People, this isn't just about Health Insurance Companies or CEOs. As Caitlin says "These abuses are the product of the exploitative, profit-driven, competition-based systems under which we live".
i.e. CAPITALISM (in all its forms).
Capitalism NEEDS wars (for the profits of MIC corporations), it needs COLONIZATION and IMPERIALISM (to sustain the profits of the corporations of "rich" nations and Oligarchs). Capitalism creates "artificial scarcity" in food, water, other resources, etc. so that they can charge more by controlling the supply - thereby increasing PROFITS.
THE SYSTEMS (that govern people and the resources of the planet) NEED TO BE CHANGED!!!
Chang, you’re right, with the exception of two words: “competition-based”. The whole raison d’être of the outlaw US empire is to eliminate competition. Oligarchs are not interested in competing. They’re interested in forming a cartel and eliminating anyone who tries to complete.
Apologies, I failed to take into account that Chang is quoting Caitlin. But then Chang uses the quote in slightly misleading way (imho) to define “capitalism”. Capitalism is something that existed in the mid-19th century. What we have now is “monopolistic cartelism” (i.e. gangsterism). It’s like robber-barons, but with smartphone-based mind control.
Capitalism has existed since the mid 15th Century (i.e. around 1450). There are MULTIPLE "kinds" of Capitalism (just like there are multiple kinds of Socialism, Communism, etc.) - BUT -> they are all still Capitalism (call it neoliberalism, techno-feudalism, or whatever else you want).
multiple - "resource-based socialist system" is my preference - respecting the MOST important things on the planet -> resources (earth, etc.) and life (people, other species).
Also note that multiple variations of economic systems exist simultaneously in multiple different parts of the planet (for example: currently there exists some forms of slavery, feudalism, mercantilism, capitalism, socialism, and others in different pockets of human geography).
Check out Peter Joseph (for more on resource-based systems).
The Resource-based socialist system reminds me of Eco-Socialism.
When exploring alternative economies I'm curious to find out who will get to issue the credit as opposed to the present system where a very small group appears to have the monopoly.
In the end - alternative economies can only succeed with self government instead of being ruled from afar.
Yes! Competition is what the Capitalists DON'T WANT. Monopolies is what allows the Oligarchs and Empire Managers to make obscene profits. Real competition decreases profits. Hence, these Capitalists abhor competition and will do ANYTHING to eliminate it - where ever it finds it.
Capitalists often defend corporate mergers on the grounds that they supposedly increase competition. That is a clear misdirection. Mergers actually reduce overall competition by making the resultant merged company more competitive vis a vis its rivals. Don’t be fooled by this head-fake.
that seems to be the whole point of competing, not? in the end someone wins, eliminating competition seems inherent to competing, especially when you put basic needs (food, shelter, health,...) on the playing field. for the rich it is a game, for the poor it's a matter of life and death.
Seems like your definition of competition is totally circular logic. “Competition = No Competition”. Or in other words, you define competition as “the creation of monopolies.”
indeed, competition is a cul-de-sac with monopoly as the ultimate goal of the mechanism. other people studied this and came to the same conclusion. convincing people it's something different has become an important part in outsmarting competition.
>>"Monopolies cannot survive in a truly capitalistic economy."
INCORRECT.
Monopolies is an intrinsic feature of CAPITALISM. Capitalism (and all that it entails) leads to monopolies.
There is nothing like "truly capitalistic economy" - who's definition is adhered to for "truly" and "untruly" Capitalism? Yours? Other Capitalism apologists? Imperialists or Colonialists? Neoliberals? The Oligarchy and the power elite?
Stephen I think you make an artificial distinction. Capitalism will always seek to achieve monopoly and eventually, because of corruption, will always achieve it.
It’s like making a distinction between someone who wants to murder but is prevented from doing so, and someone who murders with impunity. The former is preferable to the latter obviously, but a non-homicidal condition is better.
One direct important link --Capitalism creates the Neg-health conditions that create disease care, which is what we have -- not health care. Get the populace sedentary, eating processed high-corn-syrup garbage, meat from tortured animals. Promote their indulging in physical activity for which they're unfit, and accepting the tenet that "bacteria and fungi are all evil", and you have the setup for less-than healthy people who will sometimes necessarily and often just through their brainwashing turn to symptom-care, i.e. DISEASE-CARE. This is NOT health care. Health care is proactive. Disease care is after the fact and symptomatically palliative; sells a ton of drugs. It's mostly what we've got. This is a conspiracy where all aspects of the capitalist horror show conspire to direct Americans into a perverse model supporting gigantic drug consumption & profits.
Yes, the system is PERVERSE in the US. The "so-called" health-care system succeeds (and makes money) by MAKING people UNHEALTHY. Profits are generated and expanded by UNHEALTHY people, and not healthy ones. Hence, it is in Capitalism's interest to make/keep people UNHEALTHY so as to generate a continuous revenue stream of profits. Talk about PURE EVIL! Capitalism makes MORE MONEY over sickness and death than healthy people.
Worked for a while very good in China (don't know if they still practice it). Sorry I am more pessimistic, it is a fundamental flaw in ALL humans (as shown in Gabor Mate's book, GREED is an addiction like any other form, so what to do, we kill the ones now and it will just start all over again ...)
An incremental tax system would help. The more money a person makes, the larger the percentage of income they pay which makes it pointless to earn more money at a certain level of earnings.
Playing with the tax on "incomes" doesn't help/address the problems. What needs to be taxed is WEALTH. Billionaires (and corporations) have already figured out how to play the "taxes on incomes" game to their advantage.
It is not as easy to play "games" with wealth as it is with taxes - hence the vociferous and vehement opposition to taxes on wealth (by the wealthy).
Hiding wealth is orders of magnitude more challenging (even for billionaires) than is income. Take the example of any billionaire in the US, say Elon Musk for example. Musk can have an income of $0 (through accounting strategies), but hiding ownership of stocks, bonds, other securities is something else entirely. Same for Jeff Bezos of Amazon, etc.
We currently DO have progressive taxation (not only in the Western world but in many other non-Western countries too).
I'm not sure where you're getting your information of "dismantled", but that is false. Anyone that has filed their taxes in the US (or other Western countries) on their own knows this.
In the USA this progressive taxation has become outdated and is woefully inadequate. Loopholes have been added right and left, and those at the very top escape anything that would resemble fair taxation. You, my friend, are the one who needs to educate yourself.
Marci, sorry - you are right. I misunderstood your earlier comment. Yes, we still have a progressive taxation system that has been completely loopholed (as you say) to make it ineffective to address all the social issues it was designed to tackle.
Part of the problem is the "taxation on income" loophole. Instead, it should be augmented with "taxation on wealth", "taxation on net worth", taxation on "usage/behaviors", etc.
C.C., I can't agree that greed is human nature. Anthropologists will tell you that H. Sapiens Sapiens are hyper social primates - our innate nature is to help each other and share. If it wasn't our ancestors would not have survived and we wouldn't be here.
Greed is soiciopathic behavior and as such, an aberration.
Greed, jelousy, need for higher social status, etc. all these are natural human behaviors/emotions.
Is there any way to prove/disprove that greed is NOT natural to human psychology? (Remember, anthropology is an inexact science and we are always discovering more about our past - and there is much disagreement amongst anthropologists concerning evolutionary psychology and human behavior).
Some, myself included, would say that the fact that the human race has survived this long is proof.
To borrow from 'The Descent Of Woman' by Elaine Morgan, our pre - hominid ancestors - Australopithecus Afarensis - weren't armoured, did not have fangs and claws to fend off hungry predators and couldn't run fast enough to escape them. They survived by banding together and living and working co-operatively.
Given that we still have a vestigial tail and a vestigial appendix, it seems quite reasonable to surmise we have retained characteristics of far more value.
Keep in mind too,that a lack of evidence is not proof of the negative. Can you prove there's not a teapot in orbit around the Earth?
Meanwhile, most science is inexact. Anybody seen Schrodingers' Cat?
Exactly (in reference to the teapot and Schrodingers' Cat). Multiple theories. No concrete proof. No hypothesis to be nullified (scientifically speaking).
There are theories that greed is innate. There are other theories that greed is not innate. Does anyone know for sure? Why are we arguing about something that we cannot be sure about?
Greed is innate in some individuals, but that doesn't make it less psychopathic. (The definitions have probably changed over the years, but originally a "sociopath" was merely a repeat criminal, driven to repeat criminal behavior, whereas a "psychopath" need not be a lawbreaker, but was born devoid of empathy and would strive to serve only himself while feigning concern for other humans. I prefer to stick to the original meanings of these words.)
Any scientific evidence that "greed" is not innate? Any definite consensus amongst anthropologists or evolutionary psychologists?
Who decides what human behaviors/emotions are natural or not? On what criteria? Does anyone know for sure? The manifestation of GREED is present in the oldest of stories/myths of mankind (way before the Bible).
It's pretty rich of you to demand scientific evidence that greed is not innate, when you provided no evidence whatsoever for your assertion that greed IS innate. Hypocrisy much?
There is evidence of altruism and social cooperation going back to Australopithecus afarensis. Altruistic people who are socially cooperative don't tend to be the greedy bastards.
Read the Upanishads! The Vedantists etc We westerners only know maybe 10% of what we are and what we are capable of achieving. With an “illuminated heart” one has “eyes that can see” “ ears that can hear” and a compassionate will that can really help people to wake up to their capacity for real wisdom!
Totally agree. There are individuals, philanthropists who lack greed altogether. Also there are layers to greed. I know many who are content with a modest lifestyle, and for whom re-using/repurposing old items brings more joy than buying new. Some persons are driven by fear of destitution rather than primarily greed to acquire and hoard wealth.
"Greed is a PART of human behavior".... and human behavior is the result of survival needs, which makes greed take a back seat to optimal survival conditions. In answer to a question as to his desire to earn more billions, Ted Turner once said that he would never be poor.... or something close to that effect... implying that in his mind, 3 o4 billion bucks weren't quite enough to satisfy his fears... Was it greed, or feeling more secure??
I'm not American but one of my American political heroes was Huey P. long with his slogan 'Every man a king'. He proposed that once anyone had more than a million dollars, the Govt should tax their brains out.
Do you know what was the resulting effect? Corporations paid MORE to employees and invested more in "research & development". They decided that instead of paying MORE to the Govt. in taxes, might as well PAY EMPLOYEES MORE and increase productivity.
These days, all the money/profits goes into STOCK BUYBACKS and artificially increasing stock prices and pay packages of "upper management", CEOs, and Board Members.
BTW, this is JUST ONE example of how incentives can work. There are many more throughout history.
It was called "The Red Scare" for a reason. There was NO REAL THREAT - it was a manufactured narrative - Communists (and they were NOT Communists in reality - Stalin NEVER was) were not going to destroy and conquer the Americas. It was geopolitics, empire games, and Capitalism.
>>"at the discretion of bankers, paid employees more during a time period when - rightly or wrongly - a second or alternative system was still out there in the world"
Seriously? Is that the narrative you CHOOSE to believe? That there was REAL Communism? And that it was a REAL threat?
I suggest studying American economic history to understand the motivations behind different policies (and the resulting changes in socio-economic classes) rather than believing false narratives propagated by the Capitalists.
>>"It's not about incentivizing stuff; it's about disincentivizing the manifestations of greed for greed's sake"
Suggestions? Examples? Incentives (and disincentives) are created (through various policies) to manifest desirable behaviors (and changes in behaviors).
Example: Increase TAX on smoking to disincentivize the behavior.
Similarly, create policies that disincentivize behaviors that lead to excess greed.
>>"Do you even know what DROVE the economic successes for the middle and upper middle classes in the US during that time period, including 1968?"
There are MULTIPLE reasons.
>>"It was the heavy government subsidization of science, manufacturing and technology SPECIFICALLY to counter the "red menace" during the Cold War"
Is that your theory/intuition? Without falling into the "correlation is causation" trap, how would you justify that line of reasoning?
At the end of WW2, the US had excess production capacity, strong manufacturing base, and a healthy and unharmed economy (unlike Europe, Soviet Union, Japan, etc.). This is when consumerism kicked into high gear and the "American Dream" was a reality (for white folk). Taxes HAD to be increased to fight inflation. That increase in taxes (including personal tax rates and high interest rates) incentivized certain behaviors.
Greed is a very dicey definition of issues when everyone knows what a lack of money implies.... Greed is almost a misnomer for the "survival of the fittest".... The latter thought is not pretty, but neither are the consequences of extreme poverty...
Yes, systems need to be changed, but they don’t change or create themselves. So what needs to happen is for smart, honest, intelligent, compassionate and incorruptible people to replace the corrupt, incompetent ones, and take charge and build new systems or mechanisms from the ground up. Now we get into the problem of where do these people come from? Unfortunately, the wrong kind of people tend to be attracted to positions of power and influence. On top of that we have human nature with all its flaws and shortcomings. The other unfortunate reality is that it takes years, decades, even generations for significant change to occur and new systems to evolve.
Do you know much about the work of Marx and Engels? He wrote little about Socialism, and even less about Communism.
His main work was about Capitalism - understanding it, studying it, explaining its flaws and failings, and predicting where Capitalism eventually leads.
If you want to TRULY understand Capitalism, STUDY the 3 volumes of Das Kapital (and not hacks like Ludwig Von Misses, Milton Friedman, etc.). Adam Smith also did good work on Capitalism - and Marx truly respected Adam Smith.
(1) Das Kapital Volume 1: Talks about the Capitalist mode of Production (and how production differs under different systems)
(2) Das Kapital Volume 2: Talks about how money "circulates" in the system of Capitalism (including the process of accumulation of capital)
(3) Das Kapital Volume 3: Talks/Analyzes the complete system of Capitalism - all aspects of it - putting all the different parts of the system together to explain how Capitalism ALWAYS leads to cycles of Booms and Busts - it is an intrinsic characteristic of Capitalism. It talks about the failures/weaknesses/faults in the system of Capitalism and how it leads to problems in the world.
So, YES - if you want to REALLY understand Capitalism, read Marx and Engels (everything else is secondary).
If the SYSTEMS are not changed, it doesn't matter if people are changed or not. Even if people are changed, the new ones adapt to the demands of the system in order to succeed in it.
Example: Politics. If the System of politics is corrupt, doesn't matter if you get the most honest saint into that system. If that "honest saint" is to "truly succeed" in this corrupt system, the "honest saint" will have to change to survive and thrive in the corrupt political system. Take examples from histories of real-life politicians in the US.
American tax dollars in the billions, go to the Zionist government committed to genocide, and to the Israeli citizenry cheering it on, with cradle-to-grace healthcare.
No, tax dollars don't go anywhere except to the incinerator (actually edits in digital ledgers). The Govt. DOESN'T NEED tax dollars for spending purposes. (Taxes serve different purposes). The US Treasury (with the Fed) can print whatever money it needs (as proven by the bank bailouts and Covid spending, amongst others). Check out MMT (if you want to understand how it really works instead of the narratives that people have been fed).
I have listened to my husband, who is a statistician, but with a sound background in economics, and an economist friend explain to me how the Fed can simply print the money it needs, and it boggles my mind every time I listen to them. I can't be the only confused person.
But getting back to the greed motive. If the basic instinct is to survive, then competitiveness must be innate. Maybe what we compete on is relative to the society in which we live, or the social milieu in which we find ourselves. Greed, whether it be of money, land, power, etc. could be seen as an aid to survival. Ok, my brain is getting tired, but I must say, it's been a very interesting discussion.
Sure, greed like many other traits such as, hmmm, eating, is innate. And we all know what happens when you over eat. It's threatens your health, and as you continue getting fatter because of overeating, it eventually makes you feel asyou can't control your innate instinct to eat.
We all know we must be measured and disciplined in what we eat, how much, and time of day. And we see the pain, humiliation and often short lives of those who chronically over eat. Yet none of us are asking for govt intervention to create prime conditions for over eating.
Greed may have always been with us, but greed at this level is beyond toxic. It's murderous, genocidal. And it's harming the very systems that support life, the environment, the planet and the people.
If gov't will not intervene to stop greed, and they will not, some will take it into their hands to do the job that govt won't do.
RIP (but really, I hope you twist in hell for the evil you've done) Brian. I hope you'll have the company of your peers soon.
Yes, agree with you - all these human emotions/psychologies/behaviors are innate (greed, survival, competition, cooperation, altruism, caring, love, hate, anger, etc.). All are needed (in different ways and at different times) to aid in survival.
Think about this. Human evolution is slow. Greed didn't just suddenly evolve in humans when Capitalism came about. It has always existed (in some form/magnitude or another).
I think you are technically correct and missing the point. Infrastructure, Social Security, public education, healthcare, the minimum wage and more, are all marginalized and railed against because they “can’t be afforded.” War and its profiteers see collective needs as weakness and expendable luxuries.
>>"I think you are technically correct and missing the point."
Yes, you are right - and that is partly on purpose - I really want people to understand MMT - because with MMT, one can do ALL the things you mentioned above (Infrastructure, Social Security, public education, healthcare, the minimum wage and more) WITHOUT, repeat WITHOUT taking anything away from some other area (i.e. with MMT, it is NOT a Zero-Sum game wherein someone needs to lose for someone else to win). With MMT, there is a possibility for EVERYONE to benefit, not just SOME people. (Ofcourse, this only applies to countries that have control over their sovereign currencies - and it only applies at the FEDERAL level, not the state or local levels).
"This really nails home the point that the legal system is not intended to protect ordinary citizens from the worst people in our society, it’s there to protect the very worst in our society from ordinary citizens."
Reminds me of a graffiti raid some friends and I did some 20 or so years ago on the then brand new Sydney Police Centre in Surry Hills.
The carpark had multiple warnings painted on walls near parking spots saying "Police Vehicles Only". The stencils we made in the same font to add clarifications below the warnings read "Protect the Ruling Class". We notified some sympathetic reporters and our artwork was on the front page of the SMH the next day.
Very true, though back then far less luck was required.
Most of my Fairfax contacts came via my friend Wendy Bacon, who had exposed the 'Police BBQ set' connections between the Armed Holdup Squad and Neddy Smith in the National Times. I think Antony Loewenstein was still a Fairfax cadet back then too. I could even count on sympathetic coverage of some issues in The Australian thanks to Elisabeth Wynhausen.
I gave up reading the National Times after Kerry 'The Goanna' Packer nobbled its distribution, forcing it to reinvent itself as the much watered-down broadsheet 'The Times on Sunday' under Robert Haupt.
I stopped buying the SMH in the early 2000s because of its racist coverage of corruption allegations in First Nations NGOs, but continued to work for some time with their investigative reporter Gerard Ryle and received tips from the NSW parliament reporter Paola Totaro when she couldn't put them in the SMH.
As for the ABC, I never used to watch or listen to myself on air when they interviewed me and gave up on them entirely during the incredibly racist and dishonest Lateline coverage of NT First Nations communities that culminated in the Mutitjulu story and triggered the NT Intervention. Though there's still a couple of ABC reporters I consider friends I swore off all collaboration with ABC journalism, though I've recently broken that commitment at the urging of some of my activist colleagues.
Nah! Wrong rag. Nation Review was a left wing weekly featuring people like Mungo McCallum, Bob Ellis, Patrick Cook and Leunig. And others, mind you I'm thinking more of the '70s in Sydney.
I used to enjoy listening to Mungo on 2JJ and usually like Leunig cartoons. Patrick Cook, of course, did the often excellent cartoon on the back page of the National Times. As for Ellis, he was always all over the shop but I love an entertaining ratbag. There's something very 'Sydney' about that style.
"This really nails home the point that the legal system is not intended to protect ordinary citizens from the worst people in our society, it’s there to protect the very worst in our society from ordinary citizens."
I caught this quote on X that says pretty much the same thing:
"Some will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen." - Woody Guthrie
I really hope the message is received--the workers are tired of dying for CEOs who make millions out of denying health care coverage. The shoe is on the other foot now.
In 1902, American lawyer Clarence Darrow said, “Those men who own the earth make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world.”
"If a poor man is sent to jail for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family, how high must the gallows be to hang a rich man who steals out of greed?"
The billionaires who make obscene profits from Big Pharma spend 100s of millions of dollars buying the politicians and it obviously works, or else they wouldn't be spending the millions. Then they turn around and say, "government is the problem" - and they need to be taxed less, and less regulations on their rapacious private corporations. What a racket eh?
The corruption of Congress i.e. the so-called leadership of our society, then like a cancer spreads into society itself. And this corruption has been ongoing now for decades, where laws and rules and the Constitution itself are routinely ignored in the pursuit of mostly more profit being funneled to a relatively few individuals (such as Elon Musk) - at the expense of all the rest of the society, who no longer benefits "fairly" from the fruits of a free society. Egregious wealth Inequality really is the basis of the current demise of the US. It's not "government" - government is just a mechanism, a tool - that the wealthy have taken over in a way that should never have been allowed to happen (why we had a Constitution and a 3 tier government system of checks and balances in the first place).
"Anyone who rakes in billions is building an empire on the blood, sweat and tears of ordinary people." - absolutely bang on.
I've mentioned this elsewhere, but companies and billionaires know they can get away with this because capitalism is not just an economic system, it’s also a social imaginary.
It has shaped what we expect of the world, including training us that we shouldn’t expect anything better from corporations because “they’re just doing their job protecting shareholder interests”!
I'm given shaking-head resignation by family and friends (including one last night visiting me from Chicago) who apparently consider me senile/dementia-ridden: four years ago at 77 yo, I blew off the "Big Four": Big Pharma, Big Med, Big Dentistry, Big Veterinary (angst for my best-friend puppy...). I simply decided as my pallid protest of the "system" to go out "my way"...and so far I'm riding the wave, hangin' in there. I have a DNR on prominent notice and have informed my two daughters that I want to die at home. Senility, dementia, insanity?--that's okay by me. (I do concede to a "glaucoma drop" in each eye at bedtime, but no other meds....)
Next for me is home insurance [aka "Big Insurance"], due in April. Last (this) year my annual fee nearly doubled (I protested loudly to no avail), and I hear ominous rumblings for 2025. I've had no effing fires in my home for 53 effing years...what to do? My "widower nest" will be "possessed" if I don't pay....
As an American who has suffered immensely at the hands of the oligarchs in this country, it is, to my delight, that I deeply appreciate, respect, and express immense gratitude to the so-called ‘killer.’ I hope there are many others planning similar actions, particularly targeting the heads of every single Wall Street firm…where the true evil resides.
Wall Street has inflicted immense harm on ordinary Americans, prioritizing profits over people’s well-being. From the financial crisis of 2008, where reckless greed caused millions to lose their homes, jobs, and life savings, to predatory lending practices that trap families in cycles of debt, the suffering they’ve caused is incalculable. They manipulate markets, exploit workers, and widen the gap between the wealthy and the struggling, all while remaining shielded from accountability.
In comparison, the CEO of a health insurer appears angelic next to the individuals on Wall Street. Their actions embody the worst aspects of unchecked capitalism, turning human lives into mere numbers on a balance sheet. If this begins happening soon, there might finally be a light at the end of the tunnel, offering hope for the revival of humanity.
Hey, Chang. Thanks, brother. I might be too old by the time it comes, so I don’t know if I’ll live to see the change I’m hoping for, but my only comfort is knowing it’s on its way. It’ll be bloody, it’ll be violent, but for people like us—those who’ve been wronged for so long—it’ll be something beautiful. So much has been taken from me: my businesses, the work I put blood and sweat into, my homes—they took it all. They even hurt my children. But like I said, my only peace is that I know payback is coming. I just don’t know if I’ll be here to see it.
It’s the law of nature, the law of physics—it’s coming, and it’s coming soon. If you look at any graph that shows the disparity between the wealthy elite and the rest of us—the working class, the poor—you can see it. The gap keeps widening, and it can’t go on for much longer. Sooner or later, the system will break. It’s coming, Chang. It’s coming soon.
Yes, and like you - I don't think I'll live long enough to see the changes. It's going to get a a lot worse before it gets better... but like you, I hope positive changes come (if not for us then for future generations at least - and all the other species of the planet).
>>"I hope there are many others planning similar actions, particularly targeting the heads of every single Wall Street firm…where the true evil resides."
Again, I whole-heartedly agree!
>>"In comparison, the CEO of a health insurer appears angelic next to the individuals on Wall Street."
Obamacare actually made it worse as impossible as that sounds. There are no limits on premiums and deductibles which few people reach or, if they do, the company (hand in glove with healthcare providers) make sure you’ve signed an agreement if your insurance doesn’t cover, you’re responsible. Glenn Greenwald had this experience when his husband became gravely ill and died.
“When you strip capitalism’s justifying myths away, you see something that should be obvious. Capitalism is not, as its defenders insist, a system designed to distribute wealth, but one designed to capture and concentrate it. The fairy tale that capitalism tells about itself—that you become rich through hard work and enterprise—is the greatest propaganda coup in human history.” Excerpt From Invisible Doctrine George Monbiot & Peter Hutchison
Next capitalism is based upon private ownership and use of capital
NONE FOR THE STATE
Otherwise, it is corrupted but may look like capitalism - frequently called MIXED
The U.S, never was one merely by the size of the states they ran under and the capital they had reality available to them if not already regulated and controlling
"the legal system is not intended to protect ordinary citizens from the worst people in our society, it’s there to protect the very worst in our society from ordinary citizens"----a collection of quotes from your articles can be combined in a nice book
Give them just enough so they have to come back tomorrow,the next day,the next. Dealt with insurance companies that denied I had an injury and could not work. Told you would be put under surveillance. We will be watching you. They are scum.
People, this isn't just about Health Insurance Companies or CEOs. As Caitlin says "These abuses are the product of the exploitative, profit-driven, competition-based systems under which we live".
i.e. CAPITALISM (in all its forms).
Capitalism NEEDS wars (for the profits of MIC corporations), it needs COLONIZATION and IMPERIALISM (to sustain the profits of the corporations of "rich" nations and Oligarchs). Capitalism creates "artificial scarcity" in food, water, other resources, etc. so that they can charge more by controlling the supply - thereby increasing PROFITS.
THE SYSTEMS (that govern people and the resources of the planet) NEED TO BE CHANGED!!!
Chang, you’re right, with the exception of two words: “competition-based”. The whole raison d’être of the outlaw US empire is to eliminate competition. Oligarchs are not interested in competing. They’re interested in forming a cartel and eliminating anyone who tries to complete.
Apologies, I failed to take into account that Chang is quoting Caitlin. But then Chang uses the quote in slightly misleading way (imho) to define “capitalism”. Capitalism is something that existed in the mid-19th century. What we have now is “monopolistic cartelism” (i.e. gangsterism). It’s like robber-barons, but with smartphone-based mind control.
Capitalism has existed since the mid 15th Century (i.e. around 1450). There are MULTIPLE "kinds" of Capitalism (just like there are multiple kinds of Socialism, Communism, etc.) - BUT -> they are all still Capitalism (call it neoliberalism, techno-feudalism, or whatever else you want).
No
Capitalism is based upon private ownership and use of capital
Not for the COERCIVE monopoly state as you would prefer
Any state in a capitalist society will be very very minimal
ANy state is a good sign that capitalism has already been corrupted by those controlling the area
The U.S. only had a mixed economy from the scratch that people called capitalism despite the definition of private ownership
Calling a girl a boy doesn't make her one.
Calling a fascist a capitalist doesn't make them such, either.
You need to work on your analogies AND on your logic. Try again.
Your analogies are illogical.
Alternatives to the present economic system?
multiple - "resource-based socialist system" is my preference - respecting the MOST important things on the planet -> resources (earth, etc.) and life (people, other species).
Also note that multiple variations of economic systems exist simultaneously in multiple different parts of the planet (for example: currently there exists some forms of slavery, feudalism, mercantilism, capitalism, socialism, and others in different pockets of human geography).
Check out Peter Joseph (for more on resource-based systems).
The Resource-based socialist system reminds me of Eco-Socialism.
When exploring alternative economies I'm curious to find out who will get to issue the credit as opposed to the present system where a very small group appears to have the monopoly.
In the end - alternative economies can only succeed with self government instead of being ruled from afar.
A return to the free market of the late 18th century, before Hamilton dragged us back into mercantilism for the City of London.
(1) Capitalism is NOT "free-markets"
(2) Concepts like "free-markets" are a misnomer - free markets don't exists - never have.
(3) Study the history of human economics - markets are usually created by the state and regulated so as to promote "freeness"
(4) Without market regulation, monopolies and those with power wield their own whims/fancies/rules on markets and thus making them UNFREE.
an actual Free Market based upon the LIBERAL concept of Freedom of Association.
Even in the MARKET
Others inherently support state-mandated associations including Caitlin
and so-called social "liberals"
Economics are not partisan.
Yes! Competition is what the Capitalists DON'T WANT. Monopolies is what allows the Oligarchs and Empire Managers to make obscene profits. Real competition decreases profits. Hence, these Capitalists abhor competition and will do ANYTHING to eliminate it - where ever it finds it.
Capitalists often defend corporate mergers on the grounds that they supposedly increase competition. That is a clear misdirection. Mergers actually reduce overall competition by making the resultant merged company more competitive vis a vis its rivals. Don’t be fooled by this head-fake.
that seems to be the whole point of competing, not? in the end someone wins, eliminating competition seems inherent to competing, especially when you put basic needs (food, shelter, health,...) on the playing field. for the rich it is a game, for the poor it's a matter of life and death.
Seems like your definition of competition is totally circular logic. “Competition = No Competition”. Or in other words, you define competition as “the creation of monopolies.”
indeed, competition is a cul-de-sac with monopoly as the ultimate goal of the mechanism. other people studied this and came to the same conclusion. convincing people it's something different has become an important part in outsmarting competition.
Monopolies cannot survive in a truly capitalistic economy.
>>"Monopolies cannot survive in a truly capitalistic economy."
INCORRECT.
Monopolies is an intrinsic feature of CAPITALISM. Capitalism (and all that it entails) leads to monopolies.
There is nothing like "truly capitalistic economy" - who's definition is adhered to for "truly" and "untruly" Capitalism? Yours? Other Capitalism apologists? Imperialists or Colonialists? Neoliberals? The Oligarchy and the power elite?
In other words, your definition of monopoly is schizophrenic.
Otherwise known as Capitalism.
Stephen I think you make an artificial distinction. Capitalism will always seek to achieve monopoly and eventually, because of corruption, will always achieve it.
It’s like making a distinction between someone who wants to murder but is prevented from doing so, and someone who murders with impunity. The former is preferable to the latter obviously, but a non-homicidal condition is better.
One direct important link --Capitalism creates the Neg-health conditions that create disease care, which is what we have -- not health care. Get the populace sedentary, eating processed high-corn-syrup garbage, meat from tortured animals. Promote their indulging in physical activity for which they're unfit, and accepting the tenet that "bacteria and fungi are all evil", and you have the setup for less-than healthy people who will sometimes necessarily and often just through their brainwashing turn to symptom-care, i.e. DISEASE-CARE. This is NOT health care. Health care is proactive. Disease care is after the fact and symptomatically palliative; sells a ton of drugs. It's mostly what we've got. This is a conspiracy where all aspects of the capitalist horror show conspire to direct Americans into a perverse model supporting gigantic drug consumption & profits.
Yes, the system is PERVERSE in the US. The "so-called" health-care system succeeds (and makes money) by MAKING people UNHEALTHY. Profits are generated and expanded by UNHEALTHY people, and not healthy ones. Hence, it is in Capitalism's interest to make/keep people UNHEALTHY so as to generate a continuous revenue stream of profits. Talk about PURE EVIL! Capitalism makes MORE MONEY over sickness and death than healthy people.
Criminalizing greed would fix a lot of ills, if there were a way to implement it, which there isn't.
Public hangings several times a year would do wonders to keep businesses in place.
Or bringing back the Guillotine !!!! Even better !!!!
Worked for a while very good in China (don't know if they still practice it). Sorry I am more pessimistic, it is a fundamental flaw in ALL humans (as shown in Gabor Mate's book, GREED is an addiction like any other form, so what to do, we kill the ones now and it will just start all over again ...)
An incremental tax system would help. The more money a person makes, the larger the percentage of income they pay which makes it pointless to earn more money at a certain level of earnings.
Playing with the tax on "incomes" doesn't help/address the problems. What needs to be taxed is WEALTH. Billionaires (and corporations) have already figured out how to play the "taxes on incomes" game to their advantage.
It is not as easy to play "games" with wealth as it is with taxes - hence the vociferous and vehement opposition to taxes on wealth (by the wealthy).
Hiding wealth is orders of magnitude more challenging (even for billionaires) than is income. Take the example of any billionaire in the US, say Elon Musk for example. Musk can have an income of $0 (through accounting strategies), but hiding ownership of stocks, bonds, other securities is something else entirely. Same for Jeff Bezos of Amazon, etc.
There are so many loopholes and ways to hide wealth it's not funny. Income is at least harder to hide.
That used to exist and was called progressive taxation. Long ago dismantled, and made to seem an outrage to ordinary people who benefitted from it.
We currently DO have progressive taxation (not only in the Western world but in many other non-Western countries too).
I'm not sure where you're getting your information of "dismantled", but that is false. Anyone that has filed their taxes in the US (or other Western countries) on their own knows this.
We used to have a watered down version of this, but it has been whittled away in recent years.
??? Where are you getting such "incorrect" information from? Currently, ALL Western countries follow a system of "progressive" taxation.
In the USA this progressive taxation has become outdated and is woefully inadequate. Loopholes have been added right and left, and those at the very top escape anything that would resemble fair taxation. You, my friend, are the one who needs to educate yourself.
Marci, sorry - you are right. I misunderstood your earlier comment. Yes, we still have a progressive taxation system that has been completely loopholed (as you say) to make it ineffective to address all the social issues it was designed to tackle.
Part of the problem is the "taxation on income" loophole. Instead, it should be augmented with "taxation on wealth", "taxation on net worth", taxation on "usage/behaviors", etc.
"Criminalizing Greed" makes NO SENSE whatsoever. Greed is a PART of human behavior and psychology. It is innate.
What needs to happen is to CHANGE the INCENTIVES for encouraging and discouraging different behaviors, and CHANGE the systems.
C.C., I can't agree that greed is human nature. Anthropologists will tell you that H. Sapiens Sapiens are hyper social primates - our innate nature is to help each other and share. If it wasn't our ancestors would not have survived and we wouldn't be here.
Greed is soiciopathic behavior and as such, an aberration.
Greed, jelousy, need for higher social status, etc. all these are natural human behaviors/emotions.
Is there any way to prove/disprove that greed is NOT natural to human psychology? (Remember, anthropology is an inexact science and we are always discovering more about our past - and there is much disagreement amongst anthropologists concerning evolutionary psychology and human behavior).
Some, myself included, would say that the fact that the human race has survived this long is proof.
To borrow from 'The Descent Of Woman' by Elaine Morgan, our pre - hominid ancestors - Australopithecus Afarensis - weren't armoured, did not have fangs and claws to fend off hungry predators and couldn't run fast enough to escape them. They survived by banding together and living and working co-operatively.
Given that we still have a vestigial tail and a vestigial appendix, it seems quite reasonable to surmise we have retained characteristics of far more value.
Keep in mind too,that a lack of evidence is not proof of the negative. Can you prove there's not a teapot in orbit around the Earth?
Meanwhile, most science is inexact. Anybody seen Schrodingers' Cat?
Exactly (in reference to the teapot and Schrodingers' Cat). Multiple theories. No concrete proof. No hypothesis to be nullified (scientifically speaking).
There are theories that greed is innate. There are other theories that greed is not innate. Does anyone know for sure? Why are we arguing about something that we cannot be sure about?
This. Empathy, altruism and social cooperation are innate. Greed is sociopathic.
Greed is innate in some individuals, but that doesn't make it less psychopathic. (The definitions have probably changed over the years, but originally a "sociopath" was merely a repeat criminal, driven to repeat criminal behavior, whereas a "psychopath" need not be a lawbreaker, but was born devoid of empathy and would strive to serve only himself while feigning concern for other humans. I prefer to stick to the original meanings of these words.)
Any scientific evidence that "greed" is not innate? Any definite consensus amongst anthropologists or evolutionary psychologists?
Who decides what human behaviors/emotions are natural or not? On what criteria? Does anyone know for sure? The manifestation of GREED is present in the oldest of stories/myths of mankind (way before the Bible).
It's pretty rich of you to demand scientific evidence that greed is not innate, when you provided no evidence whatsoever for your assertion that greed IS innate. Hypocrisy much?
There is evidence of altruism and social cooperation going back to Australopithecus afarensis. Altruistic people who are socially cooperative don't tend to be the greedy bastards.
Read the Upanishads! The Vedantists etc We westerners only know maybe 10% of what we are and what we are capable of achieving. With an “illuminated heart” one has “eyes that can see” “ ears that can hear” and a compassionate will that can really help people to wake up to their capacity for real wisdom!
Totally agree. There are individuals, philanthropists who lack greed altogether. Also there are layers to greed. I know many who are content with a modest lifestyle, and for whom re-using/repurposing old items brings more joy than buying new. Some persons are driven by fear of destitution rather than primarily greed to acquire and hoard wealth.
"Greed is a PART of human behavior".... and human behavior is the result of survival needs, which makes greed take a back seat to optimal survival conditions. In answer to a question as to his desire to earn more billions, Ted Turner once said that he would never be poor.... or something close to that effect... implying that in his mind, 3 o4 billion bucks weren't quite enough to satisfy his fears... Was it greed, or feeling more secure??
I'm not American but one of my American political heroes was Huey P. long with his slogan 'Every man a king'. He proposed that once anyone had more than a million dollars, the Govt should tax their brains out.
Needless to say, he was assassinated.
I think it was “delusion” !
>>"It would be easy to outlaw the most blatant manifestations of greed in the economy, healthcare and government."
Nope - not do-able. Greed has existed since humans have existed (regardless of economic or social system).
Q. How would you outlaw greed? Or happiness or sadness or love or hate or anger? These are BASIC human emotions.
These BASIC human emotions can be controlled by changing INCENTIVES (i.e. profit motive, etc.).
Here is one example: Increase corporate TAXES. The Corporate taxes in the US in 1968 reached 52.80% (https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-corporate-tax-rates-brackets/).
Do you know what was the resulting effect? Corporations paid MORE to employees and invested more in "research & development". They decided that instead of paying MORE to the Govt. in taxes, might as well PAY EMPLOYEES MORE and increase productivity.
These days, all the money/profits goes into STOCK BUYBACKS and artificially increasing stock prices and pay packages of "upper management", CEOs, and Board Members.
BTW, this is JUST ONE example of how incentives can work. There are many more throughout history.
>>"...the "threat" of Soviet communism..."
It was called "The Red Scare" for a reason. There was NO REAL THREAT - it was a manufactured narrative - Communists (and they were NOT Communists in reality - Stalin NEVER was) were not going to destroy and conquer the Americas. It was geopolitics, empire games, and Capitalism.
>>"at the discretion of bankers, paid employees more during a time period when - rightly or wrongly - a second or alternative system was still out there in the world"
Seriously? Is that the narrative you CHOOSE to believe? That there was REAL Communism? And that it was a REAL threat?
I suggest studying American economic history to understand the motivations behind different policies (and the resulting changes in socio-economic classes) rather than believing false narratives propagated by the Capitalists.
>>"It's not about incentivizing stuff; it's about disincentivizing the manifestations of greed for greed's sake"
Suggestions? Examples? Incentives (and disincentives) are created (through various policies) to manifest desirable behaviors (and changes in behaviors).
Example: Increase TAX on smoking to disincentivize the behavior.
Similarly, create policies that disincentivize behaviors that lead to excess greed.
>>"Do you even know what DROVE the economic successes for the middle and upper middle classes in the US during that time period, including 1968?"
There are MULTIPLE reasons.
>>"It was the heavy government subsidization of science, manufacturing and technology SPECIFICALLY to counter the "red menace" during the Cold War"
Is that your theory/intuition? Without falling into the "correlation is causation" trap, how would you justify that line of reasoning?
At the end of WW2, the US had excess production capacity, strong manufacturing base, and a healthy and unharmed economy (unlike Europe, Soviet Union, Japan, etc.). This is when consumerism kicked into high gear and the "American Dream" was a reality (for white folk). Taxes HAD to be increased to fight inflation. That increase in taxes (including personal tax rates and high interest rates) incentivized certain behaviors.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant? Can we try again?
Greed is a very dicey definition of issues when everyone knows what a lack of money implies.... Greed is almost a misnomer for the "survival of the fittest".... The latter thought is not pretty, but neither are the consequences of extreme poverty...
Yes, systems need to be changed, but they don’t change or create themselves. So what needs to happen is for smart, honest, intelligent, compassionate and incorruptible people to replace the corrupt, incompetent ones, and take charge and build new systems or mechanisms from the ground up. Now we get into the problem of where do these people come from? Unfortunately, the wrong kind of people tend to be attracted to positions of power and influence. On top of that we have human nature with all its flaws and shortcomings. The other unfortunate reality is that it takes years, decades, even generations for significant change to occur and new systems to evolve.
Yes - well said Diane Engelhardt!
Amen. The only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling. Both are wetiko, the cancer of the soul.
True, unfortunately 🤑
You read Marx for your understanding of capitalism?
Do you know much about the work of Marx and Engels? He wrote little about Socialism, and even less about Communism.
His main work was about Capitalism - understanding it, studying it, explaining its flaws and failings, and predicting where Capitalism eventually leads.
If you want to TRULY understand Capitalism, STUDY the 3 volumes of Das Kapital (and not hacks like Ludwig Von Misses, Milton Friedman, etc.). Adam Smith also did good work on Capitalism - and Marx truly respected Adam Smith.
(1) Das Kapital Volume 1: Talks about the Capitalist mode of Production (and how production differs under different systems)
(2) Das Kapital Volume 2: Talks about how money "circulates" in the system of Capitalism (including the process of accumulation of capital)
(3) Das Kapital Volume 3: Talks/Analyzes the complete system of Capitalism - all aspects of it - putting all the different parts of the system together to explain how Capitalism ALWAYS leads to cycles of Booms and Busts - it is an intrinsic characteristic of Capitalism. It talks about the failures/weaknesses/faults in the system of Capitalism and how it leads to problems in the world.
So, YES - if you want to REALLY understand Capitalism, read Marx and Engels (everything else is secondary).
The PEOPLE who run the systems NEED TO BE CHANGED!
If the SYSTEMS are not changed, it doesn't matter if people are changed or not. Even if people are changed, the new ones adapt to the demands of the system in order to succeed in it.
Example: Politics. If the System of politics is corrupt, doesn't matter if you get the most honest saint into that system. If that "honest saint" is to "truly succeed" in this corrupt system, the "honest saint" will have to change to survive and thrive in the corrupt political system. Take examples from histories of real-life politicians in the US.
Hence, SYSTEMS need to be changed.
Well said!
American tax dollars in the billions, go to the Zionist government committed to genocide, and to the Israeli citizenry cheering it on, with cradle-to-grace healthcare.
No, tax dollars don't go anywhere except to the incinerator (actually edits in digital ledgers). The Govt. DOESN'T NEED tax dollars for spending purposes. (Taxes serve different purposes). The US Treasury (with the Fed) can print whatever money it needs (as proven by the bank bailouts and Covid spending, amongst others). Check out MMT (if you want to understand how it really works instead of the narratives that people have been fed).
I have listened to my husband, who is a statistician, but with a sound background in economics, and an economist friend explain to me how the Fed can simply print the money it needs, and it boggles my mind every time I listen to them. I can't be the only confused person.
But getting back to the greed motive. If the basic instinct is to survive, then competitiveness must be innate. Maybe what we compete on is relative to the society in which we live, or the social milieu in which we find ourselves. Greed, whether it be of money, land, power, etc. could be seen as an aid to survival. Ok, my brain is getting tired, but I must say, it's been a very interesting discussion.
Sure, greed like many other traits such as, hmmm, eating, is innate. And we all know what happens when you over eat. It's threatens your health, and as you continue getting fatter because of overeating, it eventually makes you feel asyou can't control your innate instinct to eat.
We all know we must be measured and disciplined in what we eat, how much, and time of day. And we see the pain, humiliation and often short lives of those who chronically over eat. Yet none of us are asking for govt intervention to create prime conditions for over eating.
Greed may have always been with us, but greed at this level is beyond toxic. It's murderous, genocidal. And it's harming the very systems that support life, the environment, the planet and the people.
If gov't will not intervene to stop greed, and they will not, some will take it into their hands to do the job that govt won't do.
RIP (but really, I hope you twist in hell for the evil you've done) Brian. I hope you'll have the company of your peers soon.
Yes, agree with you - all these human emotions/psychologies/behaviors are innate (greed, survival, competition, cooperation, altruism, caring, love, hate, anger, etc.). All are needed (in different ways and at different times) to aid in survival.
Think about this. Human evolution is slow. Greed didn't just suddenly evolve in humans when Capitalism came about. It has always existed (in some form/magnitude or another).
I think you are technically correct and missing the point. Infrastructure, Social Security, public education, healthcare, the minimum wage and more, are all marginalized and railed against because they “can’t be afforded.” War and its profiteers see collective needs as weakness and expendable luxuries.
>>"I think you are technically correct and missing the point."
Yes, you are right - and that is partly on purpose - I really want people to understand MMT - because with MMT, one can do ALL the things you mentioned above (Infrastructure, Social Security, public education, healthcare, the minimum wage and more) WITHOUT, repeat WITHOUT taking anything away from some other area (i.e. with MMT, it is NOT a Zero-Sum game wherein someone needs to lose for someone else to win). With MMT, there is a possibility for EVERYONE to benefit, not just SOME people. (Ofcourse, this only applies to countries that have control over their sovereign currencies - and it only applies at the FEDERAL level, not the state or local levels).
What is MMT?
MMT = Modern Monetary Theory
Some resources (you can search for additional ones):
(1) The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/45731395-the-deficit-myth]
(2) https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/16/18251646/modern-monetary-theory-new-moment-explained
(3) https://www.investopedia.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-4588060
(4) How Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) Actually Works (w/ Warren Mosler) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W97s3zbFKvc]
(5) MMT Is Misunderstood | Warren Mosler [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCUPBpSiISU} -> Check out the "Tax and Money" chapter
(6) MMT vs. Austrian School Debate [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUTLCDBONok]
(7) Modern Monetary Theory and the Changing Role of Tax in Society [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-policy-and-society/article/modern-monetary-theory-and-the-changing-role-of-tax-in-society/B7A8B0C7C80C8F7E38D20BE4F5099C83]
"This really nails home the point that the legal system is not intended to protect ordinary citizens from the worst people in our society, it’s there to protect the very worst in our society from ordinary citizens."
Reminds me of a graffiti raid some friends and I did some 20 or so years ago on the then brand new Sydney Police Centre in Surry Hills.
The carpark had multiple warnings painted on walls near parking spots saying "Police Vehicles Only". The stencils we made in the same font to add clarifications below the warnings read "Protect the Ruling Class". We notified some sympathetic reporters and our artwork was on the front page of the SMH the next day.
Thank you for your service.
You were bloody lucky to find a sympathetic reporter. These days you'd only find pathetic.
Especially at the SMH.
Very true, though back then far less luck was required.
Most of my Fairfax contacts came via my friend Wendy Bacon, who had exposed the 'Police BBQ set' connections between the Armed Holdup Squad and Neddy Smith in the National Times. I think Antony Loewenstein was still a Fairfax cadet back then too. I could even count on sympathetic coverage of some issues in The Australian thanks to Elisabeth Wynhausen.
You sound like someone who might have read The Nation Review
Nope.
I gave up reading the National Times after Kerry 'The Goanna' Packer nobbled its distribution, forcing it to reinvent itself as the much watered-down broadsheet 'The Times on Sunday' under Robert Haupt.
I stopped buying the SMH in the early 2000s because of its racist coverage of corruption allegations in First Nations NGOs, but continued to work for some time with their investigative reporter Gerard Ryle and received tips from the NSW parliament reporter Paola Totaro when she couldn't put them in the SMH.
As for the ABC, I never used to watch or listen to myself on air when they interviewed me and gave up on them entirely during the incredibly racist and dishonest Lateline coverage of NT First Nations communities that culminated in the Mutitjulu story and triggered the NT Intervention. Though there's still a couple of ABC reporters I consider friends I swore off all collaboration with ABC journalism, though I've recently broken that commitment at the urging of some of my activist colleagues.
Nah! Wrong rag. Nation Review was a left wing weekly featuring people like Mungo McCallum, Bob Ellis, Patrick Cook and Leunig. And others, mind you I'm thinking more of the '70s in Sydney.
Hmm, maybe I should have read it.
I used to enjoy listening to Mungo on 2JJ and usually like Leunig cartoons. Patrick Cook, of course, did the often excellent cartoon on the back page of the National Times. As for Ellis, he was always all over the shop but I love an entertaining ratbag. There's something very 'Sydney' about that style.
"This really nails home the point that the legal system is not intended to protect ordinary citizens from the worst people in our society, it’s there to protect the very worst in our society from ordinary citizens."
I caught this quote on X that says pretty much the same thing:
"Some will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen." - Woody Guthrie
I really hope the message is received--the workers are tired of dying for CEOs who make millions out of denying health care coverage. The shoe is on the other foot now.
In 1902, American lawyer Clarence Darrow said, “Those men who own the earth make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world.”
"If a poor man is sent to jail for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family, how high must the gallows be to hang a rich man who steals out of greed?"
Terry Pratchett from his Disc World series.
The billionaires who make obscene profits from Big Pharma spend 100s of millions of dollars buying the politicians and it obviously works, or else they wouldn't be spending the millions. Then they turn around and say, "government is the problem" - and they need to be taxed less, and less regulations on their rapacious private corporations. What a racket eh?
And there you've provided the linchpin: none of this would be happening if not permitted by the Congress.
The corruption of Congress i.e. the so-called leadership of our society, then like a cancer spreads into society itself. And this corruption has been ongoing now for decades, where laws and rules and the Constitution itself are routinely ignored in the pursuit of mostly more profit being funneled to a relatively few individuals (such as Elon Musk) - at the expense of all the rest of the society, who no longer benefits "fairly" from the fruits of a free society. Egregious wealth Inequality really is the basis of the current demise of the US. It's not "government" - government is just a mechanism, a tool - that the wealthy have taken over in a way that should never have been allowed to happen (why we had a Constitution and a 3 tier government system of checks and balances in the first place).
"Anyone who rakes in billions is building an empire on the blood, sweat and tears of ordinary people." - absolutely bang on.
I've mentioned this elsewhere, but companies and billionaires know they can get away with this because capitalism is not just an economic system, it’s also a social imaginary.
It has shaped what we expect of the world, including training us that we shouldn’t expect anything better from corporations because “they’re just doing their job protecting shareholder interests”!
https://open.substack.com/pub/theuntethereddilemma/p/mythic-truisms-and-the-marginalisation?r=1f7q2z&utm_medium=ios
Well presented, Caitlin!
I'm given shaking-head resignation by family and friends (including one last night visiting me from Chicago) who apparently consider me senile/dementia-ridden: four years ago at 77 yo, I blew off the "Big Four": Big Pharma, Big Med, Big Dentistry, Big Veterinary (angst for my best-friend puppy...). I simply decided as my pallid protest of the "system" to go out "my way"...and so far I'm riding the wave, hangin' in there. I have a DNR on prominent notice and have informed my two daughters that I want to die at home. Senility, dementia, insanity?--that's okay by me. (I do concede to a "glaucoma drop" in each eye at bedtime, but no other meds....)
Next for me is home insurance [aka "Big Insurance"], due in April. Last (this) year my annual fee nearly doubled (I protested loudly to no avail), and I hear ominous rumblings for 2025. I've had no effing fires in my home for 53 effing years...what to do? My "widower nest" will be "possessed" if I don't pay....
I don’t believe that the CEO of United Healthcare was only making $10 million a year. It’s way more than that.
He was also being investigated for defrauding shareholders.
As an American who has suffered immensely at the hands of the oligarchs in this country, it is, to my delight, that I deeply appreciate, respect, and express immense gratitude to the so-called ‘killer.’ I hope there are many others planning similar actions, particularly targeting the heads of every single Wall Street firm…where the true evil resides.
Wall Street has inflicted immense harm on ordinary Americans, prioritizing profits over people’s well-being. From the financial crisis of 2008, where reckless greed caused millions to lose their homes, jobs, and life savings, to predatory lending practices that trap families in cycles of debt, the suffering they’ve caused is incalculable. They manipulate markets, exploit workers, and widen the gap between the wealthy and the struggling, all while remaining shielded from accountability.
In comparison, the CEO of a health insurer appears angelic next to the individuals on Wall Street. Their actions embody the worst aspects of unchecked capitalism, turning human lives into mere numbers on a balance sheet. If this begins happening soon, there might finally be a light at the end of the tunnel, offering hope for the revival of humanity.
Disclaimer: I am not anti-semite! 😉
Hey, Chang. Thanks, brother. I might be too old by the time it comes, so I don’t know if I’ll live to see the change I’m hoping for, but my only comfort is knowing it’s on its way. It’ll be bloody, it’ll be violent, but for people like us—those who’ve been wronged for so long—it’ll be something beautiful. So much has been taken from me: my businesses, the work I put blood and sweat into, my homes—they took it all. They even hurt my children. But like I said, my only peace is that I know payback is coming. I just don’t know if I’ll be here to see it.
It’s the law of nature, the law of physics—it’s coming, and it’s coming soon. If you look at any graph that shows the disparity between the wealthy elite and the rest of us—the working class, the poor—you can see it. The gap keeps widening, and it can’t go on for much longer. Sooner or later, the system will break. It’s coming, Chang. It’s coming soon.
Yes, and like you - I don't think I'll live long enough to see the changes. It's going to get a a lot worse before it gets better... but like you, I hope positive changes come (if not for us then for future generations at least - and all the other species of the planet).
I agree with everything you say 1000% !!!
>>"I hope there are many others planning similar actions, particularly targeting the heads of every single Wall Street firm…where the true evil resides."
Again, I whole-heartedly agree!
>>"In comparison, the CEO of a health insurer appears angelic next to the individuals on Wall Street."
Again, SO TRUE!!
Your comment really resonated with me. Thank you.
Obamacare actually made it worse as impossible as that sounds. There are no limits on premiums and deductibles which few people reach or, if they do, the company (hand in glove with healthcare providers) make sure you’ve signed an agreement if your insurance doesn’t cover, you’re responsible. Glenn Greenwald had this experience when his husband became gravely ill and died.
Obamacare was a cruel fraud, a poor substitute for real universal health care.
The guillotine may be making a comeback.
https://open.substack.com/pub/joshliveright/p/food-for-thought?r=5hemq&utm_medium=ios
"The guillotine may be making a comeback." When the going gets tough, aren't we all on the take?
Love this and Here For It
“When you strip capitalism’s justifying myths away, you see something that should be obvious. Capitalism is not, as its defenders insist, a system designed to distribute wealth, but one designed to capture and concentrate it. The fairy tale that capitalism tells about itself—that you become rich through hard work and enterprise—is the greatest propaganda coup in human history.” Excerpt From Invisible Doctrine George Monbiot & Peter Hutchison
BTW, the book you mention is fantastic. I highly recommend EVERYONE read it.
Free Market capitalism is a Free Market first
Freedom of Association -------- in the MARKET
Next capitalism is based upon private ownership and use of capital
NONE FOR THE STATE
Otherwise, it is corrupted but may look like capitalism - frequently called MIXED
The U.S, never was one merely by the size of the states they ran under and the capital they had reality available to them if not already regulated and controlling
"the legal system is not intended to protect ordinary citizens from the worst people in our society, it’s there to protect the very worst in our society from ordinary citizens"----a collection of quotes from your articles can be combined in a nice book
Give them just enough so they have to come back tomorrow,the next day,the next. Dealt with insurance companies that denied I had an injury and could not work. Told you would be put under surveillance. We will be watching you. They are scum.