POLITICS - About Capitalism

"Why It Matters That Bernie Sanders Forced a Debate About Capitalism on National TV" by Miles Kampf-Lassin, In These Times 10/14/2015

Facing rampant inequality and poverty, a substantive debate on socialism versus capitalism is exactly what the United States needs right now.

Tuesday night’s Democratic debate was largely devoid of the personal swipes and party-line litmus tests that have dominated those on the Republican side.  And there was no candidate on stage commanding the star-power of savvy bigot Donald Trump.

One test that was laid out early in the debate, however, has real implications for the future of the Democratic Party, and of the role of the Left in U.S. electoral politics:  The question of identifying as a socialist or capitalist.

That a U.S. presidential debate in 2015 would feature any substantive discussion on the merits of socialism versus capitalism is itself astounding, especially when compared to the language of presidential contests in 2008 and 2012, when the socialist label was frequently hurled at Barack Obama as an insult meant to summon images of gulags and work camps.  Since at least the Cold War era, a subscription to capitalism has been taken as a given for both major political parties.

But here we are, with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton digging into the virtues of the disparate economic and social models on national television, watched by some 15.3 million viewers.

Debate host Anderson Cooper began his questioning of Bernie Sanders by asking:  “How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?”  Sanders, the self-proclaimed democratic socialist, answered by making the case for a more egalitarian society where not just income but social services and healthcare are provided democratically, regardless of stature or position:

What democratic socialism is about is saying that it is immoral and wrong that the top one-tenth of 1 percent in this country own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.  That it is wrong, today, in a rigged economy, that 57 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent.

That when you look around the world, you see every other major country providing health care to all people as a right, except the United States.  You see every other major country saying to moms that, when you have a baby, we're not gonna separate you from your newborn baby, because we are going to have—we are gonna have medical and family paid leave, like every other country on Earth.

Those are some of the principles that I believe in, and I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people.

When Sanders was asked if he considers himself a capitalist, he responded:  “Do I consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much and so many have so little, by which Wall Street's greed and recklessness wrecked this economy?  No, I don’t.  I believe in a society where all people do well.  Not just a handful of billionaires.”  (This was a particularly ironic moment of the debate: Sanders was lambasting casino capitalism while literally debating inside a Las Vegas casino.)

Cooper then opened the question to the rest of the candidates, asking “Is there anybody else on the stage who is not a capitalist?,” leading Clinton to fire back in defense:

When I think about capitalism, I think about all the small businesses that were started because we have the opportunity and the freedom in our country for people to do that and to make a good living for themselves and their families.

And I don't think we should confuse what we have to do every so often in America, which is save capitalism from itself.  And I think what Senator Sanders is saying certainly makes sense in the terms of the inequality that we have.

But we are not Denmark.  I love Denmark.  We are the United States of America.  And it's our job to rein in the excesses of capitalism so that it doesn't run amok and doesn't cause the kind of inequities we're seeing in our economic system.

This defense of capitalism by the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination was anything but full-throated.  In recognizing that the system was so flawed that it must be “saved from itself,” she sounded more like former Greek finance minister (and self-described “erratic Marxist”) Yanis Varoufakis than a traditional mainstream American politician.

As Elizabeth Bruenig points out at the New Republic, Sanders and Clinton have fundamentally different visions of how our economy should be structured:  Sanders’ is an egalitarian “pro-equality platform” advocating a more expansive welfare state, while Clinton’s is a Horatio-Alger style “opportunity-focused approach” emphasizing increasing social-mobility.

This divergence was on full display last night.  When asked if Clinton agreed with Sanders that Social Security should be expanded, for example, she refused to give a definitive “yes,” instead advocating defending and “enhancing” the government-run welfare program, rather than across-the-board expansion as Sanders proposes.

While this discussion remains a far cry from the Democratic Party distancing itself from its embrace of capitalism (something that will almost assuredly never happen), the debate—and level of grassroots support behind Sanders—show that this reckoning could have serious effects on how the party positions itself on economic issues in the future.

And the inclusion in the Sanders campaign of leftists generally critical of the electoral political process means the pressure to continue discussing the benefits of socialism and drawbacks of capitalism will likely continue within the campaign as well.  The many activists and organizers who are working in the Sanders camp with a robust critique of corporate capitalism will continue to inform how the campaign constructs messaging to voters.

And even if Sanders does not win the nomination or presidency, the political education happening across the country through his campaign around issues of gross economic inequality, climate devastation and social injustice means there will almost certainly be more interrogation of capitalism than at any time in recent memory.

Sanders is the first candidate to bring in one million donations this early in a presidential race.  He is leading in multiple polls in the early primary voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire.  And, as pundits, donors and attendees to his massive rallies will tell you, he is the Democratic candidate with the most energy right now.

As he continues to talk about the benefits of his brand of democratic socialism in contrast to our current capitalist system characterized by massive inequality and poverty, he will have a rapt—and activated—audience.

Hillary Clinton remains the front-runner, and is a defender of capitalism.  As her recently taken positions against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Keystone XL pipeline show, she can be moved.  But if the kind of commonsense discussion about democratic socialism that Sanders helped lead last night continues to catch on, the Democratic Party itself could be forced to move closer to Bernie.

POPE FRANCIS - Pope vs Capitalism

"Why Pope Francis wants us to stop worshipping capitalism" PBS NewsHour 9/17/2015

Excerpts

SUMMARY:  Pope Francis has bluntly criticized global capitalism for causing environmental destruction and tragic consequences for world's poorest citizens.  Ahead of the pontiff's first visit to the United States, economics correspondent Paul Solman takes a closer look at his economic beliefs.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  Pope Francis’ upcoming visit to the U.S. next week is generating huge interest and expectation.

Part of that excitement is rooted in the different tone the pope has taken on a number of issues, from marriage to the role of women in the church.  But he has also issued a tough critique of capitalism and called for more action on climate change.

We kick off our coverage of the Pope’s trip, which will continue all next week, with a look at those issues from our economics correspondent Paul Solman.

It’s part of our weekly series Making Sen$e, which airs every Thursday on the NewsHour.

PAUL SOLMAN (NewsHour):  Are you excited that the pope is coming here?

CHILDREN:  Yay!

WOMAN:  It’s a blessing that the Pope is coming to visit us, especially the poor people that need a little bit more.

PAUL SOLMAN:  A senior center in East Harlem, the poorest part of Manhattan and the one with the closest ties to Latin America, home to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Argentinean Jesuit priest now known as Pope Francis.

MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO, Speaker , New York City Council:  And just south of this district, we have the most wealthy district in the city of New York in the Upper East Side.

PAUL SOLMAN:  Melissa Mark-Viverito is the first Puerto Rico-born speaker of the New York City Council, where she also represents El Barrio.

MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO:  There is a real contrast, which speaks to really the vision and, I think, the philosophy of what the Pope is all about.

PAUL SOLMAN:  The Pope put that vision and philosophy bluntly in June, with his controversial encyclical on climate change and poverty, blaming what he calls unbridled capitalism for ruining the Earth, with tragic effects on those he cares most about, the world’s poorest.
-----
PAUL SOLMAN:  The pope, however, is more than hinting.  He writes that — quote — “Whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, a market that doesn’t take into account fundamental rights of the poor and underprivileged.”

The Pope being unavailable to respond to economist Richard Sylla’s defense of markets, I asked his radical bedfellow, Naomi Klein, for a reply.

NAOMI KLEIN, Author:  Yes, this is a system that has pulled many people out of poverty, but it has also thrown many people into destitution.  Now, my goal here is not to say capitalism has never done anything good.  It’s to say we need a better system, because now the fate of our species hangs in the balance.

PAUL SOLMAN:  Or, as Reverend Wallis puts it....

REV. JIM WALLIS, Founder, Sojourners:  Is our economy today good news for the poor?  The economy is for, more and more, the very top, the very few, and the middle are all very insecure.  And half of God’s children, half the world’s people are left behind by the economy.  God’s economy is very simple.  There is enough, if we share it.  It’s really as simple as that.

OPINION - Shields and Books 11/29/2013

"Shields and Brooks on the pope's critique of capitalism, Thanksgiving gratitude" PBS Newshour 11/29/2013

Excerpts

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the week's top news, including the short-term Iran nuclear agreement, the pope's writings on capitalism, proposed changes to campaign finance rules and things to be grateful for.
----
DAVID BROOKS:  .... really have to be tough on, the Iranians are counting on us, or the entire world, that the sanction regimes will begin to dissolve, that once companies get the chance to make some money in Iran, it will all fall apart.  Somehow, if the Western alliance can really hold the sanctions together, then this is a worth -- a risk worth taking.
----
DAVID BROOKS:  The Saudis -- though, to be fair, the Saudis are really upset.  The Gulf states are really upset.  The Israelis are really upset.  The people who are most vulnerable to an Iranian nuclear weapon are really upset.  And that, to me, is to be trusted.  It seems unlikely that a regime that went so far to get a nuclear weapon is suddenly going to pull back and give it up.
----
HARI SREENIVASAN:  OK.  Let's shift gears.

The pope came out with -- I want to get this correct -- his first apostolic exhortation.  It was his first major work, big report.  In there, he takes quite a few very specific jabs at capitalism, calling it a new tyranny.  I mean, popes in the past have had these concerns before, but really he's laying this out.  And some of the sort of pope watchers, experts are saying that this is the agenda for how to reform the Christian church.

DAVID BROOKS:  Yes, well, I -- I actually have a lot of sympathy.

I'm a fan of capitalism, but I have a lot of sympathy for it.  And it should be remembered that Benedict and John Paul II issued some extremely critical statements on capitalism.  That is the job of the Catholic Church, to be a balance to the materialistic drives of our culture and of economy.

I guess I would wish he would emphasize two things, first, that capitalism over the last 25 years has been an incredible moral good.  It has reduced poverty more in the last 25 years than ever before in human history, mostly in Asia.  But that's been a phenomenal good.  That's relieved suffering.  And that has been a product of capitalism.

The second thing I would say is sometimes I think the analysis and some of the language used this time was too narrowly economic.  One of the things capitalism does is, it does enhance and exacerbate the sin of pride, making yourself, the material world the center of your universe, instead of God's will.

But the doesn't only happen in capitalism.  That can happen in faculty clubs.  It can happen at NGOs.  And so that is a spiritual sin.  And to talk about some of the spiritual sins that capitalism encourages in a broader scale seems to me the right way to do it.  To focus on a certain sort of economic theory, that seems to me a little out of the pope's lane.

MARK SHIELDS:  I think it's very much in the pope's lane.

And I think that survival of the fittest has never been a tenet of either Judeo-Christian values or Christian -- our culture.  And I think the pope has confronted us with a fundamental question:  What are we first?  Are we a free market system, that we have confidence that, untrammeled and unfettered, it will eventually provide good for more people?

Or are we a community, a community of human beings of equal dignity, and that a capitalist system, a free enterprise system, under regulation and required regulation -- and that's what he -- that's the difference he makes more than any to me in the economic sphere, which is not private charity and private generosity, which have always been important, but that we have a collective responsibility to make that sure all of us, the least among us, through our collective instrument of government, have education, have health care, have shelter, have food, that that's not just a matter of individual kindness or compassion.

And I -- to me, that was it.  And David's right.  It's not a deviation from John Paul II or Benedict or past popes, but the emphasis that he brings to it, the passion he brings to it, that Pope Francis does, as well as the sense of engaging the world, I mean, it's an optimistic, upbeat, and passionate pope that we are seeing right now who drives a Ford Focus.
---
MARK SHIELDS:  We had 32 years, from 1976 to 2008, in which we had elections.

As somebody who spent his early year in politics, before I turned to journalism, by default, I can tell you, they were clean.  Ronald Reagan three times ran for president.  He accepted the limits on contributions, the limits on what you could spend, and he ran on public financing in the fall elections, when he won 49 states one time and 44 the next, George H.W. Bush twice, Bill Clinton twice, George W. Bush.

And it changed in 2008.  President Obama was the first president not to abide by the limits in the general election.  And then along comes the Citizens United case decision at the Supreme Court, which took off all limits on spending.

We had in the last election $470 million contributed by 100 individuals.  And we don't know through these 501(c)(4)s, which are -- list themselves as social welfare organizations, charitable organizations, we don't know who is contributing.  They can hide behind that.

So, we have gone from total disclosure and limitations to no disclosure and no limits.  And anybody who thinks that is good for politics in the long run, you know, I just wish anybody on the Supreme Court who voted that way had ever run for sheriff, because they would know, people who give money in large amount in politics are basically not altruistic.

They have some issue.  They have some interest.  And it's -- you know, it may be world peace.  It may be preserving carried interest.  But it's not altruistic.

AMERICA - Our Economic System

This is my opinion on our American economic system. I am not an economist nor historian, just a techie, so this is just my take.

First we are generally considered to have a capitalistic economy.....

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit from investment, usually in competitive markets.

At least that's the ideal. In layman's terms, a provider (of goods or services) can charge whatever the buyer is willing to pay.

But, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the other forms.

Why? It is actually obvious if we think about it. Capitalism is a human invention, therefore faulty.

The problems with our system is highlighted by various problems in our society today.

Lets go with my top example, Health Care:

Why are we struggling with this? MONEY.

We may have the best medical care available but what good is this when a person who needs it cannot afford to pay?

A rich have no problem, they don't even need Health Care Insurance, they can just write a check.

For the rest of us, to actually GET health care, have to be able to afford health insurance or get it through our job (if we have one).

Unlike buying a new TV, car, or food, where we do have a free choice of what we are willing (and can afford) to pay, you cannot do that with healthcare.

"Sorry Mr. Jones, you have an advance cancer and you need surgery ($+$+$), a hospital stay ($+$+$+$+$) chemotherapy ($+$+$+$+$+$+$+$), and you will not be able to work for 6 months. And I see your health care insurance will not pay the full cost."

You cannot bargain, do comparison shopping for treatment (especially if you are on a Health Insurance Plan), and you cannot put it off until you save enough money to pay. At last without risking your life.

Paying for health care is not like deciding if you can afford porterhouse steak or hamburger.

This is where capitalism fails. Your health is being held hostage to the bottom-line (profits) of the health care industry.

The question we need to ask, is that ethical or even moral? Is it OK to put a price-tag on the life of people? To allow an industry to pay only "this much" for your medical needs, or allow them to force you to sell your soul to afford it, so they can make a profit.

Why do we allow the pharmaceutical industry to sell their drugs at higher price in the U.S. than they do in Canada or Europe? Not to mention having a government that wants to prevent you from buying the SAME drugs from Canada.

The bottom line for us is the capitalist system does NOT work in the area of health care.

CAPITALISM - What is it's Real Nature Today?

"Enron, Tyco, WorldCom... and the U.S. government?" by James K. Galbraith, Mother Jones

WHAT IS THE REAL NATURE of American capitalism today? Is it a grand national adventure, as politicians and textbooks aver, in which markets provide the framework for benign competition, from which emerges the greatest good for the greatest number? Or is it the domain of class struggle, even a “global class war,” as the title of Jeff Faux’s new book would have it, in which the “party of Davos” outmaneuvers the remnants of the organized working class?

Today, the signature of modern American capitalism is neither benign competition, nor class struggle, nor an inclusive middle-class utopia. Instead, predation has become the dominant feature — a system wherein the rich have come to feast on decaying systems built for the middle class. The predatory class is not the whole of the wealthy; it may be opposed by many others of similar wealth. But it is the defining feature, the leading force. And its agents are in full control of the government under which we live.

Our rulers deliver favors to their clients. These range from Native American casino operators, to Appalachian coal companies, to Saipan sweatshop operators, to the would-be oil field operators of Iraq. They include the misanthropes who led the campaign to abolish the estate tax; Charles Schwab, who suggested the dividend tax cut of 2003; the “Benedict Arnold” companies who move their taxable income offshore; and the financial institutions behind last year’s bankruptcy bill. Everywhere you look, public decisions yield gains to specific private entities.

Humm... you can add the use of Eminent Domain to take your private property for another's private use, in the guise of "public good." Of course, "they" get to define "public good."

Note that the reasoning that building hotels, business complexes, etc., create jobs and a tax base does not require that local governments turn over property to private developers. Local governments could use Eminent Domain to acquire private property as government property, then lease the property to developers. This would provide a income stream to the local government and comply with the true intent of public good. Of course that's a non-starter because the local government development people are beholding to big-money developers, and the developers do not want to pay a long term lease.

As to the nature of capitalism today? The hyenas are feeding and getting fatter.