Comment

Comment by Joan Denoo on April 6, 2013 at 10:49pm

Comment by Joan Denoo on April 6, 2013 at 6:25pm

"The moment of truth has arrived. According to press reports, President Obama has openly embraced cutting Social Security and veterans benefits by imposing the "chained CPI" cut on cost of living increases, which is like signing in blood the idea that the federal government's priorities should be owned by the 1% rather than by the 99%. The war in Afghanistan will continue, the boondoggle F-35 "Bankrupter" fighter plane will continue, the $83 billion annual taxpayer subsidy to the "too big to fail" banks will continue, but the earned benefits of America's working families, including disabled veterans and their survivors, will be cut if President Obama has his way."

#ChainedCPI? For Every Social Security Judas, a Primary Challenge

I am outraged and so should every thinking working person and small business owner. There are two pots from which to draw:

1. the big banks and top 1% of the financial community, and

2. those who labor for their earnings and small business owners. 

To collect money from the wage-earners and small businesses and protect the top 1% reveals the true loyalty of our Executive and Legislative Branches of government. The public should be in an outrage state and resist with all their energy. 

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on April 5, 2013 at 10:04pm

On collective capitalism, I saw the Moyers-Wolff interview.

The early 1900s book Mutual Aid by a Russian author describes cooperative efforts during many centuries. It tells of an attempt in Middle Ages Italy to destroy cooperatives.

A 2007 book said there are more than 11,000 employee-owned businesses in the USofA.

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on April 5, 2013 at 9:55pm

Yes, google national initiative and referendum.

I bring up the subject at every relevant opportunity, as I did here.

I've asked political reform organizations, one of them Common Cause, but they've replied saying they're not supporting it.

In 35 years of volunteer (unpaid) activity I've collected thousands of signatures for state initiative campaigns while living in Arizona or California.

Comment by Joan Denoo on April 5, 2013 at 2:38pm

Tom, do you see anyone on the horizon that would implement such a plan? 

Comment by Joan Denoo on April 5, 2013 at 2:37pm

"a collective capitalist" ... that sounds feasible. I read Richard Wolff, and your style resembles his. Are you familiar with his work. Like capitalism, Marxism has not been implemented as he defines it, and I wonder if it can be.
Do you have authors you can recommend?

Richard Wolff, Marxist Economist
http://billmoyers.com/guest/richard-wolff/

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on April 5, 2013 at 10:18am

...a different form of government that works?

Always, always, always ask "...that works for the governed."

Daniel Webster (the pre-Civil War New Hampshire DW) is reputed to have said that when the people make the decisions they won't go too far wrong, but when they let others make decisions for them they can't go right.

People sometimes ask me if I'm a socialist.

When the situation allows for some humor, I reply "I don't want the people who brought us IRS Form 1040 to bring us everything."

When I'm serious I say I'm a collective capitalist; I want employees to own and operate their workplaces. When these owner/operators need managers with special skills, they can hire (and fire) them. When they need capital, they can borrow it from investors.

Instead of the Marxian surplus value going to Wall Street gambling addicts, it goes to the owner/operators. These people might occasionally need bailouts, but taxpayer money will go to taxpayers, not to Wall Street gamblers.

Comment by Joan Denoo on April 4, 2013 at 11:58pm

Has anyone come across a different form of government that works? 

Capitalistic societies produce inequalities as well as Booms and Busts. After a bust, protection of labor increases their share of profits from production of goods and services. Over years, booms sucks money out of labor into capitalist's bank accounts. It happened many times in USA. 

Business Booms and Depressions Since 1775

Socialism is a form of government that owns, regulates and administrates the production and distribution of goods and services as it attempts to reduce social, economic, medical, and political inequalities among its’ people.

"Socialism's cons: 

Higher Cost than other forms of government, with higher taxes. 

Less Entrepreneurship to start new companies and/or restrict existing companies from being very dynamic. 

Less Rags-to-Riches as poorest people tend to not work harder, get a higher education, and innovate, because they are guaranteed a minimum standard of comfortable living. 

Big Government means more taxes, bigger bureaucracy, and more power in the government’s hands. Because governments tend to be  slow to change, it tends to mean stagnation and less innovation."

The Pros and Cons of Socialism

I wonder if all this is true? I don't know. 

What about labor owned enterprises? 

Richard Wolff on Curing Capitalism  March 22, 2013.

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on April 4, 2013 at 3:25pm

"BAILOUTS: From each according to his ability, to each according to his lack thereof."

Great!

A paraphrase?

"BAILOUTS: From America's wealthy a tiny fraction of their ability; to America's wealthy amounts proportional to their investments in politicians' needs."

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on April 4, 2013 at 3:18pm

GC and Joan,

Doesn't the Federal Deposit Insurance (FDIC) program "bail out", or protect, depositors? FDIC has been around all of my adult life and I figured it to be one of FDR's Depression-era programs.

Far left critics can attack FDIC by saying that protecting depositors also protected capitalism, but attacking capitalism's excesses by pitching small depositors to the wolves deserves little consideration.

I see Clinton's Glass-Steagall repeal, which let the gambling-addicts' banks use FDIC-insured deposits, as a gift to the gamblers.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 61
• Next ›
• Page