Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Alan Greenspan: WTF is he babbling about?

smooth · 07-21-2003, 09:42 AM

Actually, speaking from a Marxist perspective I would argue that capitalism would improve the lives of the world's poor and, as a necessary engine of growth, I do encourage its spread throughout the world. The issue, however, is whether it is "ultimately" the best economic system; rather, it will not ultimately make for an equitable society and will have to be dismantled or altered before the persuit of various values can occur.

Granted, some capitalists are realizing the resulting loss in productivity and/or destruction to our environment and altering their behavior. One major critique of a communist society is that people are fundamentally greedy and/or lazy--a position Marx argued against and blamed on the hidden forces of capitalism. If true, however, those same attributes should be applied to workers and owners in a capitalist society and corrections should be made by the society's government to correct for such behavior--that is, we should expect that capitalists will not work for the common good of society nor is there a market mechanism that will compel them to operate in the best interests of the very system they operate within.

I am considering that a lot of companies are responsible for development in the Western world. I' claiming, however, that they do it with tremendous government aid at the expense of taxpayers without a return on the money. The opposite occurs--taxpayers subsidize the develoment and then pay a premium for the services they subsidize.

I'm speaking mainly about domestic development and subsidies at this point but you carried my argument to development in foreign nations. I'm arguing for a mechanism that would operate like this:

We give a pharmaceutical 1 billion dollars to research a new drug. We do this with a stipulation that after the R & D is complete the lender will receive a 10% return, for example, on the profit until either the 1 billion is returned or 1.1 billion is returned (driving for a 10% return overall). This idea is less severe than private lenders (who normally would seek an ~30% return before even lending the capital and would require a subsequent return even if the venture failed) and still provide money for venture capitalists. Our subsidies aren't aid, they are corporate welfare and such companies that receive them are treating the taxpayer like a chump lender--no bank would operate like this without going bankrupt yet our government does this all day long.

Without going to far away from home we can see the detriments (or contradictions) of the free movement of capital while restraining the free movement of labor. That is, corporations can move freely between Mexico and the US yet Mexian laborers can not freely follow capital (and to a certain extent, US workers, as well). I recognize the dangers of such a system but am morally opposed to such a contradictory system that grants capitalists access to low production costs without granting workers access to high wage industries.

edit: also, I realize that no one is force to take the loans. Yet, countries are forced into repaying loans that corrupt politicians (some of whom operated with US assistance) have squandered and stolen. If we loaned aid (either monetary or military or whatnot) to Saddam thirty years ago do we have a moral right to demand the Iraqi population repay that loan--even if they haven't benefitted from it and may have actually been harmed by it? If we propped up a dictator and turned our attention elsewhere while he used the aid for the detriment of the country and is later deposed by the population, how can we then turn to the population and demand recompense? Failing the affirmative in both cases, since the aid given came out of tax coffers would it be prudent to aruge for a vote concerning whether tax payers could rescind the obligation of a foreign nation to repay it after they clean up a corrupt government adminstration if we felt the aid was given under duress or had been stolen?

07-21-2003, 09:42 AM	#30 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Actually, speaking from a Marxist perspective I would argue that capitalism would improve the lives of the world's poor and, as a necessary engine of growth, I do encourage its spread throughout the world. The issue, however, is whether it is "ultimately" the best economic system; rather, it will not ultimately make for an equitable society and will have to be dismantled or altered before the persuit of various values can occur. Granted, some capitalists are realizing the resulting loss in productivity and/or destruction to our environment and altering their behavior. One major critique of a communist society is that people are fundamentally greedy and/or lazy--a position Marx argued against and blamed on the hidden forces of capitalism. If true, however, those same attributes should be applied to workers and owners in a capitalist society and corrections should be made by the society's government to correct for such behavior--that is, we should expect that capitalists will not work for the common good of society nor is there a market mechanism that will compel them to operate in the best interests of the very system they operate within. I am considering that a lot of companies are responsible for development in the Western world. I' claiming, however, that they do it with tremendous government aid at the expense of taxpayers without a return on the money. The opposite occurs--taxpayers subsidize the develoment and then pay a premium for the services they subsidize. I'm speaking mainly about domestic development and subsidies at this point but you carried my argument to development in foreign nations. I'm arguing for a mechanism that would operate like this: We give a pharmaceutical 1 billion dollars to research a new drug. We do this with a stipulation that after the R & D is complete the lender will receive a 10% return, for example, on the profit until either the 1 billion is returned or 1.1 billion is returned (driving for a 10% return overall). This idea is less severe than private lenders (who normally would seek an ~30% return before even lending the capital and would require a subsequent return even if the venture failed) and still provide money for venture capitalists. Our subsidies aren't aid, they are corporate welfare and such companies that receive them are treating the taxpayer like a chump lender--no bank would operate like this without going bankrupt yet our government does this all day long. Without going to far away from home we can see the detriments (or contradictions) of the free movement of capital while restraining the free movement of labor. That is, corporations can move freely between Mexico and the US yet Mexian laborers can not freely follow capital (and to a certain extent, US workers, as well). I recognize the dangers of such a system but am morally opposed to such a contradictory system that grants capitalists access to low production costs without granting workers access to high wage industries. edit: also, I realize that no one is force to take the loans. Yet, countries are forced into repaying loans that corrupt politicians (some of whom operated with US assistance) have squandered and stolen. If we loaned aid (either monetary or military or whatnot) to Saddam thirty years ago do we have a moral right to demand the Iraqi population repay that loan--even if they haven't benefitted from it and may have actually been harmed by it? If we propped up a dictator and turned our attention elsewhere while he used the aid for the detriment of the country and is later deposed by the population, how can we then turn to the population and demand recompense? Failing the affirmative in both cases, since the aid given came out of tax coffers would it be prudent to aruge for a vote concerning whether tax payers could rescind the obligation of a foreign nation to repay it after they clean up a corrupt government adminstration if we felt the aid was given under duress or had been stolen? __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 07-21-2003 at 10:03 AM..