.
I came across an interesting new book called Cannibal Capitalism. Because I haven't had time to read it in detail, I have skipped ahead to the last several chapters. The points are as follows. A thriving economy needs to keep workers gainfully working. Industrial nations benefit by spreading work to developing countries. It's immoral to deprive developing countries from competing with one of the few resources readily available to them, being cheap labor. As developed nations produce fewer durable goods, they begin developing more in faux-goods, i.e., paper goods. This consolidates wealth and dries up the middle class, making the economy unhealthy in terms of real wealth.
.
The solution offered seems unrealistic: to rely on businesses to have vision to temper the good of liberty at home with their own immediate profits. That is, to negotiate give-back financing to build more infrastructure in the labor areas hollowed out at home. I see the need for less regulation of business at home. I don't expect, without national regulation, that the "invisible hand" of immediate self-interest will lead businesses by themselves to finance such give-back programs. Moreover, it doesn't seem appropriate to blindly lump all poorer trading partners in some benign category as developing nations. Many are not benign; their cultures mean to devour or bury ours, if we continue to enrich them with means to do so. Yet, western nations fall all over themselves scurrying to sell themselves out. I don't see the "immorality" in depriving entrenched, anti-liberty interests abroad from using their cheap labor to run state-capitalism that is intent on burying the West. Moreover, blindly extolling the developing of markets in developing countries that are bent on burying ours is calculated to empower them to buy control over our resources, politicians, and jobs at home. Blindly extolling such "free trade" translates into celebrating those capitalists at home who're quickest to sell us out. I don't see candidates or pundits addressing this. Maybe concerns with cannibal capitalism are not compatible with soundbite thought processes.
.
***************
.
Communists and corporatists are both collectivists, but one favors sticks while the other favors carrots. Even so, both run competitive communes. By that I mean competitive loyalty to the cause (apprehending who is strong and needs to be fed, versus who is weak and can be jumped) tends to be more important than any abstract notion of fairness or merit. Those Forced into collectivization tend sooner to comprehend their situation, but not much availed to communicate about it. Those Lulled into collectivization tend longer to remain deceived, and less likely to communicate about it while they deceive themselves. In any event, once the commune gates are closed, any strenuous effort to escape will likely be met either by expulsion from grace or by force necessary to the situation. The stronger and less checked a centralizer becomes, the more he becomes aware of his control, the more corrupt he becomes against the liberty or dignity of individuals. Death was pay to anyone who jested Alexander when he wanted not to be jested. A communist sociopath may deal death as a blatant example. A corporatist sociopath, bound more to formalities of law, must be more discreet. Eventually, both establish crony collectivism. At that point, it becomes mox nix whether you call it crony socialism or crony capitalism. Some want to abuse (Rinos); some want to be abused (Dinos). They take turns being on top. Not so many want to be free. I don't care much for Paul or Gingrich, but more needs to be learned about Romney in order to make an informed choice. As for Santorum, just say no to nation-building.
I came across an interesting new book called Cannibal Capitalism. Because I haven't had time to read it in detail, I have skipped ahead to the last several chapters. The points are as follows. A thriving economy needs to keep workers gainfully working. Industrial nations benefit by spreading work to developing countries. It's immoral to deprive developing countries from competing with one of the few resources readily available to them, being cheap labor. As developed nations produce fewer durable goods, they begin developing more in faux-goods, i.e., paper goods. This consolidates wealth and dries up the middle class, making the economy unhealthy in terms of real wealth.
.
The solution offered seems unrealistic: to rely on businesses to have vision to temper the good of liberty at home with their own immediate profits. That is, to negotiate give-back financing to build more infrastructure in the labor areas hollowed out at home. I see the need for less regulation of business at home. I don't expect, without national regulation, that the "invisible hand" of immediate self-interest will lead businesses by themselves to finance such give-back programs. Moreover, it doesn't seem appropriate to blindly lump all poorer trading partners in some benign category as developing nations. Many are not benign; their cultures mean to devour or bury ours, if we continue to enrich them with means to do so. Yet, western nations fall all over themselves scurrying to sell themselves out. I don't see the "immorality" in depriving entrenched, anti-liberty interests abroad from using their cheap labor to run state-capitalism that is intent on burying the West. Moreover, blindly extolling the developing of markets in developing countries that are bent on burying ours is calculated to empower them to buy control over our resources, politicians, and jobs at home. Blindly extolling such "free trade" translates into celebrating those capitalists at home who're quickest to sell us out. I don't see candidates or pundits addressing this. Maybe concerns with cannibal capitalism are not compatible with soundbite thought processes.
.
***************
.
Communists and corporatists are both collectivists, but one favors sticks while the other favors carrots. Even so, both run competitive communes. By that I mean competitive loyalty to the cause (apprehending who is strong and needs to be fed, versus who is weak and can be jumped) tends to be more important than any abstract notion of fairness or merit. Those Forced into collectivization tend sooner to comprehend their situation, but not much availed to communicate about it. Those Lulled into collectivization tend longer to remain deceived, and less likely to communicate about it while they deceive themselves. In any event, once the commune gates are closed, any strenuous effort to escape will likely be met either by expulsion from grace or by force necessary to the situation. The stronger and less checked a centralizer becomes, the more he becomes aware of his control, the more corrupt he becomes against the liberty or dignity of individuals. Death was pay to anyone who jested Alexander when he wanted not to be jested. A communist sociopath may deal death as a blatant example. A corporatist sociopath, bound more to formalities of law, must be more discreet. Eventually, both establish crony collectivism. At that point, it becomes mox nix whether you call it crony socialism or crony capitalism. Some want to abuse (Rinos); some want to be abused (Dinos). They take turns being on top. Not so many want to be free. I don't care much for Paul or Gingrich, but more needs to be learned about Romney in order to make an informed choice. As for Santorum, just say no to nation-building.
.
2 comments:
From A.T. --
FRS, re: "Just as the farmer knows that he must remove weeds for lettuce to grow; the business executive is closest to the market and knows what will sell in what market."
Indeed, this does make sense, but only so long as you assume or deal only with relatively free people in relatively free nations. Not so much when you're asking individual businesses in one nation to compete with state-run capitalists in others, whose states have definite goals about what kinds of markets or societies they want to impose and do not respect Western notions of market legalities. Then, the competition moves from being between individuals to being between states. That is, unless one state doesn't figure it out in time and unilaterally disarms itself in economic terms. What assurance do we have that foreign, state-run capitalists are not laundering funds to our politicians and seed money to our venture capitalists? If we refuse to defend ourselves, won't the "weeds" being removed become the Western economies that fail to innoculate themselves against Chinese-like models of state-run capitalism?
It's quite right that I will definitely vote for Romney if he is the choice against Obummer! which appears more and more likely to be the case. And Romney may actually be a good candidate. Flies on the others have been made obvious. But there is a big buzzing fly which seems seems quite invisible to the vetting of any of the candidates, which consists in this: What assurance do we have, or should we require, that foreign, state-run capitalists from non-benign states will not (continue to?) be allowed to launder funds to our politicians and seed money to our venture capitalists? Why is that fly so invisible and so un-addressed?
Post a Comment