Business
Klein, Stiglitz And De Soto: Power, Economics And The Financial Crisis -, 28 November 2008 15:00
The global financial crisis is causing leaders worldwide to re-consider their attitudes to economic management and regulation. Here, at a thought-provoking discussion between activist writer Naomi Klein, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and internationally feted thinker Hernando de Soto, the ideologies behind economic management are examined. The event, called "Power and Economics", is at the City University in New York, and is hosted by Professor David Harvey.
Naomi Klein is a journalist, columnist, and author of a number of books on globalisation and capitalism including the 'No Logo: no space, no choice, no jobs' and 'The Shock Doctrine: the rise and disaster of capitalism'.
Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate, an Economist and Professor at Columbia University. He is also the former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank.
Hernando de Soto is a Peruvian economist. He's written extensively about economic and political development and the need for property reform to combat poverty and help third-world nations.
Comments (101)
-
DocMercury :
10 Dec 2008 10:20:24am
"You are the one who implied the possible link between JOY, misery and the marketplace."
Did I Misunderstood?
I don't think so, and if anything I was suggesting that you can't buy happiness with cash and money is never any better for curing misery than 25mg of morphine. -
g3 :
10 Dec 2008 7:41:56am
EG0 is an illusion-fools gold.
it exists only when
self esteem/worth is lacking its integrity.
*impoverished ...this state is then reflected in your creations...your world.
" the planet ...the web of life...gaia "
* * * your self * * * -
g3 :
06 Dec 2008 6:55:08am
look outside misunderstood
the chickens are still in the coop
the eggs in the nest
the fruit on the tree
the lizard on the lawn
the rain in the cloud
the ground benith your feet ...
is still there...at this point in tym...
4 how long is the question...you fuss over carion$$$$$$ ...
whilst the heards of life...*all life are slaughtered...money is not a "living "entity
nor is it power ...it represent the conversion of the living into the dead
which shall we value....
-
Misunderstood :
08 Dec 2008 9:30:29pm
The indigenous population of the U.S.A were reputed to have said
"White man speak with forked tongue".
In your case I think they would probably say "White man unintelligible, he speak obtuse and dyslexia fluently.
But never mind, YOU TO CAN CLAIM YOUR CIVIL RIGHT TO POVERTY.
However, What you have to work out is work out what to do with it, when you have insufficient funds to use the internet.
Get back onto the tablets, stop speading misery and start working on your communication skills.
Regards
-
-
DocMercury :
05 Dec 2008 3:26:39pm
Misunderstood, joy and misery are not marketable commodities, but nonetheless, a variety of hollow replica of both are available on the market.
Such replica tend rapidly to fade in exposure to light and to dissolve when wet, and they're rarely worth the effort it took to buy them.-
Misunderstood :
05 Dec 2008 5:31:48pm
Disappointed Doc
You are the one who implied the possible link between JOY, misery and the marketplace.
This is a complete distortion of my last comment, which made no link between the marketplace and feelings.
You are the one who chose the "no sympathy " options in your last post . You chose do discourage sympathy.
But so we are absolutely clear, do you have any ceiling in the numbers who fall into poverty by accident or design.
Or is this just a tangent, your prejudice wishes to exploit.
If so, my sympathy for you and only you has expired.
Wollow in your self inflicted misery if you must but why go to the trouble of sharing your miserable ideas with anyone else.
Don't you realise there's a looming depression.
Then, I needly forgot for lots of weakminded, miserable wreckers this is a cause for celebration, don't you think?.
-
-
DocMercury :
04 Dec 2008 12:48:39pm
>>>The big question is "How long do you want to be poor?"
That is a question, but I don't agree Misunderstood, that it is "the big question".
The measure of "poor" is the real question and the basic problem, because we've got ourselves into a bind in which the things that matter, like survival of life, are given second footing to the assumed "wealth" of cupboards full of unused or useless nicknacks.-
Misunderstood :
05 Dec 2008 9:36:55am
Listen Doc, cut out the smart ass talk and use your "bloody brain" to think of CONSEQUENCES.
Clearly, you are not stupid but try to focus on CONSEQUENCES rather than than useless intellectual nick nacks or an ambivalent intellectual excercise called points scoring.
I don't "bloody" care about the aquisition of wealth, either cupboards full or buckets full.
I do care passionately about society meaning people of all races, including myself.
I am trying to get the idea across, that poverty means fighting with your neighbour for the next morsel of food for yourself , your family and your friends.
Under the umbrella of povetry, intellectual exercises mean zilch when there is no food on the table and the promise for tomorrow is the same.
I don't know what you do but try to imagine this.
No job,no companies like Coles and Woolworths, no Caltex, no social services but a a wife and some children to feed, who are hungry.
And your next step is?
I suspect your intellectual ambivalence ll goes down really well at parties but it is not suited to real poverty .
However, pehaps you just don't have the intellect to place yourself in a warzone called POVERTY.-
DocMercury :
05 Dec 2008 10:07:42am
I chose not to breed.
Consequently, I have no sympathy for self inflicted injury.
I also chose not to apply for a credit card or any bank loans.
Again, no sympathy for self inflicted injury.
And Misunderstood, I didn't force you into either of those handicaps, so I'm doing a Pontius Pilot in hand washing.
As opposed to your own hand wringing and teeth gnashing.-
Misunderstood :
05 Dec 2008 11:18:55am
I don't nash my false teeth and I don't wring my athritic hands either but I do CELEBRATE life and relationships.
Like you , I celebrate choice but given the choice of JOY and MISERY, I think JOY is the smarter option.
A future of shared JOY or a future of SOLITUDE and MISERY is a no brainer for me, but you are absolutely right, its all down to choice.
Doc, and I genuinely means this. I hope you find even MORE JOY in your life starting right now.
Although Its just a choice , it's also a challenge.
I enjoy our sparring more than any other contests on UNLEASHED so
Good Luck,
I
-
-
DocMercury :
05 Dec 2008 10:09:22am
Poverty?
Would that be when my bank balance is around 50cents on all but 26 days of every year?-
Misunderstood :
05 Dec 2008 5:43:06pm
No , poverty abounds everywhere and its is not necessarilty measured in dollars and cents.
For kids hours away from death from starvation - that's poverty.
For the kid who has no access to medical facilities - that's poverty
For kids with a rifle in their back invited to join the revolution - that's poverty,
kids .
Now I'm not going to wax lyrical about having 26cents in the bank, but here's the point you have "other bloody options". -
DocMercury :
10 Dec 2008 10:23:04am
The other bloody options?
That would be the school of Dr Timothy Leery, where a degree is dropping out and turning on.
-
-
-
-
g3 :
04 Dec 2008 8:47:02am
naomi...better late than n0t at all.
please take your seat. -
Misunderstood :
03 Dec 2008 1:24:55pm
Clearly, if capitalism falls the markets will be worthless.
That means no risk, no investment ,no pensions, no jobs, and for those of a sillier disposition no money to fund hospitals, no money to fund housing , no money to fund education, no money to fund social services, no money to give to the poor to name but a few not-for-profit sections of the marketplace.
Put simply everyone will be skint - not for one day, not just for one year - beginning to get the picture.
You and me, collectively will have a long prosperous future being skint.
Unless, you have missed the point about UNITY and EQUALITY, if we all have nothing we will all be equal. I am not so sure about being UNIFIED.
Now, I can't see much beyond that , but if those of a sillier disposition can explain why this analysis is wrong feel free to attack my numeric skills. Forget politics its just numbers.
It seems simple to me but I'll put it into a question in attempt to bridge the great divide.
How will not-for-profit orgainsations be funded if profit making orgaisations don't exist.
It's not me that is being contentious its the "bloody numbers".-
Misunderstood :
03 Dec 2008 3:06:08pm
P.S.
I'm a sucker but fully committed to sharing.
- COMMON and UNCOMMON SENSE. -
atomou :
03 Dec 2008 4:18:49pm
Think of this possibility, Misunderstood:
The capitalists don't fund the poor; it's the other way round. Capital funds nothing, labour does.-
Misunderstood :
03 Dec 2008 7:16:15pm
After one second thinking about your point, this is my response.
People work for money or put differently lpeople work FOR capital .
If a person works for a company that doessn't make a profit, the company goes burst and all the jobs in the company disappears. If all the companies go burst, there will be no tax from the private sector because it wouldn't exist.
The point is you are assuming that you will find a job somewhere else .
The question is in which non-existent private company?
Most people like you and me are capitalists and socialists because we work FOR wages or CAPITAL and pay tax.
Collectively we give thel government about one TRILLION dollars a year in taxes.
The government uses the money collected from we, who work for capital, us to redistribute amongst the poor and pay workers in the social services.
I don't want to see anyone pennyiless, including myself.
Try and block out the politics and work it through for yourself,
Hopefully, this answers your point .-
atomou :
04 Dec 2008 10:52:18am
misunderstood... nic should be "misunderstanding." And no wonder, if your attention span extends to as long as one second! Try thinking about such complex and subtle things a little longer.
yen, can the rich fund their toys without the poor? Could it also be that the terms, "rich" and "poor" are relative and subjective values? And we're only talking about financially rich and poor and there are a whole lot more adverbs out there. -
Misunderstood :
05 Dec 2008 8:37:07am
Look if the makets fall, all the the rich guys will be skint too because their investments will be worthless.
Get the point.
I am not trying to sell capitalism I am just trying to share common sense.
Get the point about sharing and sense..
I get pissed of with the stories of golden handshakes as much as you, but logically golden handshakes with be worthless as well.
Forgive my self interest, but I don't think the world needs more poverty,paricularly when it includes the rich and the no so rich like, like you and me.
-
-
yen :
04 Dec 2008 4:09:03am
You wrote:
"...The capitalists don't fund the poor; it's the other way round. ...."
Sounds interesting.
The poor are the people without money.
How can people without money fund anything?
And you wrote:
"..Capital funds nothing, labour does. ...."
We should be all right then.
The capital has evaporated, but the labour-force is still here.-
Misunderstood :
05 Dec 2008 8:43:52am
Well done Yen, we may yet save socialists from themselves or socialist leaders through the world might save capitalism
.
I try to get yForget politics, use your brains, no to regurgitare polital slogans , but to think about rtwhy the poor exist. There are billions ldesperate to work but to few "bloody jobs".
-
-
-
trin tragula :
04 Dec 2008 2:49:00am
Dear Misunderstood,
Do not worry about markets, markets existed long before Capitalism and merchants were not such a nuisance as they are now, also dangerous when they send you to war for their profit. There always be merchants but in a straight jacket.
Money is no problem, these days Henry Paulson is making Trillions of it all over the Planet; what are needed is People to do real work to create real USEFULL products not CDOs and CDSs.
Not for profit Organizations will be just called Public Organization so there is no need for profits as they are USEFULL and also are producing real value therefore they must be paid; being Public Organizations you also will be part owner – a capitalist again.
There will be little poverty because there will be more than enough work for every able and not so able person; enough work just to fix the mess that marauding merchants have made of this planet, plus there will be work on space research so we can send those who still want to produce PRODUCTS called CDOs and CDSs to another planet where they can start again.-
Misunderstood :
05 Dec 2008 8:47:12am
I declare a vested interest , I don't want to be skint for the rest of my life with no money in social services to ease everyone's pain.
-
Misunderstood :
05 Dec 2008 9:53:56am
You might be surprised to learn that I am not concerned about markets, because as night follows day, markets would return in one form or another.
My concern is if Supermarkets like Coles and Woothworths closed tomorrow and companies like Caltex did the same, where would would I go to do the weekly shopping and how would I get there, on an empty tank of petrol.
Maybe I could trade my car for a horse, but I suspect that my car would be worthless, even if I was fortunate enough to own a Ferrari.
Once someone resolves these issues I will be less concerned.
Solutions please !
-
-
-
Hayward :
02 Dec 2008 9:54:45pm
The Chain Reaction of Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction Deployed
The Electromagnetic Pulse and Economic Warfare
By STEPHEN MARTIN
The atomic bomb was more than a weapon of terrible destruction; it was a psychological weapon -- Henry L. Stimson. -
granny :
02 Dec 2008 6:23:59pm
I'm in Salterre, where do I sign up to this new movement. Our voices must be heard loud and clear.
-
trin tragula :
04 Dec 2008 1:26:36am
I believe too that it is not enough to just read and write comments without any practical activity towards a real change but so far there is nothing in sight that came to my attention. With all the progressive people around we need a catalyst to weld them together into a leading movement. I believe that if there is no evidence of change after the new president takes charge in the U.S. the disappointment will create the condition for a new radical movement, the same will happen in Australia and I will take part. If it doesn’t happen I will start a revolution myself and I hope you all will join.
All the developed countries have a two party political system - or coalitions - one centre-right, the other centre-left; as both are committed to the Global capitalist Market and are intent at preserving the system, they have no choice but to do what the Market dictates. It seems like we are stuck with no alternative; with the mass media as it is, we have a virtual capitalist dictatorship. We also have the Greens but they are ineffective as they direct all their energy to fight the consequences rather than the main problem. The majority of people who do not use the Internet to educate themselves about what is going on in the society and the economy have been conditioned by the Mass Media not to question the establishment; they will turn against anybody the establishment will decide when they will have their backs to the wall.
-
-
DocMercury :
02 Dec 2008 6:03:22pm
"The global financial crisis is causing leaders worldwide to re-consider their attitudes to economic management and regulation."
Oh really? ;)
A bit like the road casualty reconsidering how they drive.
You have to laugh at the stating of the obvious, because of the irony.
No matter how many times the fingers are burned, little stops us sticking them back into the fire.
It remnds me of the time in "The Simpsons" when Lisa was using Bart for science experiment.-
Misunderstood :
03 Dec 2008 2:11:12pm
When Barak Obama becomes president , the G8,( the financial muscle of the world) will be dominated by politicians of the LEFT, who if the hype is true are trying to save the markets. If they are successful, they effectively commit Hari- in the eyes of those who oppose market economics - the LEFT.
If we forget about the hype, the other ironic thing is an reasonable case can be put together that poor americans should never have been given home loans and that the capitalists, the RIGHT have have already committed Hari-Kari by being overgenerous to the poor.
The collision point is that if capitalism fails there will be no funds to feed the poor. You me and the rest will be equal with the poor - skint.
The big question is "How long do you want to be poor?"
The problem is that if tinvestments are markets are wothleseverone has nothing
-
-
no-risk capitalism :
02 Dec 2008 6:00:09pm
The works of Naomi Klein are mandatory reading for anyone who wants a deeper insight into capitalism, be it the common garden versions of savage or casino or ‘no-risk’ capitalism.
The following title of a recent article succinctly summarizes the right wing think tank antics that go hand in hand with those who have duded the financial systems of the world:
The Bush Gang's Parting Gift: a Final, Frantic Looting of Public Wealth
The US bail-out amounts to a strings-free, public-funded windfall for big business. Welcome to no-risk capitalism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/31/useconomy-banking
More power to thinkers and social commentators such as Naomi Klein. -
DocMercury :
02 Dec 2008 5:38:57pm
If EXXON had planned the economic crash, then they'd be pleased for the outcome which puts carbon fuel emissions well down the immediate lis of priorities, and ensures that business may continue as usual.
It certainly does no one with a bit of ready cash any harm either, since blue chip corporations can now be bought for a smile. -
blax5 :
02 Dec 2008 1:54:47pm
Marx has showed us that you cannot run an economy according to set ideologies, which you treat like religious dogmata, never to be adapted to new realities.
What the government needs to regulate depends on the damage potential, i.e. how I bake a chocolate cake is so irrelevant that it does not need to be regulated and monitored but how I would make antibiotics does need to be regulated and monitored. If hedge funds can inflict such damage, then they need to be regulated or how else would you exclude adverse events like we are seeing now and which will haunt us for a decade or more?
If the mortgage industry in the US can inflict such huge damage to the world, then there needs to be regulation that weeds out the abuse which we have seen, minimizing harm, although you can never exclude it completely.
The US car industry is another example where they chose a course of action which causes harm to millions. They CHOSE to make Toyota more successful. It might have been more intelligent to give US car makers a few subsidies here and there, buying influence to steer them in the right direction. This is the biggest case which proves that company decisions have a huge damage potential. Now, the taxpayer has to fork out a lot more and the choice to let them sink is as unsatisfactory as it is to bail them out.
Ideology was in the way when mis-developments raised their ugly little heads, and now the damage is huge.
Complete deregulation also means that politics abdicate from exercising influence, and in the end result, why would we bother to vote for politicians at all. If they have no influence and leave it all to the companies, I'd like to see company names on the ballot paper. Companies want to reduce taxes ALL the time, but if you reduced their taxes to zero, bridges are not repaired and the older people who have been cheated by fraudulent companies would become pavement dwellers.
The old and outdated terminology of capitalism (unmitigated) and socialism must be ditched, because neither results in adequate outcomes.
There has to be a middle ground and you will never reach that if you take Marx's, Mao's, or Reagan's book as gospel.-
graeme :
02 Dec 2008 10:25:02pm
Sorry Blax5, but your opening remark
"Marx has showed us that you cannot run an economy according to set ideologies, which you treat like religious dogmata, never to be adapted to new realities."
When and where did Marx show us this?
If you mean the government owned capitalist regimes in the USSR and China, imposed onto feudal cultures, well maybe they showed us that, but Karl died in 1883.
Sorry to seem pedantic.-
yen :
04 Dec 2008 4:24:47am
You wrote:
"...When and where did Marx show us this? ..."
When and where did Marx show us *anything*?
Marx and the Pope have one thing in common.
They have an opinion on something they have no experience with.
The Pope has an opinion on people's sex life.
-based on hear-say.
And Marx has an opinion on Capital.
But he had never seen one.-
Helvi :
04 Dec 2008 11:10:43am
yen, and writing on the unleashed your own experience does not count, you have to back up your writing by other people's experiences..
So why can't we give poor old pope some lee-way and let him go straight to other people's experiences.
Anyhow what do you about anyone's sex life, the pope's or the bishop's..
-
-
-
Misunderstood :
03 Dec 2008 3:59:33pm
Marx is yesterday's man.
It' s understandable that poorly educated people can be attracted to his teachings.
When he was around, the common man was destitute.
Now, many common men in Australia have a car, a house,air conditioning heating , a plazma, a computer, a dvd , a fridge a freezer, a cooker, a washing machine, a home phone, a mobile, "free education,health and welfare" .
Now I know that not eveyone has all these things, but destitution was different when there was no electricity around and excessive parking fees had not been invented because their when no cars.
He might have seen an earlier version of the Jumbo Jet and Spacecrafts, called an air balloon, but that is unlikely.
Health and Safety conditions were based on the concept of pot luck and unions didn't have positions in Parliament.
I don't know how much a visionary he was but lets face it, when the world was based on burning wood and coal pollution must have been dreadful.
Now, if you want to believe that Marx would have thought all this knowledge is irrevant to society, you underestimate the man.
I wasn't around at the time of Marx , but t
-
-
OFistFullOfDollars :
02 Dec 2008 11:48:43am
Capitalism is the best way forward. The Soviet Union proved that murderers benefit most from communism and socialism.
Face up to reality.-
SW :
02 Dec 2008 1:34:20pm
Reality is a strange phenomenon for some. You really should look at what the capitalists are doing in Central Asia at the moment. Oh, and read some history books to understand what they have done in Africa and South America.
-
DocMercury :
02 Dec 2008 6:04:57pm
Murder was General Custer's chosen profession too.
Not that it did him any good. -
salterre :
02 Dec 2008 10:23:32pm
OFistfullOfDollars,
First of all I would like to point out that at present, with the problems facing the World, questions of class wars, as real as they still are, have become of secondary importance; today you are all in danger rich and poor and if you have a bit of common sense you should see that Capitalism has reached its final stage of development: the Planet Earth has reached saturation point. Capitalism way forward means imminent chaos and wars for control over scarce resources. It is not a question of ideologies and dogmas but only Natural Human Common Sense and soon also stark necessity. It is the blind capitalist establishment with its philosophy of Selfishness, afraid to lose power that want to save this economic system and maintain the mad race at all costs: and they have the power and means of persuasion to do it.
About the comparison between Capitalism and the Soviet Union It is hard to believe that for somebody the Cold War is still going on in the crudest form; I rather take your comment as a bait to provoke further comments and here is one:
At school one of the subjects was called - Descriptive Geometry - it simply taught how to look at objects from different points of view before jumping at conclusions; we should do the same about judging History.
If we want to compare Capitalism and Socialism we should first remove from the equation the features that are or were common to both. One feature that we should remove is cruelty and oppression, it was and still is common to both; I will only point out that by the capitalist merchants it was mostly done for personal gain, by the socialist and communist revolutionaries it was mostly done for ideals of a better World, the consequences were hardly different but there is a slight difference in principle. Assuming by your remark about socialist murderers and robbers that you have a complete list of their misdeeds, I would like to point only a few perpetrated by capitalist merchants, the complete list would take a few volumes: I just mention the colonial conquests with robbery, murder and genocide, the wars amongst the rival colonist nations themselves, the slave trade, the Cross in one hand the gun in the other, and this was only at the beginning; more recently the World War I, all the nationalistic wars for colonies, markets, raw materials, these were almost legitimate capitalist wars; if you like you should read William Blum’s Rogue State, it is about the U.S. but you can bet that all the other capitalist countries have done the same if not worst crimes in pursuing their commercial interests. The Soviet Union has never invaded any country except on their borders, not so much for commercial gain but for its own perceived security, after the experience of World War II.
If we objectively look at the History of the Soviet Union, the first imperfect attempt by a semi feudal nation in an impossible environment towards Socialism as a completely new experiment, I would s-
OFistFullOfDollars :
03 Dec 2008 10:25:40am
If you look at all of the problems in the world you will see that they all stem from a mismatch between available resources and the numbers of people. All of the means to mitigate the painful and dreadful aspects of life have been successfully developed under the capitalist system. After all capitalism is just about using machines and money to make life easier for all of us.
-
yen :
04 Dec 2008 4:32:38am
You wrote:
"...the Cross in one hand the gun in the other..."
A more recent version:
The Koran in one hand and a Kalashnikov in the other.
-there is very little new. ....
-
-
-
Helen Raduntz :
02 Dec 2008 10:23:06am
It was refreshing to catch the Klein, Stiglitz and DeSoto Forum on 30 November together with Professor David Harvey whose writings are a must read in continuing the Marxian capitalist critique.
Their contributions are invaluable in cutting through the spin about the current crisis and maintaining the truth about capitalist that it survives and thrives on economic crises and that war is the ultimate crisis resolution strategy.
References by capitalist apologists to failed so called socialism in the former Soviet Union are intended to maintain the spin that capitalist is the only alternative. If it is then we are really headed for annihilation. This fatalism is totally unhistorical.-
yen :
04 Dec 2008 4:38:13am
You wrote:
"...References by capitalist apologists to failed so called socialism in the former Soviet Union are intended to maintain the spin that capitalist is the only alternative. ..."
And the alternative is....?
No, not China, they are capitalistic too.
But perhaps people are happy in Cuba?
Or perhaps Pol Pot had the solution?
(by the way: If the is only ONE solution, 'alternative' is not the correct word.)
-
-
Bob Lansdowne :
02 Dec 2008 6:28:51am
Would your economic delirium be improved if our Capitalistic Democracy became an "ism"?
-
theseustoo :
02 Dec 2008 11:56:05am
Errr... it already HAS, Bob Lansdowne...
It's called 'CAPITALISM'...
BTW, "Capitalist Democracy" is an oxymoron, since REAL democracy can only exist within a society of equals, whereas capitalism depends on a strictly enforced hierarchy.-
OFistFullOfDollars :
02 Dec 2008 12:47:37pm
Democracy existed in its true form in Ancient Greece. Slavery was a feature of that society. Democracy is not what it seems.
-
atomou :
02 Dec 2008 5:43:48pm
Not absolutely correct, fisty. The way a government works and the way a society works might not necessarily be of the same disposition.
Slavery, in other words, was not part of the Democratic process of Govn't but a part of how society in the then globalised world worked. Democracy at its core is simply the rule that the majority in a debate wins. True, the majority might be fools, or self-serving thugs but that would be only a reflection of how society is functioning and, if that society agrees -as a majority- that one might buy and sell people, or use people captured in a war, as slaves, then that's society's doing, not Democracy's.
Solon, incidentally, did much to eradicate slavery and usury in his term of office as a law giver (as well as levelled out the field for political power a little) but, again, he was more concerned with the society, rather than the govn't. -
theseustoo :
03 Dec 2008 12:13:51pm
Nice to see you again, atomou...
Democracy, as practiced in Ancient Greece, was a democracy of, by and for the citizens of a given culture (most notably Athens). As citizens, everyone was 'equal', in spite of functional inequalities; slaves, visitors, and other non-citizens, however, did not participate in, nor did they derive any specific benefit from the democracy of their host-city.
As for Solon, the 'Lawgiver' of Sparta, now there was a wise man; he was wise enough to leave Sparta for ten years so that they could get used to the new system of laws he'd written and implemented for them...
And according to Herodotus, it was Solon who said to Croesus, "Call no man happy while he yet lives!"
:) -
theseustoo :
03 Dec 2008 12:14:34pm
Democracy never was what it seems, Fistful!
;) -
atomou :
03 Dec 2008 1:18:24pm
Oh, dear, theseus! Gorrrrd, I hate doing this to you, really but... Solon was the lawgiver of Athens, not Sparta! But you're certainly correct with the rest of your post! :)
-
atomou :
03 Dec 2008 3:24:35pm
Like they say, teachers never die; they just keep correcting...
-
atomou :
03 Dec 2008 3:27:03pm
...and I meant to add, you've either mistaken Solon for Lycourgos (Spartan) or you were just checking to see if I was awake!
OK, I'll shut up now! -
theseustoo :
07 Dec 2008 12:26:05am
Actually, yes, that's it, atomou! I was just checking to see if you were paying attention!
(Seriously, though, again you're quite correct; I was confusing Solon with Lycurgos).
Have a classic day...
:) -
theseustoo :
07 Dec 2008 12:23:15am
You're right, atomou... thanks for the correction... There are times when I suffer badly from 'foot in mouth' disease; sometimes I only open my mouth to change feet!
;) -
Misunderstood :
03 Dec 2008 10:35:21pm
Democracy is for the the people, by the people and of the people.
Have you noticed that Democracy for the people, by the parties and a bunch of pre-selected politicans of the LEFT and RIGHT kind of misses the point.
The spin means we don't have a clue who the for the people refer to. -
theseustoo :
07 Dec 2008 12:28:46am
Misunderstood, sadly, it is true that democracy is not what it was... but then again it never was!
:)
-
-
yen :
04 Dec 2008 4:41:37am
You wrote:
"..whereas capitalism depends on a strictly enforced hierarchy. ..."
What is your definition of 'democracy'?
What is your definition of 'capitalism'?-
atomou :
04 Dec 2008 11:00:34am
yen, the simplest definitions are these:
Democracy: the power (cracy) is held by the people (Demos)
Capitalism: the power is held by the capital, in this case, capital meaning "money."
The first is to do with humans the second with "money" and "stuff."
The consequence of the first is equality in human values and rights; that of the second is inequality in all things.
The pursuit of equality is philanthropic.
The pursuit of profit is misanthropic.
But, of course a great many books have been written about both of these powers, so do search the libraries for a wee while. You'll get there, I'm sure. -
theseustoo :
07 Dec 2008 12:31:25am
Thanks atomou; this adequately answers Yen's question and saves me the trouble...
:)
-
-
-
-
salterre :
02 Dec 2008 6:05:13am
It is depressing to see that in all the forums, discussions etc. in the Mass Media that I have watched, read or listened to so far not one of you middle class educated professional people, journalists, academics, etc. has had the courage of clearly saying what by now should be obvious: that Capitalism has come to the end of its usefulness to the Human race on this small Planet. The mercantile class, the genie that rules the World today and of which you have become the well paid servants, should be put back in the bottle or at least in a straight jacket; Adam Smith 250 years ago realized and stated that they never should be allowed to become the Masters of Mankind. Karl Marx 150 years ago clearly foresaw what is happening these days except for the Global Warming bit that nobody in our human presumption and ignorance could have imagined could happen.
Even if you manage to sort out the financial mess you cannot fix the situation of underemployment in the developed countries, caused by 20 years of Globalization, that is the main underlying cause for the bubble bust; you cannot bring back the factories and continue with unregulated development at any costs plus senseless consumerism that has brought the planet under probably irreversible stress. Every extra day that we continue this madness is raising the risk of further destroying the environment that was the condition for our evolution and is the condition for our existence. The Goons that have led us to this dangerous situation have lost the right to rule. I cannot believe that you are all stupid, if you have any common sense you must have realized that Capitalism needs infinite space for continual expansion like the environment that existed at its beginning 400 years ago and was the one of the essential conditions for its development: there is no space left.
I am sure that most of you are intelligent people and you know in your conscience that there is a possible alternative: a really Democratic, International, Secular scientifically and ecologically planned utilitarian economic way of cooperation in production and exchange. There is no way that we can trust and wait for investors and gamblers in the Stock Market to address the urgent needs of our existence on this Planet.
Now there is a real opportunity to start such a movement. There will be no meaningful change coming from the new Administration in the U.S.; there will be a lot of disillusioned people looking for alternatives. The problem is that the Establishment has been very successful in filtering any radical effective voice for real change; only mild and ineffective liberal ideas that do not threaten their power are allowed to be aired in the media; you cannot speak frankly against the Mercantile Establishment without risking your place in the Sun within the capitalist middle class; but I have nothing to lose and I will speak out if anybody will listen. I hate to see how much the Planet Earth and Humanity are being abused.-
Anya :
02 Dec 2008 10:50:33am
Well said!
-
Hmmm :
02 Dec 2008 11:52:50am
Salterre, thank you for taking the time to spell it out. In a world full of white noise your comments provide a rare glimpse of true clarity. Your contribution is really appreciated.
-
yen :
04 Dec 2008 4:53:58am
You wrote:
"...I cannot believe that you are all stupid, ...."
But your writing seems to indicate that you in fact DO believe it.
You accuse us rather directly of being stupid.
And you wrote:
"...I am sure that most of you are intelligent people..."
Flattery will get you nowhere.
We won't adopt your views just to be called 'intelligent' by you. ...
And besides, it's an old trick you are using here.
The problem with democracy is that half of the population has an intelligence below average.-
Kelly :
05 Dec 2008 1:33:06pm
I don't think we need a new movement thanks... no more groups, parties, organisations, movements that will undoubtedly come undone, run by over zealous blokes who think they know what's best for everybody and will end up running off with your daughter. We need to just work it out for ourselves, on our own. Movements have come to end of their usefullness.
Plant more vegies. Walk more. Learn more. Love more. Buy as little as possible.
-
-
-
Catherine :
01 Dec 2008 9:01:44pm
What a shame the bombastic self important neo-liberal apologist captured the terms of the debate to focus it on 'property rights' rather than the issue of deregulation and predatory corporate capitalism that has occurred under the Bush regime.
Hernando de Sota: Oh, you have property rights - you must all be equal....
Welfare capitalism for the rich as Klein put it was the more proper description for recent events. -
Wrong Title :
01 Dec 2008 8:37:35pm
Naomi Klein's book is actuall called "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism", not, "The Rise and Disaster of Capitalism". As far as I know, she isn't THAT much of a socialist.
-
Misunderstood :
01 Dec 2008 5:36:45pm
Perhaps , it can be explained why so many socialist governments around the world have money invested in capitalism, when its plain that it is not mandatory.
Clearly they could invest in countries like Zimbabwe , North Korea and countless other communist countries but that would be a contradiction in terms.
Obviously, "internationally feted thinkers" can also think about some rather small or mundane issues, like.
Have you invested in a pension?
Have you earned any income from bank interest?
Have you ever taken money from any government, which has come from the private sector?
We're you recruited by a government monopoly or a private firm?
I could go on about the practicalities of life in a communist/ socialist state but won't.
However, if you could also spell out the benefits of life in Zimbabwe or North Korea we will be able to make an iniformed choice - but information and choice has a habit of disappearing in a one party state, at least that's what history says.
I know that my thinking is that of a common man and that I am not a international thinker but If we could have some of the downside of communism/socialism maybe my ignorance will be less difficult to hide.-
bob the beard stroker :
01 Dec 2008 8:40:23pm
Since when was Zimbabwe a communist state?
-
Misunderstood :
03 Dec 2008 11:54:57pm
Wash your mouth and typing digits.
President Mugabe would be white afronted by your insinuation, that he is a member of the Labour Party.
I hope Labour supporters would look unfavourable on this association also.
Despite the subtle hint of him admitting to be a communist on numerous occasions, all the halmarks of a communism are there to see.
A one party state.
State media control.
State control of the judiciary.
State funds focused on the military to repel "alternative" thinking.
CHANGE of land values from something to nothing.
Elections won by 120% of the vote (only kidding, it was slightly lower).
Virtually no foreign currency.
A election defeat greeted by a notice to cancel the result.
Jailing opponents
Farms destoyed in the name of land redistribution..
Big Rallies wth no opposition in sight.
Sixteen year old war veterans of a "alleged" war nearly forty years ago..
Big bold plans which fell flat in their face .
Blame on everyone and everthing except the boogie.
Now, many of these ideas where prevalent when the cuddly Joe Stalin was in power.
I don't have any Zimbawean voting forms. but I suspect he hasn't registered himself as a member of the DEPOTIC party or the LIBERAL PARTY or any other party which is in the centre or the right. -
yen :
04 Dec 2008 5:04:35am
You wrote:
"..Since when was Zimbabwe a communist state?"
Wikipedia about
Robert Mugabe:
"....His goal was to replace white minority-rule with a one-party Marxist regime. ..."
And he is trying...
-very trying!
-
-
mao trotsky-marx-lenin :
02 Dec 2008 1:01:52am
what a load of tripe.
what they were saying was that in the good old days pre Greenspan everything had a value that you could count on. then they invented derivatives which were basically gambling with assets that had no material value.
now lo & behold the whole thing goes pear shaped and the us government hires a bank that owns billions of dollars of these now worthless pieces of paper to value them so that the us government can bail them out. you gotta love it, the good ole usa.
it would be a good time to have a bit of control back and if that means a good old dose of socialism it can't be any worse than the lassez faire crap we have had to endure and has been shown to fail spectacularly. -
SW :
02 Dec 2008 11:24:42am
Only a capitalist would confuse socialism with communism.
We are living in a very sad, selfish, mindless world. Slavery is not dead, they just issued credit cards and the freedom to consume mindlessly.
-