|
|
Post by ben on Jun 29, 2017 21:26:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Jun 30, 2017 3:13:01 GMT -5
The problem for the adherents of unrestrained capitalism is, of course, that it doesn’t quite work. There are enough cases to study – from Kansas to the current US federal government – to illustrate why. It can be boiled down to: “If you destroy people’s incomes, they can’t actually consume anything, and therefore capitalism built on eternal growth ceases to function”. If Joe can’t regularly buy shoes for his kids, pizza for the sports beer night with the pals, and petrol for the car, then that will create ripple effects in the whole economy that will eventually bring us to where we are now.
All companies in one way or another struggle, unemployment – hidden and open – is high, and the only way to profitability is to slash wages and workers’ benefits and rights. Short-termism on the stock market becomes the signalling device to attract capital, rather than productivity reputation and such. McPizzaface Restaurants, that nice chain in Your Local Neighbourhood, can’t afford to pay accountants. The accountants can’t afford to stay in Your Local Neighbourhood. Fewer McPizzaface restaurants stay open. And Joe, who happens to be an electrician, have fewer and fewer corporate clients. All this just because Joe is on minimum wage now, and can’t afford to buy pizza.
Henry Ford, that old exploitative codger, had it right in one thing. Workers need to be well paid for the economy to work. He didn’t increase the wages in his factories to satisfy his own bleeding heart. He did it so that they could afford to buy his cars. The adherents of unrestrained capitalism should listen to him. They’ll become way richer if they allow Joe to buy a pizza now and then so that Joe can watch the latest game on a nice, big, loud TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 30, 2017 7:50:22 GMT -5
I really hate the term "disaster capitalism." It suggests an actual ideology or planned/instituted process at work in situations that are--far more often than not--ones with room for exploitation (which is most situations, truth be told).
The article cites Katrina and notes the following:
In point of fact, it was local government officials--the area's levee board--who also helped screwed over NO, by diverted funds to projects like casinos and marinas. The disaster of Katrina represents a failure of government, true enough, but that happened at all levels of government. It was hardly some grand plan, hoping for a disaster.
Regardless, her overall thesis is wacky. She's arguing that the government screwed up in both cases--to the detriment of the poor, mostly--yet apparently now complaining that the government wasn't/won't be involved enough in the aftermath...at the expense of the poor.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 30, 2017 7:52:32 GMT -5
Katrina wasn't disaster capitalism; it was the perfect storm.
*ducks*
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 30, 2017 8:08:54 GMT -5
Lol. Seriously though, I read Klein's book years ago. It was interesting, but totally polemical. It lacked any sort of rigor. Look at this old interview with her. This would seem to encapsulate her idea of "disaster capitalism" (imo, she never does a good job of fully explaining it): A disaster used "to push through a radical vision of totally unrestricted markets." But that's not really what happened after Katrina. It't not what is happening in London, either. The mere existence of any sort of "privatization" is sufficient to justify the label of "disaster capitalism," it would seem. Again, no real rigor. And here's some more from that interview: The "neglect of the public sphere" that she cites happened because of the local and state governments, as well as the Feds. They were fully in charge. Yet now, after the disaster that happened because of their neglect, she supposes that they should be fully trusted to rebuild the system? What's the definition of "insanity," again? |
|
