Dr. Newquist does fine work as usual, today vivisecting the right-wing crony-capitalist beast:
When the government bailed out the auto industry and expected some responsible accountability for the loans it gave, the right wing immediately shouted socialism and Government Motors. When BP befouled the Gulf states and Obama set up some rules of financial responsibility for the mess, the right wing immediately screamed about government takeover. Corporations can defraud consumers, endanger lives, befoul the environment, organize all manner of crime, and its called free enterprise. Consumers and taxpayers can ask for some protections against destructive depredation and exploitation, and they are called Marxists and socialists.
If that is so, it is probably time to try socialism. It can't be any worse than the four decades of reducing the middle class toward the poverty line that corporations have orchestrated, as top one-tenth of one percent as increased is share of the national income by 385 percent while the bottom 90 percent has dropped back one percent. The right wing loves feudalism and all the deprivations and oppressions it can inflict [David Newquist, "What has big business done for America besides bilk it?," Northern Valley Beacon, 2011.06.28].
Congresswoman Kristi Noem should read Dr. Newquist's full essay, as shoud you, dear readers. Dr. Newquist notes that the primary cause of our national debt problem is not the out-of-control spending. Those nice surpluses we saw coming in the 1990s got eaten up by two recessions and lots of tax cuts.
The richer get richer, and the working man works harder for slimmer slices of the pie he makes. We may not need socialism to fix that economic injustice; I'd settle for some honest capitalism and responsible government. Even that would be a welcome change from the status quo.
I too would settle for honest capitalism and responsible government: but I also want corporate regulations that are held to with the same rigor that the banks hold on the average depositer that gets an overdraft. The trouble is that today, any regulations that would protect the consumer, our environment, health, etc., are fought as harmful to corporations and/or the free market, and 'socialist'. I also want the Supreme Court to get a clue and rescind the decision making corporations individuals - or at the very least that our Congress and law enforcement agencies hold them to the same behavior standard of individuals, subject to criminal prosecution for such things as aiding and abetting terrorism, grand larceny, theft, manslaughter, and even murder, according to their various acts. Corporations are not, I repeat, NOT our friends; they are motivated solely by profit and self-interest. We would not consider a person who acts solely from profit and self-interest as our friend. We might use their services, but we'd watch them fairly carefully, and be prepared to be betrayed at the drop of a hat.
"its called free enterprise"
There is a huge difference between capitalism and "free enterprise". Captialism is communist lite, a close cousin to socialism. Government regulation is not the solution. Government regulation causes the monopolistic economic environment. The solution is competition in a market free from coercion and force, no matter the source...private or public or public/private partnerships.
Mountain top removal mining lite, Steve? Amphibian sex reassignment lite, Steve? Extinction lite, Steve?
Clearly Newquist is the dumbest, most deluded, and consistently motivated by envy he isn't respected by anyone. I enjoy reading ideas with which I am likely to disagree so long as the are intelligent and honest for they challenge my ideas or values. I have yet to see Newquist either intelligent or honest. Ever.
To refer someone to read that with expectation one would see something cogent is like telling someone to come to a concert where I am both the instrumentalist and singer.
Uh...that would be a singer-songwriter. The rest I couldn't follow.
I couldn't follow any of it, but the anger and hatred came clearly through. Singer, songwriter, instrumentalist, a real class act.
"If that [the above-described set of problems] is so, it is probably time to try socialism."
I take that statement to mean that you believe that the time has come for America to adopt a socialist system.
How about free-market capitalism, tempered by regulations formulated by legislators and enforced by executors who haven't been, and can't be, bought off?
Your dream or mine, Cory: Equally improbable in our lifetimes, I reckon. But of course we can try ...
"It [socialism] can’t be any worse than the four decades of reducing the middle class toward the poverty line that corporations have orchestrated ..."
I should hope that we, as a society, would strive for changes that make our system better, and not merely settle for changes that won't make it any worse.
Also, Cory, I wonder what you mean by "socialism." When I look up definitions for that term, I come up with a lot of variants. In your version of socialism, would you be allowed to home-school your daughter? Would you be allowed to maintain ownership of your house and land?
Just some thoughts in this early morning, which promises the first genuinely hot day of 2011 for the old mining town of Lead.
"We may not need socialism to fix that economic injustice; I’d settle for some honest capitalism and responsible government. Even that would be a welcome change from the status quo."
Yes, Cory, yes indeed. I would do well to read your every word twice before pounding away in response. But what are blogs for, if not for shooting off at the keyboard?
Troy, Anne, I beg to differ. Newquist is one of the more intelligent writers in the blogosphere. Yes, he is angry, but someone witnessing the decimation of the middle class may justify being angry. Your attempt to dismiss Newquist contains no cogent rebuttal of his specific points.
Stan: I draw the line somewhere this side of complete collectivization of property. I'd certainly prefer the option you see at the end. Perhaps I'm just being sloppy like the Republicans: perhaps I just want a system more like Sweden, which conservatives trash as Euro-socialism but which simply takes better care of people without placing the means of production under public ownership.
Or maybe I just want a system where we apply our socialist measures equally instead of practicing socialism for the rich and powerful and laissez-faire for the middle class.
I was not referring to Dr. Newquist's post. I was referring to the Jones comment as angry and hateful and following up on the Loesch comment. I have read the Beacon for many years and appreciate its basis on facts and find that its satirical tone too cogent and sharpened to be consumed by anger and hatred. The irony of Mr. Jones. brilliant lucidity in his comment and Dr Newquist's fact-based perspective is not lost on many people, I think.
Thank you for the clarification, Anne! I apologize for misreading your comment! I have put in a work order for repairs on my irony antenna.
Stan and Cory,
What we have in America today is Fabian socialism. Communism via evolution versus revolution. And both parties are pushing it.
Cory, let's go thru Newquists "assertions" and assess their factual basis to determine the extent of his delusion and intelligence:
1) The take-over of Chrysler and General Motors is by definition socialistic. This said, Obama didn't do it to make them more accountable. He did it so they would avoid bankruptcy and wipe out a significant portion of the UAW's retirement investments (crony socialism?)
2) Maybe some fringe people cried the Obama BP response was a takeover but I don't recall it. Conservative response was centered mostly around not over-reacting and adopting excessively restrictive regulation of off-shore drilling. Considering the MSM and liberal claim the Gulf was ruined for decades and now a year later, there is virtually no perceptible environmental effect.
3) Corporations can not "defraud consumers, endanger lives, befoul the environment, organize all manner of crime," We have laws which have penalties for all this.
4) During the last 40 years (actually 50 years), the United States has had more governmental intrusion into the economy than ever before (even more than the New Deal on a cumulative basis). If there has been a destruction of the middle class, a strong case can be made it isn't a lack of government intrusion into the economy but the excess of it that has imacted the middle class.
5) The rise of capitalism was the impetus for the effective elimination of feudalism and capitalism's principles are fundamentally opposed to feudalism. Feudalism is only possible when protected by the government.
In just this short blurb, you reference there isn't an ounce of intelligence or use of facts. Only delusion, innuendo that is Machiavillian, and obvious anger toward those who disagree with him.
There is intelligent liberal arguments to make and right use of facts to support Newquist's agenda. He just doesn't know them or use them.
As a matter of principle, I do not venture onto the planet of the ad hominoids, and especially avoid the droppings they leave on other people's blogs. One assumes that even they do not read that which moves them to tantrums, and apparently that is so in this case, but not having read what is said does not deter what is purported to be an "assessment" of what is said.
My post which is referred to in this thread does refer to substantive facts and provides links to their sources. It also provides a partial list of corporations that have been found to be engaged in criminal activities. Furthermore, one need only look at the daily news, such as today, to find an abundance of reports on corporate activities, such as:
*Massey Energy,, at whose mind 29 coal miners were killed falsified safety reports: http://www.midco.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9O5J78G0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018
*Bank of Americas multi-billion dollar settlement for its mishandling of mortgages: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/bank-of-america-to-pay-85-billion-settlement-over-mortgages/2011/06/29/AGPPnTqH_story.html?hpid=z1
*And even the Los Angeles Dodgers being sent into bankruptcy for the manipulations of its CEO: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-la-dodgers-fall-prey-to-ceo-capitalism-run-amok/2011/06/28/AGG9kmpH_story.html?hpid=z3
As suggested in a comment above, it is prudent to read what someone says, including all qualifying and modifying aspects, before representing what it actually says.
First, I assume you mean ad hominem.
Second, despite your assertion you don't go there, your post is a textbook attempt to justify your negative view of conservative positions by making false negative insinuations about capitalists.
And, thanks for proving it is your examples which shows how free enterprise depends on defined rules and laws, plus a civil and criminal justice system to prosecute egregious breaking of the rules. To assert a true capitalist endorses falsifying reports (Massey), misleading investors (BofA) is either ignorant of the principles of capitalism or something more nefarious.
The example of the Dodgers is laughably specious with regard to it having anything about capitalism. This about a messy divorce, lavish lifestyle beyond one's means, and the hybrid of independent clubs organized under a joint operating agreement (which violates some capitalist principles of non-collusion and unfettered competition.
I would like to follow up on the charges impugning the factual basis in the Northern Valley Beacon.
The post under discussion did not go into the reasons for the bail out of the auto industry. It made only the statement that some conditions were attached to the loans to enhance the likelihood of their repayment as all creditors do. The government never did assume ownership of the corporations to make them state-owned industries.
The charge that Obama's insistence that BP pay the spill bill was a government takeover was proclaimed on the legislative floors of the U.S. Congress and was widely reported by the mainstream media and blogs of both stripes.
While there are laws against “defrauding consumers, endangering lives, befouling the environment, organizing all manner of crime,†those laws are broken all the time, as some of the links in the comments above demonstrate. The links in the original post also detail the prosecution of crimes of the defrauding nature. And there is a constant effort to change the laws that protect the environment, repeal the laws that protect consumers, as in the blocking of the Consumer Protection Bureau, and a massive effort to evade responsibility for the deaths of workers and citizens through corporate negligence and avarice. The Recession can be laid to rendering the regulations against business fraud impotent.
As for the return to feudalism, the point being made is that corporate executives are exercising the role of feudal lords over their vassals in the way that corporations regard their workers. The taking away of collective bargaining rights, which give unions the right to negotiate , not dictate, is a restoration of the feudal relationship between overlords and serfs.
The hazy and arbitrary citation of facts is in the comments, not in the Beacon's post. And the Beacon never descends to insult, abuse, and defamation as a way to support its points.
Thank you, Anne. However, it is a hopeless cause. I regret this exchange happening on Madville Times, as Cory tries hard to keep discussions literate and productive. I think the hopelessness is apparent in the failure to recognize "planet of the ad hominoids" as a play on words or that the constant issue raised is not the pretenses of the corporate world to law and ethics but the de facto practice of corporatism and its predations against consumers, the land, and the public moral gullibility. And I express my regrets to Cory for being the cause of these visitations on a noble enterprise.
Troy, I'm thinking the planet of "ad hominoids" was intended to be funny. Perhaps even scatological, being followed as it was by a reference to "droppings."
These are things I notice, perhaps because I am a would-be poet with a fondness for metaphor and the yoking of disparate imagery, and also perhaps because I have been influenced heavily by my youngest kids (now in their 30's) who are big fans of South Park.
It occurs to me that it's possible Mr. Newquist was trying to lighten things up a little, but you know, it's tough for you serious intellectual types.
That said, I am greatly enjoying this exchange.
Thanks and kudos to you all.
You might be a
socialistMormon if....LOL. I get it Bill. My Latin is a bit rusty and specialized outside the sciences.
After reading again comments on this page and Mr. Newquist's, looking up the meaning of several terms, I still find I'm rather dumbfounded.
I would appreciate if Troy could explain, since I'm apparently not well-educated enough, or not sufficiently deep enough thinker in abstract economic/political science/history (all these 'isms' are starting to make my head swim), exactly what he had in mind when stating, "There is [sic] intelligent liberal arguments to make and right use of facts to support Newquist’s agenda. He just doesn’t know them or use them."
With your help Troy, the next time I attempt to think or argue about politics, I will use intelligent liberal arguments and real facts rightly.
The yokes on Troy.
Anne lets look at the facts of what you claim:
"It made only the statement that some conditions were attached to the loans to enhance the likelihood of their repayment as all creditors do." Newquist inferred the government went past that.
"The government never did assume ownership of the corporations to make them state-owned industries." The government owned 100% of the stock of GM and Chrysler. If that isn't state-owned, I don't know what it is.
"The charge that Obama’s insistence that BP pay the spill bill was a government takeover was proclaimed on the legislative floors of the U.S. Congress and was widely reported by the mainstream media and blogs of both stripes." I would like to see who said the negotiated settlement was a "takeover."
"While there are laws against “defrauding consumers, endangering lives, befouling the environment, organizing all manner of crime,†those laws are broken all the time, as some of the links in the comments above demonstrate. The links in the original post also detail the prosecution of crimes of the defrauding nature." We have crowded criminal courts with regard to all times of crime. The Justice Depts. from Nixon to Obama (excepting Carter) have been quite good at pursuing white crime.
"And there is a constant effort to change the laws that protect the environment, repeal the laws that protect consumers, as in the blocking of the Consumer Protection Bureau, and a massive effort to evade responsibility for the deaths of workers and citizens through corporate negligence and avarice." This is a discussion in and of itself and need to be discussed specifically. To make a blanket inferrence the GOP wants to condone wrong-doing is way to generalized.
"The Recession can be laid to rendering the regulations against business fraud impotent." Let's just say I have a different opinion and insufficient space to discuss this.
"As for the return to feudalism, the point being made is that corporate executives are exercising the role of feudal lords over their vassals in the way that corporations regard their workers." Feudalism can't survive in a free enterprise system. It is only possible with the aid of the government. Read your history.
"The taking away of collective bargaining rights, which give unions the right to negotiate , not dictate, is a restoration of the feudal relationship between overlords and serfs." Capitalists don't oppose collective bargaining of private workers. They oppose government granting an unfair advantage to labor. Study Friedman, Smith, Hayek, et. al. who describe clearly capitalism needs capital, management, labor, and property to all be fairly represented at the table.
"And the Beacon never descends to insult, abuse, and defamation as a way to support its points." Here are some words/phrases used by Newquist that are insulting, abusive and defamatory:
". . .created a set of deities. It calls them entrepreneurs. They used to be called confidence men, swindlers, and crooks."
"The worship of the gods of fraud is called patriotism."
"predatory activities"
"the people running the key businesses today organize exploitation, operate incompetently, and assume no risk."
Refers to CEO's as "avaricious welfare queens"
"organize all manner of crime, and its called free enterprise."
"The right wing loves feudalism and all the deprivations and oppressions it can inflict."
Makes the blanket statement businesspersons "are fundamentally not nice. "
Refers to the Chamber of Commerce as an advocate for "confidence schemes and pillaging"
There are bad guys in business, government, churches, non-profits. They use and abuse the rules, trust, etc. Bad business actors are no more an indictment of business than bad government actors are an indictment of government. People need to be treated with dignity and respect without being villified by the bad actors. Generalizations are always unfair.
generalizations can be unfair...
The Beacon is speaking to those who commit corrupt practices, and it names the offenses they commit. It does not descend into puerile, personal name-calling such as the incoherent, ungrammatical "dumbest, most deluded, and consistently motivated by envy he isn’t respected by anyone." There is vast difference between deploring actions and defaming a person. That is the point where you disqualified yourself from the courtesies of discourse.
As for making a blanket statement that all businesses participate in this corruption, the original post makes qualifications such as "There are companies that try to provide a quality goods or service to consumers and make an honest profit in so doing," and "If there is a Better Business Bureau, let us hear from some better businesses." It does not blanket all business persons as being not nice; it says the President's weakness is
"making nice with people who are fundamentally not nice," which is not all business people.
The Northern Valley Beacon is not the party making unsupported, blanket generalizations, and false portrayals of what has been said. And to those who have actually read and understood the original post, this is a tedious and useless waste of time.
...et cum spiritu tuo, Troy. LOL.
Vox in , magnus puer!