The problem of Capitalism

What's a "warfare state" ?
(without reference to the 1941-1945 American debt economy)

 

The military/industrial complex.

 

So you would have opposed the 1941 USA military build up?
You oppose Russia's military industrial complex when people there are still so poor?
You oppose the massive military expansion of China with carriers, nukes, fighter aircraft,
submarines, anti-satellite tech, rail guns, laser weapons etc.?
You think America should dismantle its "nuclear umbrella" and free up all the nations of
Asia to go it alone with atomic weapons?
What do you think of Lebanon, a third world country, having 130,000 missiles?
You okay with Iran developing a nuclear weapon and expanding into Syria, Iraq, Lebanon
and the gulf?

 

Patent falsehood. The most poignant being the fact that Hitler stopped paying remunerations to England and France, which were exacted by the peace-agreement of WW1. The Germany economy recovered quickly and all the rest is history.

I mention the above only because it shows how wrong you are. There are many other incidences where in any recession government expenditure can repair unemployment damages - the most recent being under Obama. Here is the what happened to skyrocketing unemployment once he took control and passed the ARRA spending-bill.

From the BLS here - Historical Unemployment Rate:

Unemployment rate (%) on the vertical-axis, year on the horizontal.

Unemployment actually peaked at 10% in late 2009. ARRA had been passed in February 2009, early in the Obama Administration, and its reductive-effect took place in 2010.

You are very loose with the historical facts ... !

 

Yours. Not mine ...

 

No, it isn't macro. I'm talking about INDIVIDUALS being the change they seek, not a Govt working against the wishes of individuals. At present, very few people wish to be the change, hence .. no change.

'Above poverty employment' may be a philosophical right, but that right is secured and protected by the actions of the self and/or the immediate community. It's not protected by Govt, nor should it be.

Again with this 'above poverty employment'. So what happens when a person of poverty wage level skill (and zero interest in changing that) claims one of those protected jobs, just 'cause? What happens to the guy who actually earned his way into that job? He gets a 'poverty level' job instead? This is just one of the million reasons why such a thing would be a disaster.

 

But the privileged take from the community, while the rest of us are taken to the cleaners.

And is the world fixed? How long do you figure it'll take you?

You are applying a band-aid to a cancer, and on that basis claiming superior virtue. Sorry, doesn't cut it.

The hardest thing in the world: thinking.

Indeed.

 

That actually made the recession last longer and unemployment to remain higher. Had they done nothing it would have been over more quickly.

 

Yes, government spending makes the people poorer, especially when it's spent on the military. Tanks aren't as useful as cars for regular folks. The US doesn't need a massive military to defend itself when it has a nuclear arsenal. The massive military is only needed if we are to be the policemen of the world, but that just causes blowback.

 

Do you mean: when Lehmann collapsed, if governments had done nothing, the GFC would have resolved itself?

Agreed...so if the US is not to be the "policeman of the world", who is?

 

That's right: you are talking about micro economics (individually based) - that's my point.

More micro-economics

You haven't read one of the 15 points in professor Harvey's article.
If you do, you will find those questions are irrelevant.

 

That's like saying if the government didn't provide hurricane relief, would the houses have rebuilt themselves? Your question seems to posit that the economy is some force of nature or something. The economy is just a group of people producing, trading, investing and consuming. A better question is: when Lehmann collapsed, if one group of people had done nothing, would another group of people have fixed the problem? Of course. That's how every problem throughout all of time has ever been solved.

Not my problem.

 

???
My question remains.

Hint: people today would/will not accept another Great Depression-style unemployment disaster. Governments knew they had to step in, to prevent a collapse of the world's financial system - a system rendered unstable by neoliberal policies - to avoid a general social/political disaster.

cf with the 30's where unemployment was accepted in a more passive manner (and eg, Ford's thugs could get away with murdering 4 of his own unemployed workers, during a protest march...)

Admittedly you are not displaying much capacity for independent thought*, so I can see why you might adopt that stance.

[*Individual liberty is fine, but needs counterbalancing by community oversight (aka rule of law) - obviously.]

Btw, your contention that Hayek disproved Keynes' concept of deficit spending (in recessions) has been shown to be wrong.

Hayek felt it necessary to defend classical liberalism as late as the 70's because communism was still a force at that time.

But now we know we need both public and private sector activity.

 

WINNER-TAKES-ALL-VOTES-RULE

Bollocks!

What made the unemployment last longer is that the HofR turned Replicant in the 2010 midterms and they REFUSED ALL FURTHER STIMULUS SPENDING. No net job-creation occurred from 2010 to 2014 - BLS Employment-to-population Ratio history (here):

From 2010 to 2014 Net-New-Job Creation Stagnated. It was in 2014 when - all by itself - the country's economy finally started creating Net-New-Jobs once again! FOUR LONG YEARS LATER! Because the Replicants that controlled the HofR refused all further job-creation stimulus-spending!

By the time Donald Dork was wrongfully elected PotUS (2015), the country was already putting people back to work. He had nothing whatsoever to do with Building New Jobs. None, nada, nichts, niente, zip, tipota!

And it still is creating net-new-jobs for the moment. Thanks in no part whatsoever to Donald Dork. He just happened to get wrongfully elected. (HE LOST THE POPULAR-VOTE AND WAS ELECTED BY A MANIPULATION OF THE ELECTORAL-COLLEGE!)

Will you get the statistical-facts right?

See here the history-wise outcome of the Electoral College popular-vote and note that both Bush (2000) and Donald Dork (2016) were losers of the popular-vote but winners in the Electoral College because of its state-level warped vote-counting "WINNER-TAKES-ALL-VOTES-RULE"!

You THINK you live in a functionally True-Democracy, and you've got that wrong as well ... !

 

WHO do you think should be the global policeman, given that
it has to be someone?

Consider the "blowback" when America is NOT a policeman.
Imagine is America gave England and France security guarantees
in 1914 and 1939 - there would have been no WWI and WWII.

 

Okay, so the US scraps its military, except for its nuclear force.
No soldiers, no sailors, no airmen.
That trillion dollars get spent on a welfare state.

All sorts of bad things start happening - the most obvious one
is that America must look at each and every conflict as a purely
nuclear one. So when Iran challenges America in the gulf then
America has the only option of hitting the button.

 

Seriously, until you step up and demonstrate that you mean what you say, it's all hot air. Any lazy ****wit can sit around thinking what he imagines are lofty thoughts.

 

Actually it was my point. And I reiterate, that's where it must start, and continue. It's the only place it can start and continue, in a capitalist democracy.

 

You can in no way support that assertion.

 

Fact: individuals practice economics at the micro level (by definition).

This means, for example, if individuals choose to pay down debt and save rather than consume, all at the same time in certain circumstances as at present, governments must then deal with the macroeconomic issues, namely slowing growth and looming recession. (This matter effect identified by Keynes as the "paradox of thrift", leading to negative macroeconomic effects ie for the whole economy).

BTW some stats on the latest wealth and taxes in the US.

https://www.wwnorton.co.uk/books/9781324002727-the-triumph-of-injustice

<<Considering all taxes paid at all levels of governments in 2018, the authors find that: “Contrary to widely held view, US tax system is not progressive. The effective rate of tax takes into account all forms of taxation on the individual (income taxes, corporate tax, capital income taxes etc). On that measure for the top 400 income holders(billionaires) the effective tax rate is 23% while it is 25-30% for working and middle classes. America’s tax system is now technically ‘regressive’ and is “a new engine for increasing inequality.”>>

Meanwhile, your prescription Is individual responsibility.

 

1) It will never happen 'all at the same time' in a free democracy. People will always choose their moment, according to their own lights. The only way it can happen all at the same time is if it's compelled via force. That doesn't change the fact that those who make poor choices then complain of penury, should be taking that approach asap.

2) 100%. But I would replace the word 'individual' with 'personal'. 'Individual' suggests voluntary isolationism and its resulting dependence upon 'the system' (ie, random strangers funding the things you refuse to do for yourself or your loved ones). You can be personally responsible in a collective. In fact, it's essential.

 

??
Central banks are discovering they cannot increase economic activity by lowering interest rates, because household debt is too high, and consumers are simply paying down debt faster, rather than spending the savings (from lower interest rates) into the economy as desired by the central bankers. Nothing to do with "force".

You ignored the implications of the (macroeconomic) tax system in the US, leading to unsustainable increasing wealth inequality - which is behind eg, the "shameful increase in crime in Chicago" (Trump).

50% of the US population are living with chronic financial insecurity - resulting in health-destruction. .

Meanwhile Chile and Lebanon - all good capitalist economies - are imploding because their leaders expect their citizens to be able to survive on personal responsibility....

 

Why would Iran challenge America in the Gulf of Mexico? Or did you mean the Persian Gulf, as in the body of water next to their home? Did you ever stop to think that it's wrong for the US to impose it's will on other countries' properties?

 

Q1 - do you think it's okay for Iran to impose its will In the Persian Gulf?
This gulf is share directly by Saudi, Iraq, Qatar, Oman, Pakistan, UAE and Kuwait.
Q2 - do you accept this gulf is indirectly shared by all the nations that rely upon oil?
Q3 - if the gulf states are powerless to act against Iran blocking the gulf, and the
international states which rely upon oil are not in a position to stand up to Iran, then
who should speak for the international trade order?
Q4 - the UN is just a mouth piece for political interests, and does zip about preventing
wars - should we appeal to it for support, or America?

 

Answer: doesn't matter because the US has no right to intervene. Those countries have to figure out their problems between each other. We get most of our oil from Canada or our own oilfields these days anyway. As the last 50 years has proven, when the US intervenes it only makes things worse.