Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "OxfordUnion" channel.

Capitalism leads - inevitably - to concentration "cartells" etc. Read the economy pages. How many big players like Google are there on the market - and will they be able to resist the temptation to rig the system in their favour to keep potential competitiors out of the market. There are legal provisions of course against that, and naturally Corportations will bend the rules (and make sure the politicians and regulators to not hinder them). Corporations strive for maximum profit. Karl Marx created the definition "capitalism". In the time of the industrialization the economy, the way of prod. etc. drastically changed and Marx anlyzed what was going on here. The most important new thing was diversified mass production with machines (using "capital" thus the name). The new way of manufacturing goods was so effective that a broader customer base was needed. It meant also that the barrier to even start production went higher and higher. If Merceded wants to come up with a new model or even a new motor that means a huge investment upfront. (If you produce a tailored suit you can start a new model every few days without much investment or risk). For Mercedes that means that they will do everything - legal or illegal or unethical to make their new project a success and one of the reasons is the high costs of failure and that you need to sell a lot of your products to break even. With time and competion the numbers of players in each branch are reduced because some will fail (they vanish or are taken over) - we see these takeovers, sales and mergers all the times (pharmaceutical industry, automobile industry, mobile phone providers, ...). If there are too few players left that starts to ressemble a monoply because the remaining few players will - legal or not - come to an agreement. And they will very effectively secure that they are not getting any competition (for their specific product), start-ups with the same products do not have a chance. They will fight new technologies as good as they can if they make their product line or their latest investments obsolete. Side note: Gemanr cars and Dieselmotors - they maneuvred themselves into a corner - Dieselgate. There is a reason the German government does not more for basic research on batteries and energy storage - which would be the rational thing - for Germany not for some big players who are cozy with the goverment. Effective batteries would hurt the car industry with combustion motors (E-motor) and the energy providers (decentral energy prodcution by citizens and small businesses). Also: Imagine a street where Starbucks has a branch. Could make it hard for a little privately owned cafe to compete with them. Starbucks has the advantage of size, brand recognition, the little cafe can offer individuality. Starbuck can avoid paying taxes - the small entrepreneur not. That alone gives the big player an unfair advantage and may in the long run skew the system.
9
free market outcomes = exploitation look at the 3rd world
4
Lenin and Stalin were NOT "entrusted with power by Marxism-Leninism", they forcefully and brutally grabbed power like other dictators before and after them. The Russian revolution in 1917 (overthrowing of the czar) was - relatively - peaceful. They had a shot at democracy, elections were planned, women granted, the vote, the workforce organized itself in co-ops (which popped up everywhere). The Bolshevics were the most radical group among the revolutionaries - they promised to respect the result of the first free election, they got below 30 % of the vote. Then they staged a coup, they murdered the czar and his family (who where held under house arrest under good living conditions), they crushed their political opponents, the unions and the co-ops (these democratic grassroots organisations became state controlled entities with a top down hierarchy). No the Boshevics did not get any authority to govern the country from their fellow countrymen - and Marx did not supply any theoretical justification for their dictatorship. Unfortunately this happens often in revolutionary times. One regime gets overthrown, the next dictator takes over. Uncertain times or a society that is in the process of reorganization favour the more brutal forces.
4
China and the Soviet Union are/were NOT Socialist / Marxist / Communist, they are state capitalist dictatorships. Search for Lenin and state capitalism. They used the good brand "Socialism" (with the meaning of standing up for the little guy) to legitimize their dictatorship.
3
SOCIALISM means WORKERS OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION Kibbuz etc. grassroots, Co-ops. The workers decide together at least the important stuff (what products, should we relocate to China ?? ;), what do we pay the "managers" vs. the rest of the team etc.). That is socialism - the definition comes from Karl Marx ! Mao Lenin Stalin used the good name of socialism but of course they did not allow the workforce to organize themselves in this deeply democratic way - that is a bad fit if you want a dictatorship for everything else. So the State capitalists ! of China and the Soviet Union tried to micro manage the economy top down (remember ownership of production, who decides). That hierarchial approach was not very productive. Socialism according to Marx was tried out in Spain before Franco (you can search for Modragon co-op - it is the world's largest co-op) If guess this series is more about Social Democracy (differs from Socialism). The terms are often not very precisely used.
2
The maximum tax rate 43 % ist NOT only for healthcare. These taxes also pay for the streets, the wars, and the police, the justice system, etc. The NHS is BY FAR the most cost-effective health care system in the First world. Maybe a little underfunded (costs per capita 3400 - 3600 USD - google if you are interested - well below 4000/capita). Wealthy European nations have costs between 4.000 and 4.800 per capita (Norway Germany Switzerland Austria Denmark), Canada has more than 5.000 USD (they have public healtcare now, they switched from private around the 1970/1980s - looks like they still have some inefficiencies of private healthcare in the system). The US beats them all, costs of USD 8.400 (yes more than twice of the European costs even though the US citizens are younger on average), lower life expectancy (might be determined by lifestyle, the highest infant mortality rate of any Western industrialized country (this cannot be blamed on food or exercise). Still a lot of uninsured citizens. BTW: the US after WW2 had VERY HIGH debt (200 % of GDP), which they very substantially reduced with HIGH income taxes (more than 80 %, effectively 70 % with some loopholes). This was of course BEFORE the politicians did the rich the favour to allow them to get the money and the profits out of the country. No tax evasion was possible. The economy BOOMED thanks to infrastructure programs, GI Bill, Marshall plan - all state funded. Good wages supported demand for the goods that were produced (Sales tax and again high taxes if the entrpreneur could use the booming economy for his profit).
2
Most Cubans were very poor before the revolution. The Cuban "economy" might have been good - good for whom ? And who extracted the economic gains of what that good economy produced ? The photographer who took that iconic Che Guevara photo (you know the T-shirts motif) moved in the circles of the rich and powerfull before the revolution in Cuba. He took more and more notice of the bitter poverty of the majority of the Cuban citizens (Life sure was pleasant for the rich Americans and the then ruling class of Cuba). He remembered making a photo of a little girl holdig a piece of wood. He realized that to this little girl that raw piece of wood was a doll (and she clinged to it). And that she (and her family) were so poor, she couldn't have anything better. From then on he started paying more attention to the poverty and to take more and more photos of the poor instead of red carpet shots and high society events. He gained eventually the trust of the revolutionaries, this is why he was allowed as photographer after the revolution. That well known shot of Che for example was during the funeral of the victims of a terror attack orchestrated by the US. (Explosives planted in a ship container with civil goods, workers died, they had a big crowd at the funeral incl. government officials). The Spanish economy did not do well at that time, so that doesn't mean much. Also note that of course the sanctions of the US hurt Cuba very much. My country has borders with former Soviet Union satellite states. Because there was no economic exchange these areas were always underdevelopped. They were subsidized of course to maintain an acceptable standard of living. But it was always clear that the "dead end" was a disadvantage for these regions (whereas the regions with open borders did well). The Americans were afraid as hell that the Cuban experiment MIGHT be successfull. Attempts for regime change and military invasions failed, so at least they had to impose sanctions for decades. Under what pretext?? What threat was Cuba to the US once the SU had removed their missiles ? BTW: Cuba is much poorer than the US but they beat the US healthcare system. Everyone (unlike in the US) has healthcare, they have a higher life expectancy than the US citizens, a lower child mortality and their healthcare cost are WAY lower (one third if I remember correctly) Cuba also trains and sends their doctors to other countries in Latin America and the Third World to help them out.
2
Tor Fredrik Grøndahl In the fairy tale land of the "free market" people with no other income than their workforce are "FREE" to NOT accept working contracts that barely allow them a living. Of course ! One condition for a "free market" to function is that the parties have equal power and equal access to information and ressources. That can work well for products in the category "Not essential but nice to have". It does not work well for things that are essential for peoples lives (like housing, health care). It does not work at all for natural monopolies. The graphs show - worldwide for all wealthy nations - that from the 1970s on the wages were pretty stagnant while productivity, profits (for big biz which dominate 60 % of the economy), wages for the CEOs, the fortunes of around 10 % of the population skyrocketed. Now of course the "FREE" workforce in the First World is totally O.K. with this, after all they were "free" to accept these altered conditions. It is not like the politicians had colluded with the ruling class and the media (owned by the ruling class) to create these conditions. It is not like the Multinational corporations have the ear of ALL governments, regular citizens/ employess and small(er) companies be damned.
1
Regarding the so called "free labour market" and how demand decides the price of the merchandise (and how labour is supposed to be a "market product" like potatoes or washing machines). When there is reduced demand for a product the supplier will often reduce the price to give an incentive to buy it. If the product is technically outdated that will not help, it will vanish anyway. If the sales prices does not cover the cost of production for some time the product will vanish from the market as well. So that is what happens in the "free labour market" - right ? There is less demand for labour (more competition because of unemployment) and consequenlty wages are reduced over time and wages hardly meet the living costs of the population. Well then folks do not offer their workforce anymore. These folks - who rely on the selling of their workforce because they have no other income source - just VANISH from the "labour market". - according to the Gospel of neoliberalism. Tor Fredrik Grøndahl
1
Tor Fredrik Grøndahl The contradiction in the teachings of "free market" followers is that the wages of the workforce are ALSO the base of CONSUMER DEMAND. The ability of the consumers to buy the goods that are produced is LAGGING behind the output of the manufacturers. In the US the credit cards are maxed out now. We have proverbs here for the logical failure of the neoliberal crowd: "Cutting off the branch on wich you are sitting" - or "You have to feed the cow before you can get milk from it". US Productivity after WW2 until 1973: around + 96 %, increase in wages around 90 %. Since then there was another 90 % increase of productiviy but wages remained almost stagnant. Now that is clearly the "free market" in action ;) Big biz (dominating 60 % of the economy) is sitting on a stack of cash which they do not invest in more production units. They have enough to do with selling the stuff they produce right now. They also use planned obsolescence* to keep production going. Big biz is buying state loans with negative interest rates (Swiss, German, even US) or they are buying back their own shares - manipulation of the stock market anyone ! - againg the free market in action.
1
Tor Fredrik Grøndahl*Planned obsolescence: Intentionally engineering a technical product for PRIVATE CONSUMERS so it will break down, will not be repairable and must be replaced after a short life span (after warranty of course). This can be achieved by introducing a controlled point of break. A part that will fail after a certain time or number of uses."Normal use" in a household is carefully calculated and tested - the machine is meant to break AFTER waranty. It is equallty important to make the products hard to repair. Failure after a few years can happen unintentionally of course (sloppy design so it is hard to repair, cutting corners with "cheap" parts to safe costs). Planned obsolescence on the other hand is to ACHIEVE the failure of the product. Oftentimes the parts in question (the point of inteded failure) are really cheap. So by investing a few cents more the manufacturer could ensure to extend the life span of the product considerably. According to the logic of the free market it should be an advantage to be able of offer a quality machine with a long life span. The reality is: Nowadays only a few manufacturers with HUGE manufacturing capacities are left who are DESPERATELY trying to sell their stuff. The enemy is the customer who does not need anything right now (from the big manufacturers). Of course we need to buy from each other to provide a livelyhood for each other. But that would mean consuming more services (provided by humans) instead of "consuming" industrially manufactured stuff. All the big manufacturers joined the race to the bottom (prices and quality - sometimes with more function sometimes with the appearance ! of more functions/usefullness). That race to the bottom started when outsourcing of manfacturing to low-wage countries became easier and more widespread - beginning in the 1990s. The middle sized producers (who could spoil that game by making quality, solid basic functions and a somewhat higher price their advantage) vanished from the market. Many technical products got cheaper - and the life span of the products got considerably shorter - so no advantage to the consumer. There are a few "high-end" smaller manufacturers left - you can try your luck, maybe they resisted the temptation to cut corners and you will have a long lived product at a high price. Usually they embellish their products with all the bells and whistles (a lot of which are not really helpful for function) to justify the relatively high price compared to the rest of the segment. I worked in the market of household appliances which is a very good example for that phenomen. It is also true for other product groups - and most are not short-lived like smart-phones. Plus who says that you have to replace your smartphone every 1 or 2 years? A lot of folks would find them still "good enough" after 2 years. So Apple makes sure the batteries do not last too long, and that it is VERY expensive to replace them. So you end up buying the latest smartphone.
1
Tor Fredrik Grøndahl I do not want so much engange YOU in a conversation - that is pretty pointless, you are sold to neoliberal theology obviously. I want to contradict your arguments (some of which are ridiculous like your comment on the exploitation of the workforce in the Third World). I also want to provide information and arguments to the rest of the folks who might follow the discussion.
1
Tor Fredrik Grøndahl The wages (total) of the population have massively ! lagged behind productivity. Your CLAIM IS FALSE, it is not that wages for some or a few were stagnant (adapted to inflation ) - of course a few are lucky and are paid - but the majority which are the BASE OF CONSUMER DEMAND did not get their rise according to productivity. The graphs are pretty impressive. The lines for increase productivity and the wages (agerage! for hundred of millions of people) from 1945 to 1973 are almost identical. Since then there is a flatline for wages and a steep increase in productivity. Profits (for big biz = 60 % of the market) have been soaring so they COULD pay higher wages - they just don't do it.
1
Tor Fredrik Grøndahl It is NOT the free market that determines the wages. It is the BARGAINING POWER of the workforce. The higher wage (see economy 1945 - around 1973) has to be included in the price of the product (under the assumption that the product is attractive for the consumers at all). Als long as that price is paid - meaning the consumers CAN AFFORD to pay it - the producing/selling of said product can go on just fine - see post WW2 economy until the 1970s.
1
Tor Fredrik Grøndahl It is the sovereign state* who decides with WHOM the workforce has to compete and with WHOM the domestic enterprises have to compete (import restriction, tariffs etc.) The nations decide how much PROTECTION they grant to their workforce and their domestic enterprises. * sovereign no more because of WTO, NAFTA, EU/EURO, TPP, TTIP, CETA etc. This is WHY Multinational corporations are so eager to have "free trade agreements" passed, once they are in effect they create a new set of rules that overrides decisions of nations. These agreements cannot be simply left, the rules apply for decades after quitting. There is a difference with Japan upending the international and especially the British automobile industry in the 1970s (Japan = high standards for workers, environment and use of energy) and now domestic enterprises being forced to join the race to the bottom on basis of the often horrible working conditions in the Third world (or dictatorships like China). Especially from the 1980s on politics (under massive influence of Big Biz) decided it was a good idea that the work force had now to compete with workers who ARE FORCED to work under bad or even sweatshop conditions (former Warsaw pact countries, Third world countries like India, Pakistan, Mexico, dictatorships like China). Politics also allowed an economic environment (access to capital, outsourcing favours big players etc..) that promoted the concentration of manufacturing in the hands of a few corporations. That weeded out the smaller competitors and even reduced the number of big players.How many producers of smart phones / household appliances / cars / energy providers / ...) existed 20 or 30 years ago - how many are there now ?? Bargaining and political power is reduced for the workforce since unemployment rose - since the 1970 (No there is NOT a job with a sustainable ! pay for everyone in our current economic system, not even for every healthy, and motivated person.) And politics intentionally (and unintentionally but foolishly) helps big biz with the race to the bottom "trade" agreements between nations that make outsourcing safe for big biz. Immigration to put the workforce under presssure. Going to war with foreign nations (Military Industrial Complex, the "war on drugs" and the arms exports - see Mexico etc. ) Ruining the markets and economies of Third world countries with subsidized exports - so the poor people from Third World countries DO migrate in desperation and then they compete with the local workforce). Last but not least deregulation of the financial sector, casinos with banks and insurance companies attached to them.
1
Tor Fredrik Grøndahl Money corrupting politics: Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider. Also note the Princeton study "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, interest groups and average citizens"
1
Tor Fredrik Grøndahl Nice try :) Healthcare outcomes Single payer or any Public not-for profit system (almost all industrial countries) vs. for-profit private (= USA): Single payer etc.: Costs between USD 3600 per capita (UK with the NHS), 4000 - 4.800 USD per capita in countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, around USD 5.500,-- for Canada (they made the transition from private to public some decades ago, seems like they still suffer from some inefficiencies of for-profit healthcare ;) The US sets the negative record: costs USD 8.400,-- per capita, the most "rationed" system - still despite ACA ("Obama care") millions are uninsured. Life expectancy is lower than in other developed countries, and a very bad ranking for infant mortality. Your name sounds like you might live in a Scandinavian country (or come from there) So tell us about the horrors of Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Iclandic or Danish healthcare! My country has public healthcare, we are in the middle of the USD 4.000 - 4.800 cost range, health care is good, access is good. We live longer and keep more babies alive than the US. So your alleged missing innovation in the medical field does not show up in the results. Any procedures that deliver better results are quickly implemented (even if they originate form research done in other countries) because they usually mean less costs in the long run (and a not-for-profit system CAN consider effects that do not pay off immediately - unlike corporations that chase "share-holder value".) I grant that some fields of US medical reaseach and medicine might be one of the most advanced in the world - that is of no relevance for the 316 million US inhabitants because they will not get that advanced medicine (except for a few wealthy). The US private for-profit healthcare system delivers mediocre results at exorbitant costs.
1
Tor Fredrik Grøndahl No healthcare spending and wealth is not THAT directly related. The Swiss for examply are definitely wealthy, could afford more "extravagant" procedures and still have about half of the healthcare costs of the US. Living healthier or any other factor cannot explain that much of a difference. Moreover I would assume that the Swiss are older on agerage. The privatley organized US system allows the corporations to rip off the US patients. One example are drug prices. Unlike any other nation, the US administration cannot negotiate drug prices (legally "bribed" representatives passed laws to prevent that). HIV or cancer treatment is expensive to begin with. Folks near Canada are getting their cancer drugs from Canada (bus tours) - the price difference justifies the journey. When patients need treatment they get a recommendation/treatment plan from their doctor and get the bill afterwards. They may ask for a second opinion but you do not shop around for treatment costs. If anything you try to come up with a payment plan. I recommend reading the stories about people going broke over healthcare costs in the US. The average! Joe in the US (the majority!) does NOT get better healthcare (more advanced treatment, drugs they would not get in Europe because of the costs etc.). They just get higher priced insurance packages without knowing for sure IF the insurance will deliver until they have an expensive medical procedure (High co-pay, not every procedure is covered, etc.). Now if you work for a large company that offers healthcare as part of your wage or if you can afford a premium healthcare package or do not mind a high co-pay than you get good or excellent care for sure. Also note the millions of uninsured AND the record number in infant mortality (not caused by a lifestyle choice, but mainly because of lack of preventive medicine, regular visits with the doctor etc.. (Sure Russia or India are worse than the US but that is not an achievement). I do not know all the data for cancer survival rates, outcomes for strokes etc. The average life span does signify something, it is higher all over Europe despite different eating and workout habits. It also bears the question WHY a country (which is on average younger than European populations) would engage in such a life-shortening lifestyle. Too much stress, too little holidays ?? Less protection from pollution and toxins ?
1
Which is why woman and children are working the the textile industry under horrible conditions extremly long hours for a few Dollars a day. Because folks are doing much better and there are plenty of good jobs to had - end of sarcasm. Let me guess - you come of a well-to-do family from Bangladesh ? I do not dount the rise in GDP, this says nothing about WHO profits from the growth. No doubt the middle class of Bangladesh grew, it always does when a country adopts capitalistic/neoliberal policies. It does not matter how poor a country is there will always be some very rich and a certain percentage of middle class people in the country. Socialist or Social Democratic government aim at having everyone at least in lower middle class.
1
Intentional misrepresentation. Socialism and the labour movement meant "standing up for the little guy" it was a very popular and powerful movement and Hitler rode that wave and hijacked that brand. The Nazis when they were still a small party (but on the rise) were FINANCED by the rich Industry bosses because they KNEW the Nazis were against the real Socialists. (Hitler promised the 1%ers military expenses - profit for them - that he would crush the unions and the left and war). They would not have invested their money in Hitler if he had been a Socialist. He needed the money of the ruling class and the votes of the poor working class. So the marketing was tailored to the little guy and how the Nazis would help them. Hitler and his ilk HATED the left. Not only the communists (which were most likely to fight back against the brown shirts) even the moderate social democrats. They imprisoned priests who were serving in poor blue collar communities. These priest were not even that much into politics and found themselves in prison or in concentration camp anyway. The Real Socialist movement is NOT nationalistic (Workers of all nations unite, The Socialist International Movement). Hitler was stirring up nationalistic feelings and was scapegoating (Jews, Russians, Romas Sinti, People with darker skin - not many of them in Germany at that time, but they were mobbed too). Socialism or Democratic Socialism would always allow/help the workers to organize themselves and fight for their rights. Hitler of course crushed the unions. It is true that his investment and job program helped to put people back into work (the masses were desperate and that gave him a lot of credibility). And he was able to keep the wages down when the economy made a fulminant recovery. Workers did not participate in the increase of productivity BECAUSE the unions were already suppressed when the recovery was in full swing. People were so desperate before (and so let down before by the austerity politics) that they were immensly thankful and did not require more than having enough to survive (some bread on the table, a perspective to keep your job and a roof over your head). Hitler adopted some Socialist ideas. They kept the Public Healthcare system, even expanded it and there were some - well marketed - public housing projects. Everyone who asked for a better deal with wages and working conditions went straight to prison (or worse). It did not matter that people were not able to consume much, the economy produced infrastructure (streets) and military equipment. So no need for much disposable income of consumers. Eastern Germany (the Satellite state of the Soviet Union) called themself German DEMOCRATIC Republic. They were as democratic as the National Socialists were Socialistic.
1
+ Admiral Nimitz USA after WW2, debt 200 % of GDP (VERY HIGH - well war is expensive). Then they packed some more debt on it (GI Bill for the college education of returning soldiers, an infrastructure program immediately, 2 years later the Marshall plan for the recovery of Europe. A good environment for business and an effective highest tax rate of over 70 %. No tax evasion possible. High employment thus a good negotiation position for the workers. The wages of workers were rising according to productivity. Workers were able to spend money. It does not help you if you have a wonderful product efficiently produced - unless the consumers are able to afford it. High taxation of the strongest members of society, good wages spent on the products that were ever more effeciently produced and infrastructure spending of the state KEPT THE MONEY IN CIRCULATION between these players in the economy (corporations / workers = consumers / state). So the US were able to jumpstart the US AND to some extent the European and Japanese economy. And with that booming economy the US were able to drastically REDUCE THE DEBT within 10 years. Despite continuing to go to war (Korea, and Vietnam which was very expensive, so was the Apollo program) they continued to be the richest nation on earth. Taxes were eventually lowered but were still much higher than today (until Reagan). The recent French approach did not work because our clueless or corrupt politicians took the advice of the financial elites and started "deregulating" the "international financial markets" allowing the "unlimited international flow of capital" in the 1980s. As if that were necessary when commercial banks with help of the central bank create money out of nothing (FIAT money, fractional reserve system). The Western politicians also allowed the rise of unemployment of the domestic workforce (Negotiating deals with foreign nations that made it safe for Western companies to start production in developing countries. Removing import tariffs. That would be fine, IF the industry did it the way the US and European economy was jumpstarted. With increasing wages (rising productiviy = rising wages) and increasing standards (safety, energy use, pollution). That way a broad middle class would develop in these countries and we could exchange out products. The unions are strong in France thus the French workers still participate in gains of productivity. Unlike the Germans who trashed their workforce ("reforms" of the "labour market in the 1990, allowing subcontractors etc. allowing starvation wages so that the full time ! workers have to be subsidized by the taxpayers, e.g. McDonalds workers. ) Wages in Germany are stagnant since at least 17 years, that plus the Euro that is too weak for the German economy made the"export miracle" possible. The graphs clearly show the sharp rise of exports relative to imports after implementation of the "labour reforms" and the EURO. (That export imbalance is in reality a desaster - "beggar thy neighbour" policy). Of course the Germans skimmed of the cream of the French consumer demand (domestic consumption in Germany is stagnant because of stagnant wages). Production of the famous German quality products has been outsourced to Eastern Europe or China. So in total the industry pays less in wages, so these wages (wherever they are paid) cannot support the demand (the consumer base cannot "soak" up the production - the Chinese workers even if they wanted to spend their money on German products cannot afford them BECAUSE of their lower wages). Now the Germans try to sell their stuff more and more outside the country while imports are relatively shrinking. They have to export - even with non-repayable loans - Greece anyone? . They use an unfair advantage (compared to the French) and at the cost of other European economies - which they absolutely need on the other hand. The US used to solve the problem of stagnant wages and stagnant buying power with the invention of consumer debt on credit card. Well that solution is maxed out now. Back to taxation: So these days the capital - the shy fearful deer - can flee taxation - it is about time we make some stew out of it. Please note that the tax havens are always in secure locations and small countries/economies which are by no means autarc. They rely on fuel, on the internet (ocean cables !!) There is rumour that the US threatened that the Swiss banks would not be allowed to exchange USD anymore if they refused to provide the tax information the US wanted about US citizens. (Which was against the Swiss laws which have been protecting blood money and untaxed money for at least 100 years). Good for the US, Switzerland had to give in - now a lot of money left Switzerland and went to Delaware ??!! WTF! If we ever get politicians to act in the interest of the citizens (Sanders in the US and Corbyn in UK would have been a good start) we can shut down all these tax havens pretty quickly. There are trillions of stolen or criminal money (the dictators of the world, the mafia, sex trafficking, drugs, weapons, financial fraudsters) and non-paid taxes. And maybe the US needed to abstain from financing regime changes for some time - because that money must go through dark channels as well. Anyone intent on hidding their money could then reopen the tax havens in places like Russia, Somalia or Congo if they please. Everyone who wants to operate in the civilised world and wants their money to be in a safe place needed to play by the fair taxation rules. Maybe we get that after the next big financial crisis. Or we are going the fascist route. Which is a scary possibility when even more austerity, unemployment and the burden of bail-outs or bail-ins are imposed on the regular citizens.
1
Healthcare costs per capita: USA USD 8.400,-- UK 3600 - 3800!!. Wealthy European countries (Germany, Switzerland Norway, Austria, Denkmark) high standard no waiting times between USD 4.000,-- and 4.800, Canada which switched from private to public around the 1980s more than USD 5.000,-- (USD 5.500 ??) I agree the NHS is the most cost efficient First World healthcare system in the world but probably a bit underfunded.
1
The USSR did NOT have socialism they had STATE CAPITALISM. (Quote from Lenin when he assessed the "progress and successes of the revolution".) Socialism = workers own the means of production (not the goverment!), that means a highly democratic workplace where the workers participate at least in the important decisions. Grassroots organization, bottom-up, co-ops. Capitalism = Hierarchy, a few make the decisions, top down planning. (Either by private owners, their management, or the state and it's officials). 1917: After the czar had been put under house arrest, Russia for a few months had a window of opportunity for democracy. Elections were planned, women were granted the vote, a lot of co-ops were founded (socialist!). Then the Bolsheviks (Lenin, Stalin) who got only 20 - 30 % of the votes in the election took over by force. First thing they did was going after their political opponents, killing the czar and his family, and closing down resp. taking over the co-ops (which were called "Soviets"). Of course they had to control them - there is something deeply empowering about a democratic workplace and economy, that does not go well with dictatorship in the political sphere. And of course they crushed the union movement. They kept the name/label "Soviet" and "Socialist" however. The citizens were taught that what they had was "Marxism" "Socialism" "Communism", the west accepted these names and the defination the leaders of the Soviet Union gave them as well. No one challenged the idea that the system of the Soviet Union (top down micro-management of the economy by the government + dictatorrship) was "Socialism". That Lenin and Stalin called themselves "Socialist" tells us more about how strong a brand Socialism was then, it meant standing up for the little guy (which had a lot of appeal to the bitterly poor Russians) and the Bolshevics took a piggy ride on that strong brand.
1
***** No dictator EVER showed up in a capitalistic, free market society. ;) Socialism means democracy in the workplace and a solidaric society. Which means that citizens HAVE TIME and can FEEL FREE to engage in the political process. In a socialist society you organize the work in a way that everyone has work and/or at least a modest income (not some employees making unpaid overtime and others desperate for jobs waiting in line to replace them if they dare complain about being taken advantage of). In a socialist society you can make a living and you are not forced to be in high debt for education, healthcare or housing. That means if your boss/employer does not agree with your political activities in your free time, you will be protected against losing your job or it will be easy to find a new one with a living wage (so you can continue to pay your mortgage will not lose your house and it will not affect the future education or healthcare of your children). A lot of people do not have that freedom in the US or GB. Most bankrupcies in the US are because of Medical Bills and people dare not join the unions. Socialism - the workers own the means of production - that means bottom up grassroots organization - a society with that kind of organisation will also have a lot of other grassroots and it WILL HOLD it's elected officials accountable (so they do not sell out their constituency to special intersts). The citizens holding politicians accountable is the only way to prevent tyranny (right wing or left wing) and curb corruption.
1
***** It is unfortunately true that in a revolution (like the Russian revolution in 1917) when civil order is uprooted often the most violent forces prevail. They take advantage of the power vaccuum and grab power. So one dictatorship is overthrown (right or left) another one follows (right or left). The revolution eats it's children.
1
***** All the more reason to CHANGE our society BEFORE we drift even more into a fascist direction Before a small number of people representing multinational corporation hold all the economic and political power and the desperate masses again rally around a strong man. Before the oligarchs are in total control. We see with the so called "free" "trade" negotiations and with the financial sector how mucht power the oligarchs already have and how they continue to consolidate / expand that power. The deregulated international financial sector was allowed to give out shady loans, allowed to speculate with a LOT OF LEVERAGE ON these loans with cheap and abundant money provided by the central banks. No politician, mainstream "expert" or regulator did anything about it (and they mostly where completly unaware what was coming). Then came the crash of 2008 - the housing bubble would have been a local US problem, with the international speculation on the loans it became the worst crisis since 1929. All hail the wonders of capitlism and the expertise of it's proponents. Are the players of the financial sector held accountable - are they regulated now ? - NO. They were allowed to privatize the profits and socialize the losses of the crisis. Well one of the major principles of capitalism is to maximize your profits, to minimize your risks. So they were very true to the principles of capitalism. In 2008 Wallstreet financed the political campaigin of Hillary Clinton, most of the Republican contestants and of course of Barck Obama (he got al lot of money from them). That investment sure brough a very good R.O.I. No one went to jail, they got away with a few fines with a slap on the wirst. The stock exchange did not react much to these fines - of course not - some times you have to pay a fine, it is all part of the cost calculation. And their schemes have cost and are going to cost the majority of the population dearly. THAT IS TYRANNY. The speculation in the financial sector goes on like 2008 did not happen. Tells you everthing you need to know about the state of the affairs and how much power the oligarchs already have.
1
***** Pinochet was a RIGHT WING FASCIST DICTATOR beholden to the wealthy segment of the population. The exact opposite of a Socialist - are you trolling ?? You know which Neoliberal icon was his economic advisor - do you ?? After the democratically elected government was brutally overthrown (with the help of the United States of course). Chile planned land reform, they stated that they would put the interest of the majority of the population before the interest of the ruling class and US based multinational corporations. Chile is a small insignificant economy, no geostrategic importance, not fossil fuels. Still the US were so afraid that that experiment might go well (and give a "bad" example) and so beholden to the financial interests of some US oligarchs that they replaced a democratically elected government with enthusiastic support of the population with a brutal dictatorship. Of course that dictatorship also did a lot of damage to the economy of Chile All hail capitalism and democracy! Well the coup helped to maximize the profits of SOME. Of couse it underminded the chances that a regualr business in the US could export to Chile. The Pinochet dictatorship dragged down Chile so they could not afford the buy US consumer goods. Only the military manufacturers got good deals with Pinochet. And those who were allowed to exploit the natural ressource of Chile (mining etc.) or buy real estate and land for cheap.
1
***** You are either a pathetic troll or completely absorbed in your ideological bubble or you are getting paid for trashing anything to do with "social" and "socialism" (so hopefully you are at least getting paid well). Maybe my comments were of some value to other contributors (as I found the comments of others to your strange claims of interest). In that sense you did good. Good day to you - further discussion with you is just pointless.
1
***** Congress under Clinton repealed Glass Steagall (Dems and Reps) and Bill Clinton did not veto it. The deregulation had started long before (thanks Reagan), that was the last nail in the coffin if you will. It was to make a merger of two financial institutions legal. So the banks got their favourable treatment. Banking regulation was already dead before. And more importantly - politicians were willing to turn a blind eye - this is not the first crisis. Any attempt of a nosy regulating board was crashed (thanks Greenspan, search for Brooksely Born Commodity Futures Trading Commission). There are signs a bubble is growing!. I recoomend the TED talk of Prof. William Black (Author of "If you want to rob a bank own one). The GFC: First: sell mortgages to people you KNOW cannot afford them and bet on rising hourse prices. Of course prices were rising in the bubble, the banks KNEW what they were doing, this is not the first housing bubble in the US. The advantage - for the Bush government. Construction helped keep the economy up (remember ten of thousands factories closed down thanks to NAFTA and imports from China). Voters kept silent because they felt "rich" and were happy to get a house. The advantage of weak borrowers for the banks: you can bill them higher interest, they are not shopping around for the best conditions. So on a short term basis this is highly profitable (bonus anyone). Step 2: The banks did not want these shady loans in the books. They repackaged and bundled them. The rating agencies (owned by the banks) rubber stamped them as excellent quality and safe. Again under Bush and under the "unwatchful" eyes of the regulators. Then the banks sold the pacakges internationally (also to many European banks). Imagine a bucket of apples many rotten but on top a lovely layer of fresh and appetizing apples. No since they had the crappy loans out of the books they good go and give out some new crappy loans. Step 3: the banksters are no fools, they ALL knew there was something shady going on. So they started placing highly leveraged bets as a sort of insurance on these loan packages - Credit Default Swaps etc. AIG an insurance ! company was one of the first big players (after Lehman) to get in trouble because of these bets. Who made the bets? Those who had repackaged loands and also many who did not even have a stake in this real estate game and just joined the game of speculation. The real estate bubble would have been an US problem and manageable. With the HIGHLY LEVERAGED speculation the financial sector worldwide was infected. And the politicians should have let all the banks go down, save the saving accounts and take care of the players of the real economy. I heard a video of Michael Hudson about the financial sector being a parasite. Which is true - from the 1930 - 1980 the banks served the REAL and PRODUCTIVE economy (financing houses to live in not as empty investment object, financing real enterprises producing real products, transfers, saving accounts). There was this MAJOR SHIFT in the economy and the relative political power of the working people in the middle of 1970. Unemployment rose, wages did not rise according to productivity anymore (because of unemployment the negotiating power for good wages vanished). Thus spending power of consumers lagged behind the ever improving output of goods Look at the charts - they are quite impressive (in a negative way). From then on the companies took up less loans - why invest when your are not at all sure you can SELL your goods because demand is stagnant? For some time the US citizens maxed out their credit cards to bridge the gap. The outsourcing (NAFTA China) increased all these negative trends. The banks knew the formerly well working busines model to serve the real economy (with loans for projects that actually created value) was shrinking, so they heavily lobbied the politicians to allow them to use cheap central bank money to engage in specualation and all sorts of bubbles and hypes. Deutsche Bank has 50 trillion !! of derivates (BETS!) in their books, their assets and loans are in the billions only. Their business model changed from being a bank to being a gambler in the financial casino. And they are like every other big bank. In the time after WW2 they financed German business - that worked quite well, they were not even allowed to engage in speculation. You seem to have a beef with "socialists". Let me tell you: it was FDR with his "socialist" ideas who made sure the banks used their state given privilege in a way that would benefit the economy and the citizens. Their state given privilege is to CREATE MONEY OUT OF NOTHING (positivemoney.org, FIAT money, fractional reserve system) Now they use that privilige to create money out of nothing mainly for SPECULATION. And we are sold that bullshit about the importance of the "financial industy" by the mainstream media and the "experts". And then there is the progressive E. Warren (Banking should be boring!) and Social Democrat Bernie Sanders who strongly advocate for the strict regulation before Reagan. But maybe you think Bush, Greenspan, Clinton, and all the banksters, lobbyists out there are socialists. Your comment may have just been a right wing or neoliberal bashing of everything progressive (and maybe you suffer from the impression that Clinton was a leftie, a progresive or whatever). Many throw the word socialist around lot and have no clue what it means, they just mean to communicate in a derogative way - are you one of them ? I do not think Bill Clinton was a good president - and he definitely was a corporatist, not a progressive, a social democrat or socialist or whatever. Alan Greenspan called Bill Clinton (jokingly) a good conservative (or republican) - not sure what word he used. Well that's right in both cases. If you are truly interested in how money is created (I think one of the most important things the citizens are unaware of), facts about the financial crisis 2008 (and also 1929), the role of the banks in formers times and now and about the economy, you can search the web with the hints given in this comment. I also recommend to listen to the monthly updates of Prof. Richard Wolff on youtube - he may rub you the wrong way, but it is a good exercise (try to contradict him if you do not agree). You will hear things from a completely different point of view than in the media. I am done here, a good day to you.
1
***** Of course Reagan and Thatcher were all for deregulation - in all sectors and especially in finance. They proudly advocated for the "financialization" - the internet is a splendid thing to inform yourself ;). It is unfortunate that you are so emotionally attached to your point of view that you either do not know very basic facts or that you willingly stay uninformed - while making bold but wrong claims about things that are not even controversial - like Reagan deregulating which he thought was a wonderful thing or the build-up of the financial crisis. I think despite your opinion on left leaning politics (of all sorts) - to ACTUALLY understand what is going on in the economy and in finance (and how we got there) is one of the most important things for an citizen who wants to hold the government accountable. Again have a nice day.
1
iPhone, Computers !!, transistors, and the internet are very good examples of STATE FUNDING OF ALL THE BASIC RESEARCH. The corporations took then what they found useful and where they could think of a consumer application. Not to take away from the innovative capacities of Apple etc (or IMB in the old days). But NO PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT company would have bourne the risk of basic reasearch - success was not granted, these were big projects and the citizens were content with what they had and knew and did not even know they could wish for things like computers or mobile phones or the internet. If a class of products is already used by consumers you can do some polling and try to avoid risks before investing in research or development. When you have completely NEW products / solutions / services you do not know if the basic research will lead to anything (or even where the research will lead you). And even if you can come up with a product you do not know if the consumers will eventually buy it or if it will be a flop. We literally would not have modern these modern techologies without tax payer funding (and you can bet the big corporations lobbied the US government to get it for cheap). Same is true for some vaccines and for some drugs (e.g. for Malaria because it was important for the military) Ford was a capable entrepreneur - and without tax-funded streets the sales of cars to private citizens for use outside the cities would have flopped. O.K. there would have been some sales of trucks for professionals and for transport purposes (slow driving if you have to travel the dirt road). But then - often the horse or mule cart would have been more cost-effective and the gain in speed with the car/truck not that consequential.
1
New Deal (1930s!) and Roosevelt. After the Great Depression Incomce! and corporate taxes were very high in the US. After WW2 in 1945 the US had 200 % of GDP as debt. Today everyone would call it the end of the world and demand budget cuts. Not so Eisenhower. They packed more debt on top of that to finance an infrastructure investment program, the GI Bill (college education for soldiers to integrate them into the economy) and the Marshall Plan for Europe). Income taxes still were high, the highest tax bracket was 70 % (effecively). Good wages were paid. They were rising with productitivity - workers got their fair share. People who had a high income or corporations who made good profits paid high taxes - and these factors made sure the money STAID IN CIRCULATION among the majority of citizens. The state used the tax revenue for investments, reaseach, military projects, salary of state employees. Next circle: People working in these projects got good wages, they spent money in the economy (sales tax), businesses made profits and again paid high taxes, .... Hint: tax evasion was not possible then - not only forbidden because that would not have kept the busines world from trying, but very diffucult in a practical sense. So the business world lived with these taxes and they lived very well. If tax evasion would have been possible that would have interrupted the beneficial circle. Because the economy was booming, tax revenue stayed high and it was possible to reduce debt without problems or without disadvantage for the citizens. The US spent too much money on wars and in the 1970s globally unemployment started to rise. (One major reason was that production had become more and more efficient and less workers were necessary). Wages did not rise as much as they used to because of the unemployment (more profits for the corporations). That was a game changer and it is very impressive to view the charts and data. At that time the economic model would have needed an adaption (e.g. shorter working time without pay loss so that everyone could have a job and an income sufficiently high to participate in the economy. ) Instead the upper class "retaliated" for the high taxes they had to "endure" since the New Deal. Most did not understand that "you need to feed the cow before you can get milk of it". So Reagonomics and Neoliberalism became all the fashion. The US, Japan and Europe did never better than with HIGH taxes and relatively regulated markets (import restrictions, tariffs, capital could not flow as easily as today, banking was VERY regulated, speculation was regulated, the states not the speculators determined the value of a currency - so the value of the currency was more rationale than today).
1