasants that will keep the majority of them poor and retard their other efforts. However, 300 to 400 million is still a massive consumer power.
October 21, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent, excellent. Triple rec, miguel.
I can't wait for part II; it must desribe a pill for guarantees on sex improvement, money-making, and weight loss. Is it called 'Thin-bang-for-your-buck?
That there has been no Presidential or Congressional order for inquiries into this mess, except to nibble around the very outer edges, says it all, unfortunately. And the populace can't organize well enough to show how angry we are. We apparently think getting someone elected is enough, then we can sit back and hope for magic to happen.
Showdown in Chicago doesn't seem to be making a splash; I wish I were young and able and financially secure enough to go. I want to hold a sign.
http://www.showdowninchicago.org/
It's Oct. 25-27.
Can someone go for me? Or 10,000 someones?
I've been trying to find the numbers from a Bill Moyers piece about the number of lobbyists per either Senator or Congressperson; it was in the hundreds. My, oh, my.
October 20, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Thin bang for your buck' doesn't begin to do service for the kind of svelt, wealthy, kink-fest I had in mind.
October 20, 2009 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, go for it!
October 20, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I await tomorrow Miguel.
An 'international' corporation has no allegiances. No allegiance to nation or state or county or city.
They never gave a damn about the worker.
Unions are the bad guys. I remember that mantra when i was a kid. So we have a very small union workforce that is tied to government jobs.
I said somewhere else, this country deserves the government it votes for. 20% or more of our citizens are fascist idiots. 20% more are just idiots.
30% attempt to ferret out the issues.
Meanwhile the corps never stop gaming the system.
basically, WE ARE FUCKED.
THE END
October 20, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's never as bad as it seems.
October 20, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aye cheekhen. Dick may be right that we will in the end be fucked, but the question still remains: "How badly?".
October 20, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
For a clue, one might listen to Frontline tonight.
I haven't but I got a preview on Marketplace.
Sounds like, pretty damn badly. To whit: 'people have lost their savings, their jobs, their homes and their health.' Thanks mostly to our government.
Pretty bad, yez. I'm not at all sure we've seen the worst even yet. What I do know, is that as long as there are good people like you and Dickon and LisB and Seashell and Still and Flower and Donal and Chris and Larry and Marquis and Auntie and Gasket and even Quinn, and well, just about everyone here, that we will make it better.
That's enough to get going along with. Maybe.
October 20, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love that show Bwak, although no TV here, I'll wait till it is available online.
October 20, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
you are soooooo sweet Bwak. There is some hope i spose. ha
October 20, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are one smart cheekhan. Sometimes I write my doomsday fears here and other times I laugh out loud at the antics of some really smart people. It certainly is enough to get going with. Thanks, bwak.
October 21, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is the reason that cynical-realists told us decades ago that there are no longer sovereign borders; filthy lucre is the temporary adhesive that binds nations together for Arms and Resource deals.. When it was prudent financially to pay off the Taliban, were gave. When it was $$-expedient to arm Iraq against Iran, we were right there. That's why we knew there were chemical weapons--we sold them to Saddam. And so it goes, yes?
October 20, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, at least when I am in a bad mooooooooood. ha
October 21, 2009 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Miguel wrote
"Note: In order to keep this blog to a more reasonable size, I've decided to break it into two parts. Tomorrow: PART 2: How to Improve your Sex Life, Make Money, and Lose Weight©"
I was looking intently to what you were going to write
But I think DD prematurely did it.
DD wrote Meanwhile the corps never stop gaming the system.
basically, WE ARE FUCKED.
Miguel, Is that the sex you had in mind?
I want no part of it.
October 21, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Miguel.
I'm really looking forward to part 2 for your solutions?, or at least a better sex life.
October 20, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I address the issue of a non-expanding economy, albeit briefly in my conclusion to tomorrow's installation Sal. It is at the heart of the matter of which you and I are speaking. All of which ties into our monetary system and it's dependence on growth/interest. No "easy" solution that I can see, however the current crisis could be the ideal time to institute truly sweeping changes, not that I expect that to happen. I think the human condition might require things to become truly abominable before that kind of change is welcomed.
October 20, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
War or Famine seem to be the preferred methods.
Still, there have been times when political advancements occurred willingly-Civil rights would be the most obvious example. But then we had leaders and a populous profoundly shaped by a war and a famine, so maybe that's not a good example.
Did you ever read Neal Stephenson's "a young ladies illustrated primer"?
October 20, 2009 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have not read Stephenson's book, but from the two reviews I read, it sounds interesting.
October 20, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow non-expanding and How to Improve your Sex Life seem incompatible, but hey, it's your blog, Mr. Peeg. Go for it!
October 21, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love the smell of humor in the morning. That, I find expansive. :)
October 21, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
In practice, systems based on pure ideology are usually dismal failures, because they run into irreconcilable conflicts with human nautre. The pure Communism experiment failed because without incentives to improve one's material wealth, too few individuals work hard enough to generate a decent societal standard of living. Pure capitalism may never have existed, but an approach to it in 19th century America failed because of the cruelty unrestrained selfishness inflicted on the disadvantaged - in essence the reification of social Darwinism. Twentieth century, and now twenty-first century America have mellowed somewhat via the New Deal, social security, and the like, but we are still fairly far tilted toward the capitalist extreme.
Whether this is good or bad could be argued interminably, except that there's empirical evidence from the European social welfare democracies that societies with a more even blend of profit-striving and a sense of community tend to be better places to live for most members, even if not for the wealthiest. They combine high standards of living with strong safety nets that minimize the number of individuals who suffer the afflictions of severe deprivation.
We've seen this with the healthcare reform debate, when we compare our emphasis on market forces with the ability of other nations to incorporate those forces to a greater or lesser extent into a system that also emphasizes fairness and concern for the needs of all.
As a believer in the primacy of evidence over ideology, I think we can benefit from the example of others.
(A footnote: some years ago, my wife and I spent a few weeks in Europe. While in Stockholm, a magnificent city in a thriving nation, I had a conversation with one of the residents about his country. He was extraordinarily proud of both its spiritual and material excellence - the architecture, educational opportunities, healthcare, housing for all who needed help with it, subsidized arts and recreation to support more than the simply basic physical existence - all as part of a sense of shared community. Somewhat annoyed at this expression of superiority about everything Swedish, I asked him whether there weren't at least a few things not quite perfect about Swedish society. "Oh yes", he exclaimed with a grimace, "The high taxes - they're an absolute disgrace". Oh well, you can't have everything.)
October 20, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the comment which made me smile Fred. The Nordic economies may well turn out to be a model for the rest of us in the long run.
October 20, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
All governmental systems are based on "ideology", name one that isn't. THe idea that "pure communism failed" would have to be based on somewhere that it was tried, and it hasn't been tried, yet. The Russians and the Chinese were no more "pure communism" than we are "pure democracy" and they aren't, and we aren't.
October 21, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post!
Glad we have the extraordinary pig on the case.
Relieved to know solutions are on the way:)
October 20, 2009 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be flattering myself to think I had "solutions on the way" synch. My best hope, is that we, as a society begin to question some of the assumptions we've made regarding our 'synchronicity' with business's agenda.
October 20, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am in disagreement with the assignment of a notion of morality to business. The statement of business being amoral (morally neutral) or moral or immoral isn't actually applicable. The notion of morality is an attribute of persons. A business takes on the moral character of the persons running it but has no inherent moral character of it's own. Not even a neutral one. The notion of morality in business is an associative one which is inherited from the class 'people' where the object 'people' is the owner class of the property 'morality'.
In more simple terms 'wet' is a property of the class 'water'. 'Wet' is not a property of the class 'rock'. A rock can be wet but the idea of the rock being wet is inherited from the owner class 'water' which has the property of 'wet'.
October 21, 2009 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know what I said sounds picky but I feel it is crucial to the discussion to be very careful about the assignment of the properties and understand those which are inherent to an object as opposed to those whch are inherited from another object. It makes all the difference.
October 21, 2009 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think what you point out is why I am having such trouble formulating my thoughts on what I think is a great post by the Pig. I am resisting this idea of "business" as a monolith, because the tapestry that makes up all the endeavours Americans enagage in every day is incredibly complex. The Pig is right though that the adherence to business as a guiding principle, the idea of "what's good for business is good for America" has provided us with a void in terms of fostering good morals, social cohesion, that sort of thing.
October 21, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Part II seems much more my speed, though.
October 21, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did perhaps paint a more monolithic picture of big business than may exist. What I think our modern business model does have that is monolithic is the idea that profits are the sum total of their responsibilities, without regard for the society they operate in. That is where I think society has dropped the ball in demanding more accountability from corporations, particularly in describing the events, conditions, and actors who facilitated our current economic crisis. The only time we see "altruism" at play in corporate governance is when the company's PR needs a boost. And Part 2 is more everyone's speed.
October 21, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think society 'dropped the ball'.
Congress is the ball carrier we elected.
But all congress is doing is carrying water for the corporations.
Not to mention if I had a team like our congress I'd be looking to unload it to rush as fast as I could.
October 21, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Mh20, for your comprehensive summation, explication and interpretation of Corporate America. It's a mighty work.
You made so many connections that seem so obvious now that you point them out. Better, you did so in language we can all understand, no jargon obfuscating meaning. Well, OK, I did have to look up "perigree" (not jargon, just my ignorance) but otherwise, it was crystal clear.
More embarrassing was that I could name all the corporations by logo on the flag. I'm sure most people could do the same, so inundated are we by their "personhood."
Looking forward to Part II.
October 21, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks W. I started writing and before I knew it I was up to about 3K words. Of course when you use descriptors like "apogees and perigees" when "boundaries" might have worked as well.... Har!
October 21, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant! :-)
October 21, 2009 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hello stranger. Nice to see your lyrical avatar around the old neighborhood.
October 21, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I bow to you, dear peegalito!
October 21, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent Miguel!
"good for business" is not necessarily 'good for society', as you say, if for instance it is just increasing the portion of GDP taken up by corporate profits. But it is also ambiguous between
1. Good for existing businesses (improving their market position, etc)
and
2. Good for doing business: i.e. good for the market-mechanisms by improving the flow of information that ensures efficient allocation of resources in an economy.
Often the particular fallacy I see at work when I hear the 'good for business' mantra is the latter. Though it takes other forms as well. Can't wait for part II
October 21, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks pug. Our relationship to business should, in my mind, look kind of like a couple dancing a minuet, where each feint by one partner is parried by the other, thus keeping the dancers in a kind of dynamic balance. Over the last 28 years it has come to look more like a brutish fop, (Big Business), throwing a waif, (the public), around a C&W dance floor littered with broken Bud bottles.
October 21, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the components in expansion of corporate power is technological advancement. As technology shrinks the world and speeds up every process in our lives, the ability to conduct business rapidly and on ever-grander scale follows exponentially. Thirty years ago, we'd be puzzled, at least initially, at the technical mechanism that allows eBay to exist, let alone how this "virtual supermarket" could create its own commerical viability. Technological breakthrough also broadens our general knowledge of the cosmos and our place in it. It's as if the more we discover, the deeper we sink in a corporatized tar pit.
Great post, Miguel. But I'll be damned if I know how to counter this monster, let alone provide an alternative that would be at once productive and self-sustaining. Is there a viable alternative to capitalism? One thing we know: The ones tried so far don't work.
October 21, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see any alternative to Capitalism Curt, and in many ways, particularly with regard to innovation, we are well served by this system. What is lacking is a social infrastructure that adequately protects members of society from the rapaciousness of corporations. I think Fred Moolten made a good allusion to what I see as a long term sustainable system that will benefit most of the members of society while still allowing for the innovation and productivity so central to capitalism when he alluded to the Nordic Economic Model. Capitalism with a healthy social safety net.
October 21, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
How much of that social devastation is the process of corporate culutre? How much of it is our American popular culture? How much can government substitute the same human nourishment we once got from family, community... even church and school? The two biggest demolition devices in our modern dynamic: television and fast food. Gone is our close-knit hearth. Are we really better for it? State morality has replaced personal morality, all slogan, but without the underpinning of emotion that makes it all sensible, believable. We are a nation, indivdual... alone and dangerously malleable.
October 21, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
People always say there's no alternative to capitalism. Don't count socialism out yet.
October 21, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful essay, Miguel; I think Michael Moore would have made a better movie if he had woven in a bit of your perspective. What you say is a thoughtful and unemotional look at the subject, and one that we all need from time to time.
Can't wait until tomorrow!
PS: It's okay if you put a little emotion in that one -- especially in the sex part.
October 21, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's where the apogee and perigree part will be better than boundaries.
October 21, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've referred to "apogee" many times, but I can't think of a situation where I ever could have used "perigee" in a sentence that wasn't about outer space. Miguel pulled it off with aplomb; how about you, Wendy -- looking forward to tomorrow's chapter?
October 21, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very much looking forward to tomorrow's chapter, regardless of tongue-in-cheek trailer hype. Mh20 delivers the goods, imo, so what he has to say will be well worth the read, no matter what.
October 21, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen Moore's film yet, so I've been wondering if I was just reiterating points he made in it, so thanks for your perspective CVille. Hey and sex can be fun with hot emotion or just a cool rhythm. In the words of sexual adventuress Pamela Harriman, when asked "What was the secret to great sex?", she replied, "Enthusiasm.".
October 21, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
In "Capitalism, A Love Story," Moore states flat out that capitalism is Immoral, rather than Amoral as you state. He gives plenty of pretty obvious examples that just make you feel like you want to jump off a cliff by the time the movie is over. Someone said above that a corporation isn't human and therefore doesn't have any morality, but that is missing the point. Corporate Boards are made up (supposedly) of humans, and they control their corporations, so the argument is semantic and superfluous.
What I think you'll see when and if you see it, is that he relies on these gut-wrenching stories to make his point. I think your comments are overall more thoughtful and even if somewhat dispiriting; leave me with the thought that good leadership could get us out of this.
Or maybe just some good old-fashioned enthusiasm would do it -- not since last year, and then again on Jan 20th of this one, have I seen genuine enthusiasm in a positive way. It was nice. I miss it.
October 21, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding whether leadership would make a difference, certainly instituting more meaningful regulations and penalties would go a long way toward correcting some of the issues. There is however something structural underlying the way we do business these days which is impeding changes for the better. That is the way our business models are now geared to near horizons, and wholly dependent on stock price. This restricts business from seriously undertaking truly revolutionary long term projects that may be required out on the 20-50 year horizon, like so many of our alternative energy technologies. I think our current situation nearly dictates that major research will only be undertaken after a market all ready exists for the product.
October 21, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regulation would make a difference but nothing is possible unless we have at least one major political party representing the bottom 99%.
Capitalism is not so much the problem as is plutocracy.
October 21, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
He made the point that Ford made his innovative car affordable for people who were working for him. I know you brought this up as well. Somehow I don't think Ford was only thinking short-term. Anyway, I hope you see the movie and come back here with your thoughts. It is well worth seeing, and puts a human face on so many of the consequences of this economy, and it also shows some heroes. I hope you do watch it, and I hope to hear your thoughts.
October 21, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.bead-art.com/organized%20crime.gif
Just another representation similar to the great flag in your post.
October 21, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
miguelito - A different take.
Background: After WWII but before the End of History, the overall foundation for security and global trade rested on two foundations: Pax Americana to stop Germany and Japan from rearming and the USSR and China contained, and the Washington consensus, which was a free market and classic neo-liberal economics for developing countries to earn their way into the global markets. The latter foundation has already been pronounced dead and was buried at sea in 2008. But it is this "hegemonic stability theory," that neoconservatives defend and promote so fiercly because they believe the alternative is chaos and war.
Another view is emerging, which the Financial Times calls Illiberal Capitalism. Essentially it is free markets China and Russia style.
The notion has gained credence. An Israeli academic wrote that should there be economic chaos in the global arena, a “successful non-democratic Second World could then be regarded by many as an attractive alternative to liberal democracy.”
Just puttin' it out on the table to think about. Sorry my essay is so late, busy day! Looking forward to tomorrow.
October 21, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that link on the new economic models of Russia and China SS. Interesting read. I was struck by this quote:
In the event of such a catastrophic collapse of our western economy, even the multinationals might see China as a haven as opposed to a market to be exploited. I've been thinking about the Chinese and their relationship with western manufacturers and wondering how the manufacturers protect any proprietary processes they utilize in mfg. there. It sounds like the Chinese may come out on top with the capitalists. Perhaps a lesson we can gather something from to help us in traversing our difficulties with Big Business.October 21, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, Miguelito. I would only quibble on two counts. 1) the current crisis is not so much about big business as about big finance. Big business has been as negatively impacted by impaired credit as the rest of us (e.g., Chryler, GM). 2) The phrase "social altruism" seems misleading and maybe not useful. There are utilitarian reasons why the social benefits of capitalism matter that have nothing to do with altruism. Further, businesses cannot reasonably be expected to "self-sacrifice" if it puts them out of business. A better way to think of it is that there are social externalities associated with commerce, many of which require no sacrifice. Those externalities are more likely to manifest and provide maximum social benefit when corporate market power is low, information asymmetries are non-existent, and the nature of the good has no "public" aspects. The first relates to corporate size, but the second may also if, say, increased size leads to increased political power which in turn leads to corruption of any regulatory mechanism aimed at eliminating asymmetries.
http://www.maxineudall.com
October 24, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink