Well the process maust have gone like this. Govt decides to priavatise water. They call for tenders, someone wins the contract. If it wasn't Coke , it would have been someone else. Now, I am not in any way approving of this process. It sucks and is immoral, but it must have started within the local govt. I am implying that corruption was involved because there was almost certainly bribery involved ast some point. HAving said that, bribery is a traditional part of many cultures.
There is no other way this could have occurred. It is possible that it was Coke's suggestion, but again, local govt had to be involved.
I've been reading your posts about coca-cola and the water privatization thing, and yeah, i guess one could call it an evil of capitalism, but again, if you peel back the layers, isn't it really an affront to Liberty itself?
I think, in our times, we need to get out of the well-worn path of those arguments of capitalism vs socialism. They're already expecting that, and know how to deflect it.
1) they suck you into a debate: capitalism vs. socialism
And, They love it!
It goes nowhere.
perfect.
who are 'they'?
people like me that don't know what the fuck any of this is about and wants to learn more?
I respect your opinion.. which side are you on? Capitalism or socialism? You mentioned Liberty so I'm assuming Capitalism?
Within a few months of taking over the water system, Bechtel raised rates by several hundred percent and—as if echoing British colonial control over India where it was forbidden to collect salt from the ocean—went so far as to make it illegal to collect rain water. The largely indigenous population of Cochabamba organized and took to the streets, meeting police repression and even snipers who were captured on film firing into the crowds, killing one protester.
HUSTLER: Did Enron buy up water rights in Argentina?
PRASHAD: In Argentina, there was a scandal, because it turned out that the water was coming in infected. There was a breakout of disease. You cannot fully pin it on Enron; there might have been other problems there. What's totally fascinating is that Enron goes in there saying, "We're going to solve all the problems. We'll bring Yankee ingenuity. We'll deliver it cheaper, because, after all, private firms are able to do things without corruption, etc." This is the promise, and they failed drastically. They weren't even able to deal with the normal problems of water delivery. This is where you have to think twice about privatizing something like water, where it requires the capacity of a state to ensure that the very least you get for your low rates is clean water. The American firm Bechtel, who is Enron's partner in the oil world of Colombia, got into the [water-privatization] scandal in Cochabamba in Bolivia. The people actually rioted in the streets. There was a massive demonstration in the town of Cochabamba, and Bechtel had to flee. It was almost like a revolution against Bechtel.
HUSTLER: Is that the place where they made it illegal to collect rain water?
PRASHAD: Yeah, exactly. One has to remember that Bolivia has a tradition of being under a military dictatorship. Through the process of democratization, eventually, there was an election. And it turned out that the old dictator, [Hugo] Banzer, won the election and came back to power. One of the things that people like Banzer said they'd do is create a better economic condition for big companies. They started to privatize facilities; they privatized the water supply. Various companies bid for it, and Bechtel and its consortium won. And they won with a deal which we'll never see. When firms like this conduct a deal with governments, they don't want us to see what the deal is. I'd bet you that one of the pieces of fine print was that the government was going to lean on the citizenry to ensure that people didn't do things like collect rain water, or use other forms of water supply. Jim Schultz of the Democracy Center calculated that Bechtel was charging the people of Cochabamba in Bolivia more for their water than the people in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. It was an enormous crime that they were able to get away with this. At this point, there was essentially an uprising in Bolivia. Eventually Bechtel had to pull out.
HUSTLER: Isn't Bechtel suing through the WTO for damages of lost revenues as a result of that deal going south?
PRASHAD: Yes. This has become a common feature around the world. UPS has a suit against the government of Canada, the postal service, for lost business that UPS might have had, had there not been a monopoly in Canada for next-day services.
The Narrator discusses the Cochabamba protests of 2000 brought on by the privatization of Bolivia's municipal water supply by the Bechtel Corporation. Up to one-quarter of the citizen's income had to go to pay for their water after the takeover and the collection of rainwater was made illegal. This did not sit well with Oscar Olivera and the rest of the Bolivian people so they started a massive riot to gain control of their water back. Six people died and 175 were injured but an agreement was eventually reached were Cochabamba regained full rights of its public water. Howard Zinn next discusses the collusions between fascist Europe and the role of the corporations. As Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini rose to power the business climate dramatically improved as radical leftwing dissenters and democratic bureaucracies were abolished. Michael Moore then brings up the collusion between American corporations and the Nazis during WWII. He explains how the IBM punch card computer was used to systematically sort and exterminate political enemies, homosexuals, Jews, and other persecuted groups and how Coca-Cola invented the Fanta orange subsidiary so they could continue making money on both sides throughout the war. The narrator then returns to list several American Corporations such as Chevron, Texaco, Citibank, and Exxon, which had been fined for trading with enemies of the United States. Chomsky and others concluded that a corporation has no national ties and only acts in its own best interest.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Within a few months of taking over the water system, Bechtel raised rates by several hundred percent and—as if echoing British colonial control over India where it was forbidden to collect salt from the ocean—went so far as to make it illegal to collect rain water. The largely indigenous population of Cochabamba organized and took to the streets, meeting police repression and even snipers who were captured on film firing into the crowds, killing one protester.
HUSTLER: Did Enron buy up water rights in Argentina?
PRASHAD: In Argentina, there was a scandal, because it turned out that the water was coming in infected. There was a breakout of disease. You cannot fully pin it on Enron; there might have been other problems there. What's totally fascinating is that Enron goes in there saying, "We're going to solve all the problems. We'll bring Yankee ingenuity. We'll deliver it cheaper, because, after all, private firms are able to do things without corruption, etc." This is the promise, and they failed drastically. They weren't even able to deal with the normal problems of water delivery. This is where you have to think twice about privatizing something like water, where it requires the capacity of a state to ensure that the very least you get for your low rates is clean water. The American firm Bechtel, who is Enron's partner in the oil world of Colombia, got into the [water-privatization] scandal in Cochabamba in Bolivia. The people actually rioted in the streets. There was a massive demonstration in the town of Cochabamba, and Bechtel had to flee. It was almost like a revolution against Bechtel.
HUSTLER: Is that the place where they made it illegal to collect rain water?
PRASHAD: Yeah, exactly. One has to remember that Bolivia has a tradition of being under a military dictatorship. Through the process of democratization, eventually, there was an election. And it turned out that the old dictator, [Hugo] Banzer, won the election and came back to power. One of the things that people like Banzer said they'd do is create a better economic condition for big companies. They started to privatize facilities; they privatized the water supply. Various companies bid for it, and Bechtel and its consortium won. And they won with a deal which we'll never see. When firms like this conduct a deal with governments, they don't want us to see what the deal is. I'd bet you that one of the pieces of fine print was that the government was going to lean on the citizenry to ensure that people didn't do things like collect rain water, or use other forms of water supply. Jim Schultz of the Democracy Center calculated that Bechtel was charging the people of Cochabamba in Bolivia more for their water than the people in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. It was an enormous crime that they were able to get away with this. At this point, there was essentially an uprising in Bolivia. Eventually Bechtel had to pull out.
HUSTLER: Isn't Bechtel suing through the WTO for damages of lost revenues as a result of that deal going south?
PRASHAD: Yes. This has become a common feature around the world. UPS has a suit against the government of Canada, the postal service, for lost business that UPS might have had, had there not been a monopoly in Canada for next-day services.
The Narrator discusses the Cochabamba protests of 2000 brought on by the privatization of Bolivia's municipal water supply by the Bechtel Corporation. Up to one-quarter of the citizen's income had to go to pay for their water after the takeover and the collection of rainwater was made illegal. This did not sit well with Oscar Olivera and the rest of the Bolivian people so they started a massive riot to gain control of their water back. Six people died and 175 were injured but an agreement was eventually reached were Cochabamba regained full rights of its public water. Howard Zinn next discusses the collusions between fascist Europe and the role of the corporations. As Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini rose to power the business climate dramatically improved as radical leftwing dissenters and democratic bureaucracies were abolished. Michael Moore then brings up the collusion between American corporations and the Nazis during WWII. He explains how the IBM punch card computer was used to systematically sort and exterminate political enemies, homosexuals, Jews, and other persecuted groups and how Coca-Cola invented the Fanta orange subsidiary so they could continue making money on both sides throughout the war. The narrator then returns to list several American Corporations such as Chevron, Texaco, Citibank, and Exxon, which had been fined for trading with enemies of the United States. Chomsky and others concluded that a corporation has no national ties and only acts in its own best interest.
See...yeah...
hey, you're number one on my list for doing the citizen's arrest thing on this administration. Rumsfeld is first.
Is it bribery or more of an "I can give this, what can you give me in exchange?" type of thing?
That seems like a natural barter process.. supply and demand and all...
I was really referring to the idea that many public service positions were not salaried, but paid on a case by case basis, where you paid a public official for approval for this or that. Medieval England was like this, including up to the time of Samuel Pepys, who had a rotation as Sherrif of somewhere in his position, which basically paid his wages. Turkey, China, etc etc, all had this system. It is why we still pay "stamp duty" on any contract esp home purchases, but also any significant business contract.
It's when the payment permits something which would otherwise not happen that there is problems, like selling the right to collect rainwater.
A few short years ago here in Oz, state govts were talking about taking ownnership of ALL domestic dams and water catchments, and charging their owners to use them.
A few short years ago here in Oz, state govts were talking about taking ownnership of ALL domestic dams and water catchments, and charging their owners to use them.
that's really f'ed up and I don't see how the US is to blame for it. do you blame capitalism???
Lots to think about... it's been an interesting evening, for sure. I think my IQ has risen at least a point or 2. Hustler??? I'll check it out for the articles.
the state needs capital to function. therefore in order to raise that capital they will sell off assets. any assets they can find to anyone willing to pay the right price. my state does this with regularity. and sweetens the pie by offering the private company dispensation if projected quotas are not met. and guess who pays? the taxpayers, who should own the damn thing in the first place. capitalism works on supply and demand. private enterprise knows people need water, therefore they will pay any price for that water. the company raises the price but still the people will pay it because water is a necessity.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
that's really f'ed up and I don't see how the US is to blame for it. do you blame capitalism???
Lots to think about... it's been an interesting evening, for sure. I think my IQ has risen at least a point or 2. Hustler??? I'll check it out for the articles.
Yes, it's really fucked up, cos most of those dams were paid for by the farmers who own them.
It has nothing to do with the US, I just threw it in to illustrate that it is not just crazy 3rd world places where govts try this shit on.
I don't blame capitalism. I am a capitalist. I make my living out of my effort. No-one controls that except me. In a socialist system, my reward would not be proportionate to my effort, which is why those systems fail. People stop putting in teh effort, unless you flog them.
Capitalist systems existed and thrived for a long time before greedy govts keen to pay for pork-barrelling election promises came up wiht the bright idea of selling the family jewels.
Privatization has nothing to do with capitalism.
Well I'm sure you've bought or consumed a Coca-Cola related product at some point in your life so why don't you tell the truth and say "El-Kabong participates in privatizing water in India and doesn't care about people who die as a result."
b/c that would be a lie...i have *at some point in my life* but after i found out about that i stopped...so i no longer support them, i don't buy their sodas, their energy drinks, their juices, their bottled water....
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
true, it doesn't always equal that, but in reality, it does a lot. we have capitalism run out of control in many cases
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&-"liz-&m, 'kap-t&-, Brit also k&-'pi-t&-
Function: noun
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Main Entry: state capitalism
Function: noun
: an economic system in which private capitalism is modified by a varying degree of government ownership and control
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Capitalism and socialism are not ends in themselves but they are tools. A fundamentalist approach, like all fundamentalism, replaces thought with simplicity. A good economy requires a mix. Too much of one and we are headed toward trouble. Due to our history our country seems currently resistant to excess socialism. Its the free market fundamentalism I would keep a wary eye on.
Capitalism and socialism are not ends in themselves but they are tools. A fundamentalist approach, like all fundamentalism, replaces thought with simplicity. A good economy requires a mix. Too much of one and we are headed toward trouble. Due to our history our country seems currently resistant to excess socialism. Its the free market fundamentalism I would keep a wary eye on.
This is a ggod point.
In Australia we have a conservative national government, which I see as a ggod thing becasue it gives our overall economy sterength, and it makes decisions without too much regard for individuals, like a general in a bettel.
Then we have a Labor government in EVERY state, which to my mind keep a balance against teh "fundamentalism" of teh national govt,, caring more for individuals, like sergeant majors in a battel.
Like many people, I vote conservation nationally, and Labor in my state elections.
I like the balance, and the strong majorities all these incumbents enjoy suggests many people here do.
Capitalism and socialism are not ends in themselves but they are tools. A fundamentalist approach, like all fundamentalism, replaces thought with simplicity. A good economy requires a mix. Too much of one and we are headed toward trouble. Due to our history our country seems currently resistant to excess socialism. Its the free market fundamentalism I would keep a wary eye on.
I think there needs to be mix, too because we all see this so differently. It seems people that cheer captialism think that effort and innovations are only the result of the desire for personal gain. I happen to view things differently...I see people doing things because it's the right thing to do and because it's the best solution for everyone included. I just don't believe that simply because we try to distribute wealth around more evenly that people would lose the desire to do the best they can in life and be the best person they could be. I believe that there are certain people who strive harder and ones that don't in either system.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I didn't read the last 10 pages, but I think it depends how you see it. Obviously if you view it as yet another picture of "the US suck" some people are bound to disagree.
What it can show is that our capitalist system has led us to consume, consume again, then consume even more until over consumption has become the norm. And most of us are consuming beyond that norm. Capitalism as it is today, has us (I mean wealthy occidentals, the fat kid) consuming much more than we should or than we need.
There are ressources enough for everyone but over consumption hides that fact, as a result we have not enough for everyone.
I don't think that picture says capitalism sucks, socialism is better, but it should reflect that it's not because we can buy shitloads of stuff that we should actually do it.
I didn't read the last 10 pages, but I think it depends how you see it. Obviously if you view it as yet another picture of "the US suck" some people are bound to disagree.
What it can show is that our capitalist system has led us to consume, consume again, then consume even more until over consumption has become the norm. And most of us are consuming beyond that norm. Capitalism as it is today, has us (I mean wealthy occidentals, the fat kid) consuming much more than we should or than we need.
There are ressources enough for everyone but over consumption hides that fact, as a result we have not enough for everyone.
I don't think that picture says capitalism sucks, socialism is better, but it should reflect that it's not because we can buy shitloads of stuff that we should actually do it.
But that's just the thing...people are buying up everything because it's for sale. There's no protection under the capitalist system for those that have less buying power. These are the results we have been getting through free market capitalist system. People buy up everything that's for sale no matter what the consequences are. Both systems look good and paper...they are theories but it's the effects of how unequally the wealth is being distributed throughout the world that's causing the problem. We have the most power because we have the most money...those who don't have the money go without because it's bought out from under them at prices they couldn't afford to begin with. We're measuring people's worth in money.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If it is true, I would say it has to do with corruption and not with capitalism.
Capitalism is as corrupt as it gets, the idea may well have been a great one, but people get involved and greed and self interest also get involved.
The corporation does not run in any other form, other than it's is own self interest. The only people it benefits is itself, it does nothing out of the goodness of it's heart. It see's only $$ signs.
It's stealing pocket change from people who really cannot afford it.
Reading up on the IMF and world bank would give people an idea of what the so called free market has to do with poor countries.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
the free market is hardly free, cause someone always pays and it's usually those who can least afford it.
Exactly my point.
I think the picture in the orignal post shows exactly what capitalism is, forget the american child and the african child. It is the greed of one at the expense of the other.
Countries on there own are not to blame for capitalism, greedy people are to blame. It is at the expense of the average person in a country that the greedy prosper, in western countries it is harder to see what is being stolen from the poor because even though they are poor they still have a roof over there head and food to eat. So by those standards their still doing ok. But that doesn't make the divide between the rich and poor ok.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
But that's just the thing...people are buying up everything because it's for sale. There's no protection under the capitalist system for those that have less buying power. These are the results we have been getting through free market capitalist system. People buy up everything that's for sale no matter what the consequences are. Both systems look good and paper...they are theories but it's the effects of how unequally the wealth is being distributed throughout the world that's causing the problem. We have the most power because we have the most money...those who don't have the money go without because it's bought out from under them at prices they couldn't afford to begin with. We're measuring people's worth in money.
I'll gladly agree with all you said (and even say that the socialist system looks better on paper) but let's face it, we're not exactly relugating/getting rid of the free market. What we (as little fat kids) can do is stop consuming like we were the only living things on earth and teach that to our own (less) little fat kids.
There's a film called "we feed the world" which show how appalling our attitude is towards food. It's ridiculous. When producers start throwing around unused food like simple garbage it's because our methods of consumption allow this. And when we stop monopolizing the world's ressources maybe wealth will even out. But this won't happen until we change our view of life : it isn't one giant supermarket.
i would say the child on the left is a result of poor parenting, and the child on the right is a result of the lack of support from the world community for our neediest.
Comments
Well the process maust have gone like this. Govt decides to priavatise water. They call for tenders, someone wins the contract. If it wasn't Coke , it would have been someone else. Now, I am not in any way approving of this process. It sucks and is immoral, but it must have started within the local govt. I am implying that corruption was involved because there was almost certainly bribery involved ast some point. HAving said that, bribery is a traditional part of many cultures.
There is no other way this could have occurred. It is possible that it was Coke's suggestion, but again, local govt had to be involved.
Greed is not equal to capitalism.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
who are 'they'?
people like me that don't know what the fuck any of this is about and wants to learn more?
I respect your opinion.. which side are you on? Capitalism or socialism? You mentioned Liberty so I'm assuming Capitalism?
I'm on the side that thinks this is a silly antiquated, predictable argument.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Is it bribery or more of an "I can give this, what can you give me in exchange?" type of thing?
That seems like a natural barter process.. supply and demand and all...
Grrrr..that doesn't help.
If it's soooo predictable, which side am I on? I saw many sides to the original picture presented but I'm leaning towards personal responsibility.
Please put a label on me.
In want of liberty, that's you, crazy mop.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i think i may have mistaken bechtel/bolicia w/ this
in bolivia in 2000:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10042
Within a few months of taking over the water system, Bechtel raised rates by several hundred percent and—as if echoing British colonial control over India where it was forbidden to collect salt from the ocean—went so far as to make it illegal to collect rain water. The largely indigenous population of Cochabamba organized and took to the streets, meeting police repression and even snipers who were captured on film firing into the crowds, killing one protester.
http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=5
HUSTLER: Did Enron buy up water rights in Argentina?
PRASHAD: In Argentina, there was a scandal, because it turned out that the water was coming in infected. There was a breakout of disease. You cannot fully pin it on Enron; there might have been other problems there. What's totally fascinating is that Enron goes in there saying, "We're going to solve all the problems. We'll bring Yankee ingenuity. We'll deliver it cheaper, because, after all, private firms are able to do things without corruption, etc." This is the promise, and they failed drastically. They weren't even able to deal with the normal problems of water delivery. This is where you have to think twice about privatizing something like water, where it requires the capacity of a state to ensure that the very least you get for your low rates is clean water. The American firm Bechtel, who is Enron's partner in the oil world of Colombia, got into the [water-privatization] scandal in Cochabamba in Bolivia. The people actually rioted in the streets. There was a massive demonstration in the town of Cochabamba, and Bechtel had to flee. It was almost like a revolution against Bechtel.
HUSTLER: Is that the place where they made it illegal to collect rain water?
PRASHAD: Yeah, exactly. One has to remember that Bolivia has a tradition of being under a military dictatorship. Through the process of democratization, eventually, there was an election. And it turned out that the old dictator, [Hugo] Banzer, won the election and came back to power. One of the things that people like Banzer said they'd do is create a better economic condition for big companies. They started to privatize facilities; they privatized the water supply. Various companies bid for it, and Bechtel and its consortium won. And they won with a deal which we'll never see. When firms like this conduct a deal with governments, they don't want us to see what the deal is. I'd bet you that one of the pieces of fine print was that the government was going to lean on the citizenry to ensure that people didn't do things like collect rain water, or use other forms of water supply. Jim Schultz of the Democracy Center calculated that Bechtel was charging the people of Cochabamba in Bolivia more for their water than the people in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. It was an enormous crime that they were able to get away with this. At this point, there was essentially an uprising in Bolivia. Eventually Bechtel had to pull out.
HUSTLER: Isn't Bechtel suing through the WTO for damages of lost revenues as a result of that deal going south?
PRASHAD: Yes. This has become a common feature around the world. UPS has a suit against the government of Canada, the postal service, for lost business that UPS might have had, had there not been a monopoly in Canada for next-day services.
or
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hWXGdmj-pUQ
The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power
- The Corporation - Hostile Takeover - 12of14 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2vHUw...
The Narrator discusses the Cochabamba protests of 2000 brought on by the privatization of Bolivia's municipal water supply by the Bechtel Corporation. Up to one-quarter of the citizen's income had to go to pay for their water after the takeover and the collection of rainwater was made illegal. This did not sit well with Oscar Olivera and the rest of the Bolivian people so they started a massive riot to gain control of their water back. Six people died and 175 were injured but an agreement was eventually reached were Cochabamba regained full rights of its public water. Howard Zinn next discusses the collusions between fascist Europe and the role of the corporations. As Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini rose to power the business climate dramatically improved as radical leftwing dissenters and democratic bureaucracies were abolished. Michael Moore then brings up the collusion between American corporations and the Nazis during WWII. He explains how the IBM punch card computer was used to systematically sort and exterminate political enemies, homosexuals, Jews, and other persecuted groups and how Coca-Cola invented the Fanta orange subsidiary so they could continue making money on both sides throughout the war. The narrator then returns to list several American Corporations such as Chevron, Texaco, Citibank, and Exxon, which had been fined for trading with enemies of the United States. Chomsky and others concluded that a corporation has no national ties and only acts in its own best interest.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
See...yeah...
hey, you're number one on my list for doing the citizen's arrest thing on this administration. Rumsfeld is first.
PM me.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I was really referring to the idea that many public service positions were not salaried, but paid on a case by case basis, where you paid a public official for approval for this or that. Medieval England was like this, including up to the time of Samuel Pepys, who had a rotation as Sherrif of somewhere in his position, which basically paid his wages. Turkey, China, etc etc, all had this system. It is why we still pay "stamp duty" on any contract esp home purchases, but also any significant business contract.
It's when the payment permits something which would otherwise not happen that there is problems, like selling the right to collect rainwater.
A few short years ago here in Oz, state govts were talking about taking ownnership of ALL domestic dams and water catchments, and charging their owners to use them.
that's really f'ed up and I don't see how the US is to blame for it. do you blame capitalism???
Lots to think about... it's been an interesting evening, for sure. I think my IQ has risen at least a point or 2.
yes, i do.
the state needs capital to function. therefore in order to raise that capital they will sell off assets. any assets they can find to anyone willing to pay the right price. my state does this with regularity. and sweetens the pie by offering the private company dispensation if projected quotas are not met. and guess who pays? the taxpayers, who should own the damn thing in the first place. capitalism works on supply and demand. private enterprise knows people need water, therefore they will pay any price for that water. the company raises the price but still the people will pay it because water is a necessity.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yes, it's really fucked up, cos most of those dams were paid for by the farmers who own them.
It has nothing to do with the US, I just threw it in to illustrate that it is not just crazy 3rd world places where govts try this shit on.
I don't blame capitalism. I am a capitalist. I make my living out of my effort. No-one controls that except me. In a socialist system, my reward would not be proportionate to my effort, which is why those systems fail. People stop putting in teh effort, unless you flog them.
Capitalist systems existed and thrived for a long time before greedy govts keen to pay for pork-barrelling election promises came up wiht the bright idea of selling the family jewels.
Privatization has nothing to do with capitalism.
Well, I wouldn't go that far.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
b/c that would be a lie...i have *at some point in my life* but after i found out about that i stopped...so i no longer support them, i don't buy their sodas, their energy drinks, their juices, their bottled water....
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
true, it doesn't always equal that, but in reality, it does a lot. we have capitalism run out of control in many cases
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&-"liz-&m, 'kap-t&-, Brit also k&-'pi-t&-
Function: noun
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Main Entry: state capitalism
Function: noun
: an economic system in which private capitalism is modified by a varying degree of government ownership and control
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
This is a ggod point.
In Australia we have a conservative national government, which I see as a ggod thing becasue it gives our overall economy sterength, and it makes decisions without too much regard for individuals, like a general in a bettel.
Then we have a Labor government in EVERY state, which to my mind keep a balance against teh "fundamentalism" of teh national govt,, caring more for individuals, like sergeant majors in a battel.
Like many people, I vote conservation nationally, and Labor in my state elections.
I like the balance, and the strong majorities all these incumbents enjoy suggests many people here do.
I think there needs to be mix, too because we all see this so differently. It seems people that cheer captialism think that effort and innovations are only the result of the desire for personal gain. I happen to view things differently...I see people doing things because it's the right thing to do and because it's the best solution for everyone included. I just don't believe that simply because we try to distribute wealth around more evenly that people would lose the desire to do the best they can in life and be the best person they could be. I believe that there are certain people who strive harder and ones that don't in either system.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I didn't read the last 10 pages, but I think it depends how you see it. Obviously if you view it as yet another picture of "the US suck" some people are bound to disagree.
What it can show is that our capitalist system has led us to consume, consume again, then consume even more until over consumption has become the norm. And most of us are consuming beyond that norm. Capitalism as it is today, has us (I mean wealthy occidentals, the fat kid) consuming much more than we should or than we need.
There are ressources enough for everyone but over consumption hides that fact, as a result we have not enough for everyone.
I don't think that picture says capitalism sucks, socialism is better, but it should reflect that it's not because we can buy shitloads of stuff that we should actually do it.
But that's just the thing...people are buying up everything because it's for sale. There's no protection under the capitalist system for those that have less buying power. These are the results we have been getting through free market capitalist system. People buy up everything that's for sale no matter what the consequences are. Both systems look good and paper...they are theories but it's the effects of how unequally the wealth is being distributed throughout the world that's causing the problem. We have the most power because we have the most money...those who don't have the money go without because it's bought out from under them at prices they couldn't afford to begin with. We're measuring people's worth in money.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Capitalism is as corrupt as it gets, the idea may well have been a great one, but people get involved and greed and self interest also get involved.
The corporation does not run in any other form, other than it's is own self interest. The only people it benefits is itself, it does nothing out of the goodness of it's heart. It see's only $$ signs.
It's stealing pocket change from people who really cannot afford it.
Reading up on the IMF and world bank would give people an idea of what the so called free market has to do with poor countries.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
the free market is hardly free, cause someone always pays and it's usually those who can least afford it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Exactly my point.
I think the picture in the orignal post shows exactly what capitalism is, forget the american child and the african child. It is the greed of one at the expense of the other.
Countries on there own are not to blame for capitalism, greedy people are to blame. It is at the expense of the average person in a country that the greedy prosper, in western countries it is harder to see what is being stolen from the poor because even though they are poor they still have a roof over there head and food to eat. So by those standards their still doing ok. But that doesn't make the divide between the rich and poor ok.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
I'll gladly agree with all you said (and even say that the socialist system looks better on paper) but let's face it, we're not exactly relugating/getting rid of the free market. What we (as little fat kids) can do is stop consuming like we were the only living things on earth and teach that to our own (less) little fat kids.
There's a film called "we feed the world" which show how appalling our attitude is towards food. It's ridiculous. When producers start throwing around unused food like simple garbage it's because our methods of consumption allow this. And when we stop monopolizing the world's ressources maybe wealth will even out. But this won't happen until we change our view of life : it isn't one giant supermarket.
Somewhere we shall find a happy medium, is what that should be titled.
i would say the child on the left is a result of poor parenting, and the child on the right is a result of the lack of support from the world community for our neediest.