Jamenta - again you are engaging in emotional rants instead of attempting to understand what is actually being said.
Let me expand and explain how government works in conjunction with private multi-national corporations & entities to subvert support for the common man and democracy. (and how "regulation" fits into this framework). Maybe that will help you understand my comment above:
Quotes:
(1) "The federal government is replete with supportive programs—subsidies, research, promotional, contracts, tax privileges, protections from competition—which flow regularly into the corporate mission of profit and sales maximization." - RALPH NADER (Introduction to Morton Mintz and Jerry S. Cohen, America, Inc. (New York: Dial Press, 1971)
(2) "Both welfare spending and warfare spending have a two-fold nature: the welfare system not only politically contains the surplus population but also expands demand and domestic markets. And the warfare system not only keeps foreign rivals at bay and inhibits the development of world revolution (thus keeping labor power, raw materials and markets in the capitalist orbit) but also helps to stave off economic stagnation at home." - JAMES O’CONNOR (Fiscal Crisis of the Stale (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1973))
State-supported capitalism has been imperfectly labeled by many popular terms which, while containing particles of truth, conceal the genuine nature of the new business-government relationships: “state capitalism,” “welfare state,” “warfare-welfare state,” and “mixed economy.” The power of the concept “state capitalism” (or “state monopoly capitalism”) is that it stresses the alliance of powerful capitalist forces with the state. But it greatly underestimates the extent to which big business operates on its own, both without the state and beyond the reach of the state. In no country of advanced capitalism is business completely controlled by the state; the state, rather, is subject to business control, although not completely. The relationship is more that of a business-government partnership, with business often serving as the senior, although sometimes silent, partner.
In a broader sense, the “welfare state” idea is fundamentally misleading. The welfare provided is not the general well-being of the people. It is welfare, rather, in the narrow and restrictive sense of public assistance to the poor and other programs (usually financed by the lower and middle classes themselves) to take the rough edge off capitalist exploitation, promote docility among the exploited, and thereby help form a more perfect capitalism.
Very often, Big Welfare (i.e. by the Government) gives handouts to Big Business from the normal peacetime activities of the capitalist state. Although it is perfectly true, as conservative economists insist, that “there are no free lunches,” there are scores of corporate “free lunchers” who manage to get other people—via government intervention—to pick up all or part of the bill. (i.e. socialism for the rich and unknowingly supported by the working class people). Here are some examples from the US:
• The Federal Reserve system, which supports bankers by maintaining high interest rates and bailing out bank failures.
• The nominally progressive federal tax system, which has become a labyrinth of special loopholes that provide many billions of “tax expenditures” (indirect subsidies) for specific companies or groups.
• The Treasury Department, which maintains huge interest-free deposits in large banks while at the same time paying the bank’s interest on money lent to the government.
• Billions in direct subsidies that are paid to airlines, the merchant marine, agribusiness and others.
• Federal expenditures for scientific research and development, which have subsidized the growth of capitalism’s technological reserve.
• Government guarantees that protect many billions of bank mortgages and foreign investments against losses.
(X) • Government regulations that give the large banks control over the investment of the pension funds of most labor unions.
(X) • So-called regulatory commissions, which help maintain the oligarchic power of the communication media, public utilities, and major transportation interests.
• Government forays into wage-price controls, or “incomes policy,” which are used to keep wages down or squeeze out business competitors.
Again, in terms of "regulation", pay special attention to the points above marked by "X".
So jamenta - you land up making all these assumptions and hurling accusations without understanding the depths and nuances of "how the regulatory system works" in the US.
Also, you continue making strawman arguments like "blind belief that any kind of regulatory control must be bad" and "government by default is bad" and then continue on your emotional and expletive laden rant.
jamenta - I don't know if you are having a bad day or something, but maybe spend some time understanding what is being said rather than imagining things in your mind and then argueing against those imaginations?
Dude I don't have time really to argue over such right-wing bullshit like what you said in your original post: "The regulation that does happen is a farce."
"how do you regulate a population whose interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the capital class"
Which is a perverted, pseudo-intellectual take on governmental regulations and their actual intent.
You want me to engage with your long winded anti-regulation rant here that goes on and on about how bad the government is with its regulatory control - pretending that nothing good has ever come out of regulations. Or your implied nothing good can come out of it - which is intellectual garbage.
And I suppose then you want me to counter your argument with a long list of my own demonstrating some of the obvious benefits of regulation. Like maybe quote Upton Sinclair on meat industry regulation. Or cite Standard Oil for monopoly regulation. Or perhaps you want me to discuss rules in congress regarding Filibuster "regulations". Or maybe you want me to cite use of public land regulations. Or maybe talk about regulations of machine guns or ownership of M1 Tanks. Or maybe we should talk about regulations on price fixing, or automobile safety. Or maybe I should bring up how drinkable the water is in Flint Michigan. Or maybe we really should talk about regulations of billionaire sponsored think tanks with the assholes that are hired to pervert social media. Or maybe we should talk about rules (laws) regulations of the deep state to stop them from torturing some folks, and spying on everyone. Because it sure the fuck isn't going to happen spontaneously with corporations or the rich - they'll just spy on us more Mr. shithead Chang.
Or maybe, maybe you can fuck all the way off with your pseudo-intellectual anti-government, anti-regulation spewing that shows a complete lack of objectivity because you are indoctrinated up to your ass with your right-wing propaganda bullshit - hook, line and sinker.
jamenta - you're missing the point (by a large extent) - and I have been trying to explain to you about some of the nuanced perspectives needed to understand the "role" and "implementation" of regulation by US organizations (either public or private. It seems that for a multitude of reasons, we are unable to communicate on the topic. (And in case you still don't get where I'm coming from - we are on the same side).
Maybe I need to explain things better, and hope that it will help in clearing up the confusion:
(1) Regulation is needed (and in fact is essential) for the proper functioning of any decently sized social structure.
(2) Without adequate regulation, there would be chaos - and we would have a system of social darwinism - i.e. "might is right".
Such a "might-is-right" system - in the absence of regulation - will collapse under its own weight - regardless of the political system (i.e. regulation is needed in capitalism, communism, socialism, and any other isms you can think off).
(3) The point of contention is NOT that regulation is needed and required - it is that the "kind of regulation" implemented is of paramount importance. Also, who is doing the regulating? Who are the overseers? Who is responsible for designing these regulations? What are the motives and who are the beneficiaries of the policies enacted? The devil is in the details.
(4) Regulation is needed in protecting the rights and interests of the 98% from the inbuilt systemic abuses of the 2% in our current capitalistic society. BUT - the kind of regulation implemented is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. A large part of the regulatory mechanism of the US Government has been co-opted by the "power elite" (oligarchs, billionaires, etc.) as a successful strategy of maintaining the status quo.
My statement "regulation that does happen is a farce" is indicative of ineffective and inadequate regulation. Not only is there an "under-regulation" problem in the US, there is a "wrong kind of regulation" problem. Many of the regulatory policies are designed to serve the interests of the "power elite". Such regulatory policies need to be re-worked to serve the interests of the 98%. i.e. there is a "regulatory capture" issue in the US.
My statement >>Government regulation has come to mean "how do you regulate a population whose interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the capital class (power elite, oligarchs, bourgeoisie)?" means exactly that - that Government regulation has been co-opted by the interests of the 2% (based on the ineffective and inadequate regulation policies enacted by the US Government).
So what are some of the possible solutions?:
(1) More regulation - but not just any kind of regulation - it needs to be the right kind.
(2) Disallow "self-regulation" - which is a farce, a subterfuge, a trick - perpetrated so as to circumvent the "real benefits of regulation".
Many others, but this is not the place to elaborate on them...
We are on the same side. The sad part is that your emotional reactions are preventing you from digging deeper into the nuances of "regulation", instead prefering to bask in the comfort of simplistic black/white thinking about regulation/no regulation.
If you are interested in gaining a better understanding of "regulation" (that both you and I agree are indispensable for the proper functioning of society), then I suggest checking out resources (and books) on pros-and-cons of different methods of regulation (in the US) instead of arguing against a point that no one is making.
And then you wonder how "Israelis" and "Zionists" are so brainwashed as to not understand the situation, evidence, facts-on-the-ground, perspectives, and a host of other things. Unfortunately, you are displaying the same inability as them (Zionists) in being unable to think from any other perspective than a purely emotional one (and a false one at that).
In spite of my attempting to clarify the point of contention, you seem to be stubbornly sticking to your opinion that is based on unfounded assumptions or evidence. And you expect the irrational (and deviant and immoral Zionists) to understand things better?
You don't get it do you? I don't make comments here in Caitlin's substack because I want to argue over the nuances of Regulations like you do - and spend all my dwindling time (in my old age) doing so, trying to figure out how I missed out on how right-wing Libertarianism is actually the highway to Nirvana, and that we really must limit government as much as possible. Because Big Government and Big Regulations are bad, bad, bad!
I'm here because Caitlin writes about pervasive propaganda of the deep state, and the billionaire class and she's been writing about the moral atrocities of genocide now for months, and how a lack of cooperation and collaboration - and the obscene corruption of the right-wing and left-wing politics in America is leading to the suicide of our society including the ecocide of our planet.
I'm not here to allow myself to be gaslighted by an know-it-all asshole like you - who wants to correct me about your take on "Regulations" and how the voting process will ALWAYS be corrupt.
I'm not here to be lectured by you Mr. Chang. You really don't know dick (in my opinion, about me or about good Government). So please, play Dad to someone else - lecture someone else with your pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
You choose to respond to my comment and started down this path. And then you have the audacity of not only "hurling obscenities", but also making false assumptions, arriving at false conclusions, making false inferences, arguing against strawment statements that you make up - and on top of that you defend yourself by saying "I'm not here for x, y, or z". Your behavior in the comments section contradicts your statement above.
Jamenta - again you are engaging in emotional rants instead of attempting to understand what is actually being said.
Let me expand and explain how government works in conjunction with private multi-national corporations & entities to subvert support for the common man and democracy. (and how "regulation" fits into this framework). Maybe that will help you understand my comment above:
Quotes:
(1) "The federal government is replete with supportive programs—subsidies, research, promotional, contracts, tax privileges, protections from competition—which flow regularly into the corporate mission of profit and sales maximization." - RALPH NADER (Introduction to Morton Mintz and Jerry S. Cohen, America, Inc. (New York: Dial Press, 1971)
(2) "Both welfare spending and warfare spending have a two-fold nature: the welfare system not only politically contains the surplus population but also expands demand and domestic markets. And the warfare system not only keeps foreign rivals at bay and inhibits the development of world revolution (thus keeping labor power, raw materials and markets in the capitalist orbit) but also helps to stave off economic stagnation at home." - JAMES O’CONNOR (Fiscal Crisis of the Stale (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1973))
State-supported capitalism has been imperfectly labeled by many popular terms which, while containing particles of truth, conceal the genuine nature of the new business-government relationships: “state capitalism,” “welfare state,” “warfare-welfare state,” and “mixed economy.” The power of the concept “state capitalism” (or “state monopoly capitalism”) is that it stresses the alliance of powerful capitalist forces with the state. But it greatly underestimates the extent to which big business operates on its own, both without the state and beyond the reach of the state. In no country of advanced capitalism is business completely controlled by the state; the state, rather, is subject to business control, although not completely. The relationship is more that of a business-government partnership, with business often serving as the senior, although sometimes silent, partner.
In a broader sense, the “welfare state” idea is fundamentally misleading. The welfare provided is not the general well-being of the people. It is welfare, rather, in the narrow and restrictive sense of public assistance to the poor and other programs (usually financed by the lower and middle classes themselves) to take the rough edge off capitalist exploitation, promote docility among the exploited, and thereby help form a more perfect capitalism.
Very often, Big Welfare (i.e. by the Government) gives handouts to Big Business from the normal peacetime activities of the capitalist state. Although it is perfectly true, as conservative economists insist, that “there are no free lunches,” there are scores of corporate “free lunchers” who manage to get other people—via government intervention—to pick up all or part of the bill. (i.e. socialism for the rich and unknowingly supported by the working class people). Here are some examples from the US:
• The Federal Reserve system, which supports bankers by maintaining high interest rates and bailing out bank failures.
• The nominally progressive federal tax system, which has become a labyrinth of special loopholes that provide many billions of “tax expenditures” (indirect subsidies) for specific companies or groups.
• The Treasury Department, which maintains huge interest-free deposits in large banks while at the same time paying the bank’s interest on money lent to the government.
• Billions in direct subsidies that are paid to airlines, the merchant marine, agribusiness and others.
• Federal expenditures for scientific research and development, which have subsidized the growth of capitalism’s technological reserve.
• Government guarantees that protect many billions of bank mortgages and foreign investments against losses.
(X) • Government regulations that give the large banks control over the investment of the pension funds of most labor unions.
(X) • So-called regulatory commissions, which help maintain the oligarchic power of the communication media, public utilities, and major transportation interests.
• Government forays into wage-price controls, or “incomes policy,” which are used to keep wages down or squeeze out business competitors.
Again, in terms of "regulation", pay special attention to the points above marked by "X".
So jamenta - you land up making all these assumptions and hurling accusations without understanding the depths and nuances of "how the regulatory system works" in the US.
Also, you continue making strawman arguments like "blind belief that any kind of regulatory control must be bad" and "government by default is bad" and then continue on your emotional and expletive laden rant.
jamenta - I don't know if you are having a bad day or something, but maybe spend some time understanding what is being said rather than imagining things in your mind and then argueing against those imaginations?
Dude I don't have time really to argue over such right-wing bullshit like what you said in your original post: "The regulation that does happen is a farce."
"how do you regulate a population whose interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the capital class"
Which is a perverted, pseudo-intellectual take on governmental regulations and their actual intent.
You want me to engage with your long winded anti-regulation rant here that goes on and on about how bad the government is with its regulatory control - pretending that nothing good has ever come out of regulations. Or your implied nothing good can come out of it - which is intellectual garbage.
And I suppose then you want me to counter your argument with a long list of my own demonstrating some of the obvious benefits of regulation. Like maybe quote Upton Sinclair on meat industry regulation. Or cite Standard Oil for monopoly regulation. Or perhaps you want me to discuss rules in congress regarding Filibuster "regulations". Or maybe you want me to cite use of public land regulations. Or maybe talk about regulations of machine guns or ownership of M1 Tanks. Or maybe we should talk about regulations on price fixing, or automobile safety. Or maybe I should bring up how drinkable the water is in Flint Michigan. Or maybe we really should talk about regulations of billionaire sponsored think tanks with the assholes that are hired to pervert social media. Or maybe we should talk about rules (laws) regulations of the deep state to stop them from torturing some folks, and spying on everyone. Because it sure the fuck isn't going to happen spontaneously with corporations or the rich - they'll just spy on us more Mr. shithead Chang.
Or maybe, maybe you can fuck all the way off with your pseudo-intellectual anti-government, anti-regulation spewing that shows a complete lack of objectivity because you are indoctrinated up to your ass with your right-wing propaganda bullshit - hook, line and sinker.
jamenta - you're missing the point (by a large extent) - and I have been trying to explain to you about some of the nuanced perspectives needed to understand the "role" and "implementation" of regulation by US organizations (either public or private. It seems that for a multitude of reasons, we are unable to communicate on the topic. (And in case you still don't get where I'm coming from - we are on the same side).
Maybe I need to explain things better, and hope that it will help in clearing up the confusion:
(1) Regulation is needed (and in fact is essential) for the proper functioning of any decently sized social structure.
(2) Without adequate regulation, there would be chaos - and we would have a system of social darwinism - i.e. "might is right".
Such a "might-is-right" system - in the absence of regulation - will collapse under its own weight - regardless of the political system (i.e. regulation is needed in capitalism, communism, socialism, and any other isms you can think off).
(3) The point of contention is NOT that regulation is needed and required - it is that the "kind of regulation" implemented is of paramount importance. Also, who is doing the regulating? Who are the overseers? Who is responsible for designing these regulations? What are the motives and who are the beneficiaries of the policies enacted? The devil is in the details.
(4) Regulation is needed in protecting the rights and interests of the 98% from the inbuilt systemic abuses of the 2% in our current capitalistic society. BUT - the kind of regulation implemented is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. A large part of the regulatory mechanism of the US Government has been co-opted by the "power elite" (oligarchs, billionaires, etc.) as a successful strategy of maintaining the status quo.
My statement "regulation that does happen is a farce" is indicative of ineffective and inadequate regulation. Not only is there an "under-regulation" problem in the US, there is a "wrong kind of regulation" problem. Many of the regulatory policies are designed to serve the interests of the "power elite". Such regulatory policies need to be re-worked to serve the interests of the 98%. i.e. there is a "regulatory capture" issue in the US.
My statement >>Government regulation has come to mean "how do you regulate a population whose interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the capital class (power elite, oligarchs, bourgeoisie)?" means exactly that - that Government regulation has been co-opted by the interests of the 2% (based on the ineffective and inadequate regulation policies enacted by the US Government).
So what are some of the possible solutions?:
(1) More regulation - but not just any kind of regulation - it needs to be the right kind.
(2) Disallow "self-regulation" - which is a farce, a subterfuge, a trick - perpetrated so as to circumvent the "real benefits of regulation".
Many others, but this is not the place to elaborate on them...
We are on the same side. The sad part is that your emotional reactions are preventing you from digging deeper into the nuances of "regulation", instead prefering to bask in the comfort of simplistic black/white thinking about regulation/no regulation.
If you are interested in gaining a better understanding of "regulation" (that both you and I agree are indispensable for the proper functioning of society), then I suggest checking out resources (and books) on pros-and-cons of different methods of regulation (in the US) instead of arguing against a point that no one is making.
I'm not missing anything here.
It's always the same fucking debate with know-it-all (Libertarian loving) assholes like you Chang. Taxes, Regulation and Anti-Government.
It's never about Endless War, the Filthy Rich, and the Working Poor.
Fuck off.
And then you wonder how "Israelis" and "Zionists" are so brainwashed as to not understand the situation, evidence, facts-on-the-ground, perspectives, and a host of other things. Unfortunately, you are displaying the same inability as them (Zionists) in being unable to think from any other perspective than a purely emotional one (and a false one at that).
In spite of my attempting to clarify the point of contention, you seem to be stubbornly sticking to your opinion that is based on unfounded assumptions or evidence. And you expect the irrational (and deviant and immoral Zionists) to understand things better?
You don't get it do you? I don't make comments here in Caitlin's substack because I want to argue over the nuances of Regulations like you do - and spend all my dwindling time (in my old age) doing so, trying to figure out how I missed out on how right-wing Libertarianism is actually the highway to Nirvana, and that we really must limit government as much as possible. Because Big Government and Big Regulations are bad, bad, bad!
I'm here because Caitlin writes about pervasive propaganda of the deep state, and the billionaire class and she's been writing about the moral atrocities of genocide now for months, and how a lack of cooperation and collaboration - and the obscene corruption of the right-wing and left-wing politics in America is leading to the suicide of our society including the ecocide of our planet.
I'm not here to allow myself to be gaslighted by an know-it-all asshole like you - who wants to correct me about your take on "Regulations" and how the voting process will ALWAYS be corrupt.
I'm not here to be lectured by you Mr. Chang. You really don't know dick (in my opinion, about me or about good Government). So please, play Dad to someone else - lecture someone else with your pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
Well, then why did you feel the need to respond to my original comment to "Robert Billyard" ? (https://open.substack.com/pub/caitlinjohnstone/p/you-cant-be-a-lesser-evil-when-youre?r=2kglzh&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=50321340)
You choose to respond to my comment and started down this path. And then you have the audacity of not only "hurling obscenities", but also making false assumptions, arriving at false conclusions, making false inferences, arguing against strawment statements that you make up - and on top of that you defend yourself by saying "I'm not here for x, y, or z". Your behavior in the comments section contradicts your statement above.