Subj : Capitalism vs. Corporatis
To : Dr. What
From : Moondog
Date : Tue Jul 19 2022 01:53 pm
Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatis
By: Dr. What to Kaelon on Tue Jul 19 2022 09:44 am
> -=> Kaelon wrote to Boraxman <=-
>
> Ka> I think true Capitalism, including the "free hand" of the market, needs
> Ka> freedom in order to function properly.
>
> Which is at odds with the Elitists who have been around since the beginning.
> The Elitists have an idea that the world would work so much better if there
> a small group of smart people directing everything and that the great unwash
> masses didn't have to think anymore.
>
> Of course, these Elitists think that they are the smart ones and that they
> should control everything. Never mind that every time that they've tried, t
> have utterly failed - usually with catastrophic results.
>
> Ka> Cryptocurrency Bubble we have now), the wealthiest investors started to
> Ka> leverage their tremendous assets to co-opt banking institutions to
> Ka> create insurance models that would, in essence, create soft-floors for
> Ka> failure.
>
> I can't blame them for wanting that.
>
> Ka> This should have been thwarted then and there.
>
> Correct. But that was only allowed because of the Elitists in the society w
> saw doing so as a way to gain more power - and move toward their goal of
> complete control.
>
> Ka> Corporations today are not engines of capitalism or innovation.
>
> One thing that we need to remember, though, is that corporations are not the
> majority of the employers nor are they the driving force of our economy. It
> easy to think of them as such because they are so large and visible.
>
> The major drivers of the economy are the small businesses.
>
> Look back just a year or so with the scamdemic. Who won? The large
> businesses. Who lost? The small businesses.
>
> Why? Because the Elitists pulling the strings knew it was easy to control a
> few large businesses (which they already have good control of) than to try t
> control many, many small businesses.
>
> Ka> They
> Ka> are syndicates of vast capital control, and resemble nothing like the
> Ka> intentions of true capitalism -- which were not single-man corporations
> Ka> or self-employed persons.
>
> But those large corporations all started out as single-man operations. So i
> that respect, they exist because of "true" (whatever that means) capitalism.
>
> The problem is that those large corporations have been corrupted by the
> Elitists - many of whom are in the gov't. Laws, regulations, etc. are put i
> place to prevent a small business from disrupting big business's business
> model.
>
> Ka> What we have today is nothing
> Ka> like the original corporations, because they have become so deeply
> Ka> interconnected with our institutions - especially our fiduriary
> Ka> controls and our political organs.
>
> I would argue that that interconnectedness is due to the piles and piles of
> gov't regulations placed on these corporations. They do it simply to surviv
> Or, maybe, the correct way to say it is "they used to do it to survive" and
> they do it today because that's the only way you can do it.
>
> Ka> One might argue that following the Great Depression, the only way to
> Ka> mobilize all of society to combat both imminent economic institutional
> Ka> collapse and to defeat geopolitical threats, was to unite the pillars
> Ka> of commerce and government into a single corporatist continuum. This
> Ka> was certainly the approach of the Fascists and Communists. I would
> Ka> argue it's ultimately what happened in the Western - now Global -
> Ka> Order, in that Democracies learned how to harness and unify the
> Ka> economic structures to unite military and industrial components to
> Ka> thereby coopt commerce for political aims.
>
> Oh! Now that is something that I didn't connect yet. Thank you.
>
> I already saw the "create a crisis" play that they often use. (Create a
> crisis, then use that as an excuse to grab more power to "help avert a
> diaster", which then causes another crisis, and so on.) But I didn't see th
> connection to things like WWI and WWII where we "pulled together" and basica
> became a sociaist country "for a time" in order to fight off the threat.
>
> Side note: I have an interest in railroads, so I've studied much history abo
> them - and not just the Transcontinental Railroad. During WWII the gov't
> seized control of the railroads because they needed them to move resources
> around "efficiently". The end result was that after years of gov't control,
> the railroads were wrecked (too much deferred maintenance, old equipment,
> etc.). That was one of the reasons road travel became so popular after WWII
> the railroads needed time and money to get their system back in order and th
> were deep in a hole that they needed to get out of.
>
> One of the problems a gov't has is that once it has power, they will never l
> it go completely. And while I haven't researched it, I have heard people
> assert too much that many of the controls put in place during WWII are still
> there.
>
>
> ... I thought I was a wit, and I was half right.
> ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52
>
In the US nuclear palnts are regualted by the government, but run privately.
The industry has smaller groups consisting of representatives from plants
travel from plant to plant and benchmark their operations and rank their
facilities. Not only do you have to follow governemnt regulations, but you
have a healthy peer group to welcome ways to improve plant operation.
In France, nuclear power generation is government run, and run well. Somehow
they got past the bureacracy hangups normally related with government
agencies.
---
� Synchronet � The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
