Capitalism, Sustainability, and the Possibility of Global Collapse

I think that we will see an incredible surge in the stock market this week, especially after Obama "wins" the election.

Here is the good news. The stock market, despite what a lot of you folks believe, is still subject to the whims of thousands still willing to make market decisions for their own best interests - not do what they are told to do. Obama's victory, hyped as the presidency of change, will inspire those who can make their own decisions to be calm, keep their money in certain U.S. industries (yes, we still have some), and wait till January to do anything of any significance.

Here is another bit of silver lining to the coming months. If you have the money, buy property. Be smart about it. Don't sign a lease for space at the local failed strip mall. Buy property. No matter how miniscule the gain, it will be a gain nonetheless. Afraid that the bank is going to default on your twenty grand in savings, and that FDIC - although mandated - will fail at the exact moment you need it to work? Got a savings invested in useless 401ks? Buy a hunk of ground - put your money in hard land. Gold mongers will tell you different, and you can bet, they will have all kinds of advice on how to get into the precious metals market. Anywho, if you are looking for something to put your dollars in before dollars become worthless, and will hold its value (or considering the current real estate situation, only increase in value) for years to come, go buy land. You can either A: resell it at a profit in ten years, B: resell it and break even in a few years, C: live off it for now, sell it later for a profit, or D: keep it forever, live off it, and love it - passing it on to the next generation and learning where you come from in the process.

Buy land, not gold.

Just a thought. I'm willing to listen to reasons for why I am wrong, as long as those reasons are researched and knowledgeable.

What do you think?

[dreamangel]

Originally Posted by historycircus

If we face a future where it is up to us to create a new economic system, could we return to the use of the market, or are we better off finding another way? Perhaps a return to principles of exchange? Should we consider some sort of socialism - despite the failures observed in the old USSR?

Maybe you can go live there for a while and come back and tell us how good it is. That way we will know for sure and eveyone will just give up and say "OK".

Dreamangel,

Explain? What are you saying with your post? Is it wrong for me to question the fundamental mechanisms of Capitalism, considering that last few weeks of experience in the Western economy? Is it wrong for me to ask questions that might lead to a better way of life for us all? I did not endorse socialism, I was merely asking everyone to consider ways that would work better than what we have now. Maybe Capitalism IS the most fair way, given our nature as a species (war, crime, etc.). Maybe we could revive once lost forms of the exchange economy (credit without interest, etc.). Maybe the markets are the best way. I don't know. I was hoping for constructive stuff here, not just "go move to Russia if don't like it."

Anyone else?

[dreamangel]

historycircus,

I have no problem when you question it. I am just saying, try it on for size before you expect everyone else to just give into something they don't believe in. You are as free as anyone to go test it out and see how you like it. I have been in other countries. There is no way I would want to live like they do. If you are that curious, go check it out first.

China is really the only country that pretends to use socialism anymore (even though they are only a capitalist dictatorship). Where have you been that uses socialism?

[dreamangel]

I have been to several countries that may not call it socializm, but it is embeded. China is a Communist country, it doesn't have to be a communist country to have socializm. Greece for one. Most of the major transportation there is government run, among other things. Since these people won't get fired want to take a day off, they just shut it down and you are stuck where ever you are if you don't have your own tansportation. I guess that would be ok here, I can see people just sitting and waiting until someone decides they want to come to work.

Is not the formal definition of "Communism" = authoritarian socialism?

Greece is not socialist (beyond what it takes to participate with its EU bretheren), nor Communist (despite Mr. Papoulias's behavior).

If the people, the ones who should rule, decided to not show up to work as an act of negotiation for their rights as humans, then I say good. Unfortunately, if you read the reports, the Grecian strike meant nothing. They still work for next to free.

I get the sense that you believe in neoconservative economic philosophy. Your beliefs are about to undergo the ultimate test.

[kem]

Is not the formal definition of "Communism" = authoritarian socialism?

I think you should know there are big differences between these two terms...
First of all, according to Marx, communism isn't authoritarian. This is the way we tried to embbed it that is authoritarian. And this is the reason why this system has never worked. Today it's time to say Liberalism doesn't work as well.
So let's try something else... (Alas! I don't know what exactly)

[dreamangel]

Originally Posted by historycircus

I get the sense that you believe in neoconservative economic philosophy. Your beliefs are about to undergo the ultimate test.

That remains to be seen. Obama is a phony. We know less about him than anyone. From what I have seen from him is less impressive than watching water boil. Joe Biden is a drunken joke and an idiot to boot.

Yes, I am voting for McCain, who I am not fond of by any stretch, but those are our choices. My father faught in 2 wars for me to have my own opinion and the freedom to express it.

Dreamangel,

Do not mistake what I am about to write as an intended insult to your father's military career, but most wars fought in the 20th century, and all the wars fought so far this century, are not about your freedom to do anything.

Korea and Vietnam were about making sure Japan's industrial complex would have markets in which to dump their goods, not about American freedom. Bosnia was about preserving new emerging markets in eastern Europe, and the freedom of ethnic Albanians. The first gulf war was about doing what the Saudis told us to do so that the oil spigot remained in the "on" (and more importantly, "cheap") position. Afghanistan was about securing oil pipelines being built to connect the oil fields of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to the Arabian Sea (and the real reason pressure is being applied to Pakistan), and Iraq II was about nothing but oil. These wars are not about your freedom, they are about making profits for the companies who pay for the campaigns of our politicians.

The above stated reasons are why I distrust Capitalism so much, yea, the reason why I am at a philosophical point in my own life journey where I am prepared to reject it alltogether. How many civilian populations have to be bombed into hamburger so that we can continue to drive cheap cars on cheap gas to go to the local mall and buy imported clothing manufactured by poor children?

I refuse to accept that that is the definition of freedom we have to live by. As a true patriot, I refuse to accept what our country has become.

Well, Bam-Bam has pulled it off. He defied centuries of racism, inspired large numbers of apathetic young people to participate in the political system, and defeated a tough opponent - John McCain really did represent the better elements of the Republican party. Obama did it while distancing himself from the loonier elements of his own party (i.e., Reid and Pelosi), and for the most part, without a great deal of help from the most popular former democratic president still alive.

Despite what many readers here, and folks across the conspiracy research spectrum have argued or blindly believe, Obama is not a Mason. At the very time in people's lives where they drift toward secret societies like the Masons, Obama was exploring his own disdain for the culture he saw around him, and cavorted with radicals expounding the need to fundamentally change everything in America - our culture, our economy, our spirits. Obama was smoking pot and being an angry black youth while George Bush was defending Texas from the Vietnamese on orders of his daddy. There is a POSSIBLE Masonic connection via his wife, but Obama himself is not a Mason. He may be an unknowing puppet, but not consciously a tool of the power structure he just won an election campaigning against - he believes himself to be his own man. I tend to agree with him.

And therein lies the rub. My biggest fear about Obama is not this "anti-Christ" silliness making the rounds, his supposed connections with Islam or Masonry, or the "secret socialist" charge that flies out of the mouths of windy conservative pundits like Limbaugh or Savage; rather, I fear that Obama is truly a break with the program - the "Matrix" so many here discuss - and as such, will be taken from us via assassination, by desperate corporate/PTB interests, some right wing nut job wishing to kill him for their religious fantasies, or some sheet wearing skin-head from the "Kill the Darkies" militia.

If you think about the numeric and symbolic elements of the PTB rituals, the danger to Obama becomes all the more important. The similarities to JFK are eerie. Obama is the first sitting Senator to be elected to the presidency since JFK. "Hope" and "change" were the central themes of both campaigns. Exactly 48 years seperates their elections (perhaps the eXchanger could explain that one). The moment Obama comes out and gives a press conference that asks the media and the American people to aid him in bringing more transparency to the system, watch out - they killed Kennedy a few weeks after he did the same. A similar fate for Obama would reenact the blood sacrifice made in 1963. If the number 48 truly has meaning, Obama might want to beef up his security in 2011 (the year he will be holding campaign rallies out in the open).

Now, with all that said, my other fear is that Obama will concentrate his energies on "fixing" the "broken" mechanisms of modern Capitalism (which are not really broken - this is how Capitalism operates), instead of breaking old paradigms and trying something new. Now that the federal government is in the banking business, he has an opportunity to experiment. Targeted, interest-free lending for the lower end of the income spectrum? Finally federalizing the "federal" reserve? Forcing corporations to recognize that the status that they have enjoyed since the American Civil War also comes with the obligations of citizenship? And that the inequality inherent in the Capitalist system is the very thing that allows for corporate profits, which makes it their duty to aid in the relief of the very poverty their profits are dependent upon? Or, will the morally bankrupt stock traders, investment bankers, and corporate figureheads be the only beneficiaries of his economic policies? I certainly "hope" not.

How do you all feel about Bam-Bam, as his presidency relates to our economic system? Will we see fundamental change? Or will it be business as usual?

[Rocky_Shorz]

Japan and Hong Kong are down 1000...

somebody better shut down the short sales quick or we're going to have a record drop today...

[Practitioner]

Hire me to build a building, and I shall build one. Pay me to tear it down. I shall do so. And I shall grow wealthier despite nothing else having been accomplished.

Whether there is capitalism or some form of regulated capitalism, it seems to me that there ought to be an element of conscience, of reasonable purpose for the investment of capital. It is human selfishness and immorality that leads to economic crises. However, one could also argue that human selfishness and immorality are the pre-existing conditions of either economic model.

If new wealth is to be created without seizing upon new natural resources, then it can be accomplished by improving the efficient management of existing resources. Thus, knowledge and experience--intellectual capital--would be the new catalyst for wealth, although this might be more likely to lead to a redistribution of wealth within the system, rather that the wealth of the system itself expanding.

[voltron]

New World Order Plans for the World Economy
http://www.cosmicawareness.org November 2008 Issue
There will eventually be five social/economic/political regions. The European Union has already been formed. The North American Union is the next. It is due by 2010. Then there will be the South American, the Asian, and then the Austro/Asian regions. Australia would fit into the Asian community. There is also seen a region around Africa/the Middle East, in that region. Eventually these five regions will fall under the One World Government, The New World Order as proposed by the elite cabal, those who are in charge. They have already divided up the world. They have already planned its future. Events such as the collapse of the American economy is designed towards creating a situation that will eventually lead to the proposal of a union of the three nations in North America, for it is seen that the Canadian economy and the Mexican economy will also be affected by the collapse, but not to the same degree, and the bailout will eventually be require being bailed out through the unification of the three nations, the proposal stating that the three together will be stronger and more stable once again than three who are separately struggling to endure the storms that are raging at the moment.

Originally Posted by Rocky_Shorz

Japan and Hong Kong are down 1000...

somebody better shut down the short sales quick or we're going to have a record drop today...

Looks like you were right Rocky - the worst consecutive two day drop in almost thirty years . . .

Originally Posted by Practitioner

Hire me to build a building, and I shall build one. Pay me to tear it down. I shall do so. And I shall grow wealthier despite nothing else having been accomplished.

Whether there is capitalism or some form of regulated capitalism, it seems to me that there ought to be an element of conscience, of reasonable purpose for the investment of capital. It is human selfishness and immorality that leads to economic crises. However, one could also argue that human selfishness and immorality are the pre-existing conditions of either economic model.

If new wealth is to be created without seizing upon new natural resources, then it can be accomplished by improving the efficient management of existing resources. Thus, knowledge and experience--intellectual capital--would be the new catalyst for wealth, although this might be more likely to lead to a redistribution of wealth within the system, rather that the wealth of the system itself expanding.

Welcome Practicioner,

You are indeed right, and your words highlight my own inner confliction over Capitalism. On paper and in theory, Capitalism can be an efficient way for us to engage in economic activity. But, given human nature, it becomes a form of enslavement. I really like what you said about intellectual capital. I don't know if you read any theoretical anthropology, but there is this concept of the "thought economy" that is directly related to what you wrote. It harkens back to pre-Capitalist modes of production and exchange - a world in which value was dependent upon the relationships that produced and moved goods, not materialism or function/use.

I would argue that the primacy of "intellectual capital" would not only redistribute wealth (thus combatting the inherent inequality upon which the Capitalist system is dependent), but might actually serve to REDEFINE the very meaning of wealth. How we make this transition in a world where intellectual creativity and development is mistrusted and actually attacked as elitism, however, is beyond me.

Again, welcome Practicioner, and come back soon.

Originally Posted by kem

I think you should know there are big differences between these two terms...
First of all, according to Marx, communism isn't authoritarian. This is the way we tried to embbed it that is authoritarian. And this is the reason why this system has never worked. Today it's time to say Liberalism doesn't work as well.
So let's try something else... (Alas! I don't know what exactly)

Welcome to the thread Kem (I almost forgot about your post, so I apologize for not responding),

Communism as has been practiced, has been authoritarian, but you are correct; Marx's vision of a Communist world (what little he offered) would ideally not be authoritarian. Thanks for keeping me honest . . .

Liberalism too, has failed us. Although I tend to think we are on verge of something new - a movement perhaps - that leaves the hollowness of liberalism behind, while creating something new out of liberalism's emphasis on humanitarianism. That is my hope anyway.

Thanks for posting, and please, come back. My goal for this thread was to discuss the future of our economic behavior no matter what happens to us as a species, and I welcome anything you can offer.

[Knightbk]

We are all going to die, so why do you guys care?

[Rocky_Shorz]

This isn't the end, it's only the beginning...

Originally Posted by voltron

New World Order Plans for the World Economy
http://www.cosmicawareness.org November 2008 Issue
There will eventually be five social/economic/political regions. The European Union has already been formed. The North American Union is the next. It is due by 2010. Then there will be the South American, the Asian, and then the Austro/Asian regions. Australia would fit into the Asian community. There is also seen a region around Africa/the Middle East, in that region. Eventually these five regions will fall under the One World Government, The New World Order as proposed by the elite cabal, those who are in charge. They have already divided up the world. They have already planned its future. Events such as the collapse of the American economy is designed towards creating a situation that will eventually lead to the proposal of a union of the three nations in North America, for it is seen that the Canadian economy and the Mexican economy will also be affected by the collapse, but not to the same degree, and the bailout will eventually be require being bailed out through the unification of the three nations, the proposal stating that the three together will be stronger and more stable once again than three who are separately struggling to endure the storms that are raging at the moment.

Greetings Voltron,

I found your info interesting, but I'm not sure I totally buy it all.

As I have said for a while, our economic system is ALREADY the perfect cage - most people in the United States and the western world honestly believe that the system as-is is the epitome of freedom, but the truth is that very few economic decisions we make on a daily basis are truly free decisions. From paying bills to buying a pack of gum, our free-will only gets limited exercise. I try to put myself in the PTB shoes - this gobal economic downturn is causing people who would normally not think about such things to pay closer attention to their political leaders, corporate activity, etc. For a group that depends on their ability to operate out of the shadows, their cover is shrinking in the light of scrutiny. I see the current econoic problem as a window of opportunity - but the window can only stay open so long.

I have been reading some of the economic threads, and have a quick thought to share.

The majority here on Avalon believe that the current global economic crisis is engineered. It has been thrown together by the NWO/Illuminati/PTB groups as a way to consolidate power and achieve a reduction in global population, etc. If this this is the interpretation that is true, then we are all doomed, right? We are watching it happen right before our eyes, and there is nothing that we can do except buy our "I love the NWO" t-shirts now and select where we want our chip, or prepare to die horribly - in a concentration camp, or on the streets. If they can engineer something like that, and keep the artificiality of the whole thing a secret from us, then their power is unlimited, and there is absolutely nothing we can do.

Now there is a small minority here on Avalon, myself included, who sees the current global collapse as not engineered - a goof made by the lazy, distracted shepards of our age - but a mistake nonetheless. It represents a crisis in leadership in whatever PTB organization one chooses to believe in. The system as is/was, was one where we drove the Pinto, aspired to drive the Lexus, quietly worked like dogs to get that Lexus, and shrugged with indifference whenever a "third-world" nation got bombed to keep the system alive. It bred docility and allegience. But it is falling apart, and people are taking notice, getting angry, and pushing for something different. I think the PTB are fighting to maintain the control they have, not seeking to consolidate.

In any event, if the latter of the two scenarios above is true, it represents a small window of opportunity to change the entire system. While life might be unpleasant in a "depression" economy, perhaps it will foster a dramatic shift in how we use resources, and treat each other as human beings.

[Orion Morris]

Originally Posted by historycircus

In any event, if the latter of the two scenarios above is true, it represents a small window of opportunity to change the entire system. While life might be unpleasant in a "depression" economy, perhaps it will foster a dramatic shift in how we use resources, and treat each other as human beings.

WORD I feel like it is probably enginered but either way you are right historycircus.

Originally Posted by Knightbk

We are all going to die, so why do you guys care?

Explain. Our species dies - it is what we do. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to leave the best world we can for those who come after.

I'm just not sure what you are getting at.

Today I listened to G.W. Bush, our president defect, speak about how "economic growth" should be the goal, how "free markets" and "free people" were key to fostering that growth, and how people shouldn't question the "principles of the Capitalist system." It was an NPR piece that mentioned that the G-20, or whatever bllsht the PTP want to call wrangling the top seven brink-of-the-industrial-plateau nations and hangers on. Anyway, it sounds to me like he is still full of garbage. He is truly a clueless maniac - even the PTB see it.

Do they think we are fools? "Growth," for instance, is a loaded concept. There was a time in our histories in which the concept of economic "growth" defied natural law. Exchange, feudalism, Mercantilism - all systems were connected enough to the natural cycles of the planet (barring feudalism's and Mercantilism's aspirations to the contrary) to know that growth, of populations and riches, for the express goal of expansion in and of itself, was impossible. eXchangers were happy to eXist - they recognized their condition as a gift from higher powers, and while not above the emotional whims that take men to war and move them to peace, their eXistance was recognized as balance. Feudals were slaves who enjoyed moments of freedom, but recognized their own slavery as a condition of balance at the time. Mercantilists were war hawks that believed that whatever tactics increased their own piece of the limited pie were justified, but they did believe pie size (i.e., global resources) limited - expansion was impossible. Lucky for them Christobal de Colombo (or Colon) made that argument moot. The pie suddenly got way bigger than they could concieve. Thus, the European settlers of the Americas murdered and raped their way acrossssssssss the landscape, believing that "growth" was now a natural principle. It is no surprise that Adam Smith could make his argument so well in a day and age when maps of the entire globe remained undrawn (at least to the mainstream). Colonialism had allowed economists to disregard Mercantilist theory as "archaic," and the earlier exchange economy was virtually unknown by them - and given their feeling of superiority over the past, they would have dismissed it anyway. Colonialism gave birth to the economics of "growth," which is the fundamental building block of Capitalist theory.

But now we have the maps. Even with the addition of planets that can be mined for their resources, we know that our society as is cannot grow and maintain the balance necessary to ensure the continuation of the species.

Is there something redeeming in the Capitalist system that I have missed? Can we move forward as a species adhering to the market system? I do not think we can. We must figure out how to get along on this mud-ball with finite resources. I think that is where we are going - headed toward making such decisions, not as ethnicities or nations, but as a species.

For the die hard Capitalists, let me ask this: what happens when someone wins? If Capitalism is dependent upon competition, what happens if someone wins? Do you know who controls 80% of the textbook trade in the United States? Google it, make the connections, and you will be horrified who the CEO turns out to be. Eventually, someone wins the race, and unless there is a system in place to make sure the winner gives up his crown for the next race, we are in trouble. I think our economic system in the United States is about to undergo the same trials that our political system once did.

[gwynned]

Originally Posted by historycircus

Today I listened to G.W. Bush, our president defect, speak about how "economic growth" should be the goal, how "free markets" and "free people" were key to fostering that growth, and how people shouldn't question the "principles of the Capitalist system."

Whenever someone tries to reassure me about something is when I really start worrying!

Is Obama being set up to be the next FDR, whose task is to save capitalism?