Corporate Feudalism and The Culture War

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.

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

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.

 

Huh?

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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

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.

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.

 

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

It was no more unnecessary than your coming out.

 

Natoma came out? Where was he in?

 

Eh?

 

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."

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.

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."

 

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)