Corporate Feudalism and The Culture War

[Joe DeFuria]

When we moved out (out of necessity due to bad conditions at home after coming out), we accrued about $37K credit card debt, and we had another $20K of school loans to pay off. We accrued that debt because of unforseen circumstances, but immediately began the process of paying it off.

No, natoma...going into debt is never "necessary." No matter what the circumstances, correct? You didn't need to live in NYC, have whatever computers and "luxuries" (hundreds of DVDs, etc.). Surely, you could've lowered your standard of living and not gone into debt. Surely, going to war, or an economic contraction (dot-com bust) isn't an excuse either.

By limiting our spending and dumping as much as possible into our debt.

I sure hope you don't lose you job in this "jobless economy" we have...then what will you do?

When we're out of debt, we're going to be able to resume a normal lifestyle.

Biting tongue

But seriously, I'm interested to know what you consider "normal." And if many people would be "envious" of your current lifestyle, as if you have some great hardship.

 

[Humus]

bs. Self preservation and compassion.

Huh?

 

[Natoma]

When we moved out (out of necessity due to bad conditions at home after coming out), we accrued about $37K credit card debt, and we had another $20K of school loans to pay off. We accrued that debt because of unforseen circumstances, but immediately began the process of paying it off.

No, natoma...going into debt is never "necessary." No matter what the circumstances, correct? You didn't need to live in NYC, have whatever computers and "luxuries" (hundreds of DVDs, etc.). Surely, you could've lowered your standard of living and not gone into debt. Surely, going to war, or an economic contraction (dot-com bust) isn't an excuse either.

We accrued that debt because of unforseen circumstances, but immediately began the process of paying it off. We had absolutely no choice in moving. We couldn't afford it with cash either at the time because we weren't prepared to move, but we always had a short term plan of immediate repayment. The move itself put us in the hole by $20K because we had to buy furniture, pay the security fees, pay for broker fees, pay first month/last month rent, etc etc etc. We didn't engage in profligate spending. In fact we went into belt-tightening mode and cut out every possible expenditure that wasn't necessary (groceries, utilities, etc) until such time when our debt load was lower. Our combined debt ratio to income at the time was 110%. Now it's 30%, and falling quickly.

A $200 Billion war, and counting, that no longer has the initial justification behind it, is profligate spending. A $534 Billion prescription drug benefit which has a $3000 coverage gap and will realistically end up costing at least 4x as much once its closed (it's already increased 34% and it's not even active yet), and still doesn't do a lot to actually help seniors, is profligate spending. The Department of Homeland Security which is not receiving the funds to at least meet the 20% inspection rate for minimal security, may as well be profligate spending because it's not doing anything to further our security interests. The list goes on.

Cheney's alleged comment, btw, that "Deficits don't matter" is a perfect snapshot of this administration's fiscal policies which I find highly irresponsible. Hell Bush I raised taxes even in a time of war and economic slowdown in order to try and control the deficit. But of course you'll disagree since you're not a bush II hater.

By limiting our spending and dumping as much as possible into our debt.

I sure hope you don't lose you job in this "jobless economy" we have...then what will you do?

Why do you think the emphasis is on paying down debt while we can. Some have not been so lucky in this regard and have needed to rely on their credit cards in order to survive.

When we're out of debt, we're going to be able to resume a normal lifestyle.

Biting tongue

But seriously, I'm interested to know what you consider "normal." And if many people would be "envious" of your current lifestyle, as if you have some great hardship.

A normal lifestyle is one where we're not devoting 55% of our after tax income to credit card and school loan repayment. Whenever I've received a raise and eddie has received a raise, what did we do with the bulk of it? Debt repayment. The irresponsible thing to do imo would be to raise the level of our spending each time our incomes rose.

 

[Natoma]

Preaching to your Choir, eh, Natoma?

Oh gawd, that's the most fuzzy headed article I've ever read. <snip>

And what you've written doesn't do the same thing?

What I gathered from the article is that he's saying unfettered capitalism, i.e. without workers protections, is what causes the "subjugation" in the third world. Can you argue against this? Not in intent, but in reality of the situation?

The seizure part is talking about corporations taking over the government, not the other way around. I'm not exactly sure how you read it that way.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

We accrued that debt because of unforseen circumstances, but immediately began the process of paying it off.

So did the U.S (accrued due to unforseen circumstances). Why weren't you "saving money for a rainy day?"

We had absolutely no choice in moving.

Bull.

You had every choice to move into whatever type of apartment you wanted, and buy the things you "needed". You used to brag about all these videos and CDs you bought...was that part of your "unforseen circumstances?"

Come clean natoma.

Don't try and say that your unforseen circumstances are more unforseen than say, the war on terror.

And while I agree that Bush / Congress should be cutting back more on spending, they are targetting to reduce the deficit.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Communism can only work on a level where everyone has more or less personal relations to each other, for instance in a family. In a family everyone could work for a common cause without getting much out of it personally, and still be ok with it since it benefits people you love. Love is the only attribute of humans that will beat greed.

I agree and disagree.

Perhaps communism may be able to work "in the family", but that's not a given. (Not sure if you're portraying it that way.)

I know that if my kids are able to support themselves, but are "unwilling", then I would more or less make their lives a living "hell". Obviously, I won't kick them to the curb, but I will force them to live by the "rules of my house". That is, I'd pretty much take away their independence for the "benefit" of living off of myself and my wife. Basically, I'd become the "oppressive communist regime", which should incent them to go out on their own.

 

[Natoma]

You had every choice to move into whatever type of apartment you wanted, and buy the things you "needed". You used to brag about all these videos and CDs you bought...was that part of your "unforseen circumstances?"

Come clean natoma.

The CDs were bought during the mid 90s when we lived at home with our respective parents, through Columbia House "Get 10 Free if you buy 2 at regular price" deals. Of the 250ish DVDs we own, 230ish were purchased before we moved in together, when we both had a lot of disposable income due to the fact that we didn't have any bills, and the other 20ish were purchased through the Columbia House DVD "Get 10 Free if you buy 2 at regular price" deals over the past 3 years. Quite economical.

You might want to take advantage of those deals. You can build your collection rather quickly.

Don't try and say that your unforseen circumstances are more unforseen than say, the war on terror.

Unfortunately the war with Iraq's reasons for justification turned out to be wrong. WMD? No. Terrorist ties? Apparently not. The $200 Billion didn't have to be spent on Iraq. It was an unnecessary war.

And while I agree that Bush / Congress should be cutting back more on spending, they are targetting to reduce the deficit.

Cheney's alleged comment, btw, that "Deficits don't matter" is a perfect snapshot of this administration's fiscal policies which I find highly irresponsible. Hell Bush I raised taxes even in a time of war and economic slowdown in order to try and control the deficit.

.......

A normal lifestyle is one where we're not devoting 55% of our after tax income to credit card and school loan repayment. Whenever I've received a raise and eddie has received a raise, what did we do with the bulk of it? Debt repayment. The irresponsible thing to do imo would be to raise the level of our spending each time our incomes rose.

We've been quite responsible with our finances, and it has shown up on our balance sheet. Unfortunately I can't say the same about this administration.

 

[DemoCoder]

Preaching to your Choir, eh, Natoma?

Oh gawd, that's the most fuzzy headed article I've ever read. <snip>

And what you've written doesn't do the same thing?

I'm not preaching to the choir, by posting extremist articles, I am not making extremist assertions.

What I gathered from the article is that he's saying unfettered capitalism, i.e. without workers protections, is what causes the "subjugation" in the third world. Can you argue against this? Not in intent, but in reality of the situation?

Yes. I object to the word "subjugation", to the concept that third world is subjugated, and that "unfettered capitalism" (strawman) is the cause. I object to the notion that we have "unfettered capitalism" and that globalization is somehow "unfettered". Amazing how you seem to thing that this article is so self-evident and true. You're truly a true believer.

The MacArthur foundation (liberal left, progressive foundation) recently funded a series of research on globalism and concluded that the claims by the anti-globalists with what capitalism has done to the poor in the third world are untenable in the face of rigorous empircal evidence.

The seizure part is talking about corporations taking over the government, not the other way around. I'm not exactly sure how you read it that way.

Oh yes, corporations have taken over the government. Another dumbass leftist claim. What does it mean? If the government refuses to regulate or steal money from someone, that constitutes a "take over"? Is it getting your way? Can't I claim the teacher unions, police unions, prison guard unions, etc get their way, everytime education reform is opposed or ridiculously wasteful budgets can't be slashed?

This is the guy who claims that industrialism and corporations == regimentation and non-individualist because everyone has to show up on time for work. Can any large scale society be run where services are unpredictable because no contracts, such as, being hired to perform a service at time X on day Y? This article is MORONIC. Hierarchy and agreeing to a schedule are fundamental to modern society, regardless of socialism, capitalism, what have you.

Moreover, the idiot who wrote this article confuses feudalism, mercantilism, and capitalism. Sorry Natoma, but you are posting crap articles. If you want to post an anti-capitalist article or anti-globalization essay, there are far more well thought out ones.

This article was nothing but a long string of hyperbole with no evidence cited to back anything up. If this article were being graded by a criticial thinking English class, it would get a C.

 

[Natoma]

What I gathered from the article is that he's saying unfettered capitalism, i.e. without workers protections, is what causes the "subjugation" in the third world. Can you argue against this? Not in intent, but in reality of the situation?

Yes. I object to the word "subjugation", to the concept that third world is subjugated, and that "unfettered capitalism" (strawman) is the cause. I object to the notion that we have "unfettered capitalism" and that globalization is somehow "unfettered". Amazing how you seem to thing that this article is so self-evident and true. You're truly a true believer.

You wouldn't call sweatshops subjugation? Hell you don't even have to go halfway around the world. Stop in the garment district in Manhattan.

The MacArthur foundation (liberal left, progressive foundation) recently funded a series of research on globalism and concluded that the claims by the anti-globalists with what capitalism has done to the poor in the third world are untenable in the face of rigorous empircal evidence.

What was the exact scope of the research, and what were the findings? Making such a broad claim of what capitalism has "done to the poor in the third world" can be taken in many different ways. Can I get a link?

Oh yes, corporations have taken over the government. Another dumbass leftist claim. What does it mean? If the government refuses to regulate or steal money from someone, that constitutes a "take over"? Is it getting your way? Can't I claim the teacher unions, police unions, prison guard unions, etc get their way, everytime education reform is opposed or ridiculously wasteful budgets can't be slashed?

Unions were created in response to corporate abuses DemoCoder. Second, there are clear instances of corporate influence in politics that overwhelmingly and unduly shape the policies of democratic and republican administrations to the detriment of society. Current FCC attempts at deregulation wrt allowing single corporations to purchase a near majority of news outlets, controlling media sources that people are able to get are one such example.

This is the guy who claims that industrialism and corporations == regimentation and non-individualist because everyone has to show up on time for work. Can any large scale society be run where services are unpredictable because no contracts, such as, being hired to perform a service at time X on day Y? This article is MORONIC. Hierarchy and agreeing to a schedule are fundamental to modern society, regardless of socialism, capitalism, what have you.

No DemoCoder, you missed the whole point of that allusion.

Moreover, the idiot who wrote this article confuses feudalism, mercantilism, and capitalism. Sorry Natoma, but you are posting crap articles. If you want to post an anti-capitalist article or anti-globalization essay, there are far more well thought out ones.

This article was nothing but a long string of hyperbole with no evidence cited to back anything up. If this article were being graded by a criticial thinking English class, it would get a C.

And again, your posts in this thread are different... How?

 

[DemoCoder]

[You wouldn't call sweatshops subjugation? Hell you don't even have to go halfway around the world. Stop in the garment district in Manhattan.

"Sweatshop" itself is a loaded term. No, I would not call it subjugation. Slavery was subjugation. Hiring someone, for whatever wage and amount of backbreaking work, is not subjugation.

What was the exact scope of the research, and what were the findings? Making such a broad claim of what capitalism has "done to the poor in the third world" can be taken in many different ways. Can I get a link?

IIRC, it centered on the thesis that growth in the third world comes from inequality, and that capitalism leaves those in poorer countries which are experiencing high levels of growth and *growing inequality* worse off. It shows that in fact, even under absurd levels of inequality, the poor are still much better off. Basically, the magnitude of increases in the standard of living from increases of growth dwarf any supposed deterioration of the position of the poor due to unequal distribution of the gains. The study was conducted by looking at economies which contain 3 billion developing people. Poor people are better off under globalism, sweatshops and all.

I'll send you the link when I find it.

Unions were created in response to corporate abuses DemoCoder.

So? Does that mean Unions cannot abuse their power as well?

Second, there are clear instances of corporate influence in politics that overwhelmingly and unduly shape the policies of democratic and republican administrations to the detriment of society. Current FCC attempts at deregulation wrt allowing single corporations to purchase a near majority of news outlets, controlling media sources that people are able to get are one such example.

I support this move. In an era where anyone can publish for next to zero dollars, I do not support government regulations that were crafted in an area before 500 television channels, millions of magazines, thousands of newspapers, and the internet, and where I can listen to BBC radio or watch BBC tv, or indeed, news outlets from around the world.

I could care less if ClearChannel and Rupert Murdoch owned all of the big three American primetime channels. I support FCC deregulation because they have no business regulating the ownership of most media. At best, they could regular the "airwaves" or public spectrum, but what right do they have to control how many newspapers one may own? Print publishing is a constitutionally protected right, and I should have no limits to the number of different papers in different areas of the country that I print or control.

This is the guy who claims that industrialism and corporations == regimentation and non-individualist because everyone has to show up on time for work. Can any large scale society be run where services are unpredictable because no contracts, such as, being hired to perform a service at time X on day Y? This article is MORONIC. Hierarchy and agreeing to a schedule are fundamental to modern society, regardless of socialism, capitalism, what have you.

No DemoCoder, you missed the whole point of that allusion.

Large-scale industrial enterprises do not thrive on nonconformity and individualism. Rather, they require discipline and regimentation.

No, I think it's pretty clear, and a classic left fallacy. Discipline and regimentation are orthogonal to individualism, not disjoint. It is possible to require people to obey regulations, but also allow them some individualism and participation as well. Otherwise, civilized society itself could be called a non-individualist regimented institution, which it is not.

There is a middle ground between treating people like robots and allowing them absolute freedom, and the assertion that all corporations or industrial corporations treat people like robots is a fallacy.

And again, your posts in this thread are different... How?

Because I'm not making unsupported generalities and assertions such as corporations have "taken over" the government. A few policies going their way, not withstanding. There are plenty of anecdotes of other special interests getting their way too.

That fact that you cannot see all of the logical fallacies in the original article is a testament to your blind true belief. Rah rah rah. Next stop, WTO protests for you Natoma.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

We've been quite responsible with our finances, and it has shown up on our balance sheet. Unfortunately I can't say the same about this administration.

You can't possibly say that considering the debt you racked up. At least, if you're going to be consistent with your accusations on the bush administration.

And I completely disagree that the Iraq war was "wrong", but you know that, and that's a completely separate discussion.

 

[Druga Runda]

long but excellent article - corporate feudalism, I am suprised I did not think of those terms before

I was thinking slavery -not really that is too harsh, but feudalism is spot on.

 

[Natoma]

We've been quite responsible with our finances, and it has shown up on our balance sheet. Unfortunately I can't say the same about this administration.

You can't possibly say that considering the debt you racked up. At least, if you're going to be consistent with your accusations on the bush administration.

The debt we racked up was due to moving and our school loans. I would hardly call that irresponsible management of our finances. There is such a thing as "good" debt and "bad" debt.

And I completely disagree that the Iraq war was "wrong", but you know that, and that's a completely separate discussion.

Yea I know. I brought that up as an example of unnecessary spending, given the reasons we were given initially to go to war.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The debt we racked up was due to moving and our school loans. I would hardly call that irresponsible management of our finances. There is such a thing as "good" debt and "bad" debt.

School you never finished? Doesn't seem like "good debt" to me.

Though I object to tying morality to debt in the first place. Debt is debt.

You also said your "moving" was due primarily to you coming out. You chose to come out when you did. You didn't "forecast" what kind of financial impact it could have and appropriately plan for it.

Yea I know. I brought that up as an example of unnecessary spending, given the reasons we were given initially to go to war.

It was no more unnecessary than your coming out.

 

[Natoma]

[You wouldn't call sweatshops subjugation? Hell you don't even have to go halfway around the world. Stop in the garment district in Manhattan.

"Sweatshop" itself is a loaded term. No, I would not call it subjugation. Slavery was subjugation. Hiring someone, for whatever wage and amount of backbreaking work, is not subjugation.

I wasn't using it as a loaded term, but I suppose I can see how one would see it that way. Ok, is exploitation better?

In the US, legal and illegals immigrants (asians and mexicans, especially here in ny) are hired many times for less than minimum wage. No health benefits. 12-15hr days. They can't speak english and are in many cases taken advantage of simply because they can be.

What was the exact scope of the research, and what were the findings? Making such a broad claim of what capitalism has "done to the poor in the third world" can be taken in many different ways. Can I get a link?

IIRC, it centered on the thesis that growth in the third world comes from inequality, and that capitalism leaves those in poorer countries which are experiencing high levels of growth and *growing inequality* worse off. It shows that in fact, even under absurd levels of inequality, the poor are still much better off. Basically, the magnitude of increases in the standard of living from increases of growth dwarf any supposed deterioration of the position of the poor due to unequal distribution of the gains. The study was conducted by looking at economies which contain 3 billion developing people. Poor people are better off under globalism, sweatshops and all.

I'll send you the link when I find it.

I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with the fact that rising wages and investment in third world nations "lifts all boats" DemoCoder. What people disagree on is the level of worker protections that should come with that. Should there be a global minimum wage? Should there be environmental protections? What about union protections? Right now trade is occurring in third world countries without these worker protections and corporations are using these countries as best they can in order to maximize their profits.

There is nothing wrong with this approach from a purely economic standpoint, but from a humanistic standpoint there are issues with it.

Anyway, whenever you are able to get the link just pm it to me or post it here. Whichever.

Unions were created in response to corporate abuses DemoCoder.

So? Does that mean Unions cannot abuse their power as well?

Not at all. However, Corporate Power and Union Power are based off two different sources. Corporate Power is based on money and the ability to "purchase" influence in politics. Union Power is based on Voting Blocs. Voting Blocs are inherently less susceptible to "corruption" than Money.

Second, there are clear instances of corporate influence in politics that overwhelmingly and unduly shape the policies of democratic and republican administrations to the detriment of society. Current FCC attempts at deregulation wrt allowing single corporations to purchase a near majority of news outlets, controlling media sources that people are able to get are one such example.

I support this move. In an era where anyone can publish for next to zero dollars, I do not support government regulations that were crafted in an area before 500 television channels, millions of magazines, thousands of newspapers, and the internet, and where I can listen to BBC radio or watch BBC tv, or indeed, news outlets from around the world.

I could care less if ClearChannel and Rupert Murdoch owned all of the big three American primetime channels. I support FCC deregulation because they have no business regulating the ownership of most media. At best, they could regular the "airwaves" or public spectrum, but what right do they have to control how many newspapers one may own? Print publishing is a constitutionally protected right, and I should have no limits to the number of different papers in different areas of the country that I print or control.

About 45% of households in this country do not have Satellite or Cable TV DemoCoder. They're still relying on Broadcast television and their local paper as their news outlets. And how many people rely on internet resources as their primary or even secondary news outlet when the majority of internet surfers are still on dialup? For now, the concentration of news in just a few sources is dangerous imo. If you're hooked up with Cable or Satellite and you use the internet frequently, then no this won't necessarily affect you much. But there are a lot of people in this country who don't have this luxury yet.

No, I think it's pretty clear, and a classic left fallacy. Discipline and regimentation are orthogonal to individualism, not disjoint. It is possible to require people to obey regulations, but also allow them some individualism and participation as well. Otherwise, civilized society itself could be called a non-individualist regimented institution, which it is not.

There is a middle ground between treating people like robots and allowing them absolute freedom, and the assertion that all corporations or industrial corporations treat people like robots is a fallacy.

This was not an allusion unto itself as I read it, but expanded upon as a comment on american culture in the 50s, 60s, and 70s

Because I'm not making unsupported generalities and assertions such as corporations have "taken over" the government. A few policies going their way, not withstanding. There are plenty of anecdotes of other special interests getting their way too.

No, you're just saying "it's not true" generalities and assertions DemoCoder. It's just the flipside of the coin.

That fact that you cannot see all of the logical fallacies in the original article is a testament to your blind true belief. Rah rah rah. Next stop, WTO protests for you Natoma.

Not true at all. I didn't gather from the article a railing against corporations as entities in and of themselves. I gathered it was railing against corporate shenanigans in other countries that do not have workers rights and protections in place, as well as republican attempts to roll back the "welfare state" set up during the new deal.

I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with these assertions, but I wouldn't go so far as to say "Stop all trade!" or "We need more welfare! Not less!" No, the point I make and I believe this article is making, is that reforms need to occur in order to address the abuses, not do away with them all together.

 

[digitalwanderer]

It was no more unnecessary than your coming out.

Natoma came out? Where was he in? :|

 

[Natoma]

School you never finished? Doesn't seem like "good debt" to me.

Though I object to tying morality to debt in the first place. Debt is debt.

You should read up on Fico scores that are used by lenders when determining rates for loans and credit cards. School loans are indeed "good" debt, as are mortgages and car loans.

You also said your "moving" was due primarily to you coming out. You chose to come out when you did. You didn't "forecast" what kind of financial impact it could have and appropriately plan for it.

Look I'm not going to get into this because you're just flame baiting frankly. It's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't want to pick an argument what the circumstances were at the time.

Yea I know. I brought that up as an example of unnecessary spending, given the reasons we were given initially to go to war.

It was no more unnecessary than your coming out.

As a heterosexual man you have absolutely no basis to make such an assertion.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It was no more unnecessary than your coming out.

Natoma came out? Where was he in? :|

Eh?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You should read up on Fico scores that are used by lenders when determining rates for loans and credit cards. School loans are indeed "good" debt, as are mortgages and car loans.

Yeah, mortgages and car loans are "good" because there is tangible value behind the loan: namely, the car and the house. Even if you default on the loan, you still have the property to "repay" it.

Educational loans are good, because presumably you will have a degree to show for it, which makes you more marketable for a job.

I don't consider having a school loan debt, with no diploma (tangible value) to show for it, "good debt."

Look I'm not going to get into this because you're just flame baiting frankly. It's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't want to pick an argument what the circumstances were at the time.

Eh? You brought it up, not me. If you're not willing to discuss the "urgency" which caused financial hardship for you, then don't bring it up.

It was no more unnecessary than your coming out.

As a heterosexual man you have absolutely no basis to make such an assertion.

Cop out, though expected.

I have as much basis for making that assertion as you have, (not being dead from 9-11, or not knowing the status of Sadam's weapons program), to assert the war on Iraq was not "necessary."

 

[John Reynolds]

As a heterosexual man you have absolutely no basis to make such an assertion.

Yes, but you're not the president so you have absolutely no basis to make such an assumption about Bush invading Iraq. You know, you being honest with yourself, family, and friends and our president's administration forming the OSP to work outside our intelligence community's standard practices of gathering and interpreting data to justify taking out a secular leader under the ideological banner of fighting religious extremists. It's all the same.

Just thought I'd pre-empt here. 8)