The Lotus

borat

with that name and such a ridiculous attitude you are asking for a lot if you mean to be taken seriously, but i guess i will give you a try, but in exactly the same manner as you seem to like. you deserve nothing better.

first of all, by blabbering nonsense like 'anyone who proclaims themselves...blah blah' you are already showing your ignorance.  marxism is among the most scientific and sophisticated social sciences there is, and i really don't care if you agree or not. talking to most americans about marxism is like talking to most basijis about atheism: it is pointless.

and i am not here to push it. i was merely telling another nitwit - who btw sounds a lot like you - to stop and think for a minute, as he was 'attacking' me by lecturing me about how great marxism would be for us all to consider! he is just another extremist ideologue like you, but from a different school of thought.

fundamentalists like you guys share a common approach, despite coming from opposing positions. is it something to do with your personalities?

second, you obviously have no idea what 'economic growth' means, otherwise you would not claim that only capitalism can allow for it.

'global financial elite' means those who run the banks and other global financial institutions. did i really need to explain that?

i suggest that you save yourself from such embarrassments in the future by being a little more nuanced and even polite (ever heard of that word?) with your statements. this way, you won't be such easy prey. and we my actually enjoy talking to you.

i doubt you will do that, and i therefore doubt i will bother with you again.

it's nothing personal. i am just a little fed up of putting up with disturbed characters like you around this place.

VPK

NP may certainly speak for herself, so why are you rising to her defense?

Why are you so blatantly misquoting me? I said "growth", not "non-stop growth". Those are two entirely different matters.

Sustainable living? According to what standards? Yours? Mine? A government bureaucracy's?

One of the positive aspects of capitalism is that although the numbers of opportunities are limitless, the results shall always be determined by the responses of the open market.

Lastly, prosperity should never be confused for greed.

There is more

to the world than Marxism and Capitalism. There are in between approaches. "Borat" you sound like you are parroting right wing radio. NP will speak for herself. But I for one assure you that unfettered Capitalism is nothing but disaster.

Now please do yourself a favor and take a look at European; Canadian; Japanese and all the other in between systems. There work fine until they go for all out Capitalism at which point they fail.

Regarding "Utter Nonsense" you own post is a total example of it. Besides: why do we need non stop growth? The world is limited. Maybe we should opt for sustainable living instead of growth for the sake of utter greed.

PS, I am not a Marxist or a Capitalist. World is not black and white.VPK

Pure and Utter Nonsense

When someone proclaims themselves to be a Marxist, one cannot expect anything more than this essay by one so uninformed.

Capitalism is the only economic system that allows for economic growth. Growth that is required for a society to enjoy any level of prosperity. 

"Global financial elite"? Just a manufactured term with no real meaning.

I recommend that the author refrain from posting such displays of ignorance in the future.

Free Market

Investors are not smart. I have been in the startup business for a dozen years. Investors are greedy and stupid. They throw good money after bad. They then make the most idiotic mistakes. Of course they don't mind being bailed out. But with or without it they are dumb as door knobs.

The "purifying" power of markets is what wipes out whole species. Sure the result may be stronger but you get a lot of innocent people destroyed. I said before: this are fine in theory. But for the real thing look at BP and the Gulf of Mexico. Look at child labor and slavery. All great results of "Free Market". How about the depression. No good will come out of unfettered markets. Just the greedy and the ruthless take over. Others are forced to become greedy or at least ruthless. Leading to things like mass revolts.

Of all economic ideas none are dumber than the Libertarian. Although the communist are a close second and Islamic economy a close third.

VPK

erronman jan

I know about all these Libertarian theories too. I just don't buy them. The Libertarians have a good excuse of "it was never done right" to cover all the market failures. Just like Islamists "not the real Islam" excuse! Whatever you say dude. I am not willing to risk my life and my future on untested Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman stuff. It sounds like BS and it is BS. 

Nothing is black and white or that simple. Things are all complicated. BP left to itself will not clean up the Gulf of Mexico. Companies left to themselves will practice child labor. We need government intervention and BIG time. Without it real people will suffer day and night.

IF markets are left alone they correct themselves

Every instance of markets not working to correct themselves is a result of intervention. Usually governmental. Price of Petrol? If untouched by subsidies and taxes, would settle to exactly what the buyer would pay. In fact untouched pricing would spawn alternative forms of energy far faster than the current situation whihc allows monopolistic unfairness to run rampant.

The assumption that people are idiots and invest without thinking into free markets and that the failure of the market has to be paid by innocents is naive and insulting to investors. Investors are smart. Collectively they punish and reward free and fair markets far better than any law or government would.

The instinct to survive and thrive drives fair market competition. Losers would be the cheaters, and the get rich quick ilk who are looking for the fast buck. These elements sully the chaos theory, law of the jungle, and ultimate  purifying power of free unfettered markets. Free market capitalism is in fact a form of wild chaos as order.

When messed with or attempts to control it via cheating and thievery or laws and governmental regulations cause the dissonant distortion that results in catastrophe.

It was because of banks like Lehman and Goldman Sachs who were trying to cheat and protected themselves with the convenient laws allowing the kinds of legal derivative games to go on, that caused the current economic melt down. In essence they sold unrealistic returns to gullible investors who were duped, seduced, and blinded by the lie of the banks and their "reputations". Had we let them simply crash, the investors and the other banks would learn a lesson in not believing everything you think you are hearing your broker say. Brokers, not being believed, would stop lying, and the market would correct bad behavior.

But, protect them with laws and legalizing the creation of derivatives based on mortgages and allowing stock brokers to dabble in crazy mortgage products instead of sticking to their stock market, and you get a lot of trouble. The laws made Wall Street into Las Vegas and essentially legalized every single form of betting. Betting that a stock would lose? Who came up with that idiotic idea? Oh wait it was a republican senator who has now retired and is a paid lobbyist for the investment banking industry.

niloofar:

I dont believe you understand the meaning of the worlds "evolutionary", "democratic" or "marxists". If you did let alone subsctribe to any of those above ideals, you would be like the rest of Iranian nation standing up against the Islamic Regime rather that being a mouth piece for them

"cheers", Niloufar

I know I went way off and pushing it all, including using "limited
liability" as a metaphor, but the more I think about it, although it's
a start, let's go the whole hog and as Žižek puts it, let's (I can't remember the exact quote):"...cut off the
balls...without them even realizing..." ;)

Every fascism is an index of a failed revolution - Walter Benjamin

you obviously need

more explanation. i meant that i do not want to spend too long on arguing the definition of a company versus a corporation. we all know the difference between a global financial corporation and a typical small company. the main point is a crisis of legitimacy. if you believe that there is no such crisis, then explain it in more useful terms than leaning on semantics. yours is a more misleading tendency.

mention of vegetables is pointless to the discussion.

outside of the main drive of the blog

what does that mean? outside of the main drive of the blog.  my comments were specific and related to paragraphs 2-6 of your blog.  they included false and misleading information as i previously stated.  you made those statement to make an argument.  right?

peas...and carrots

varjavand, thank you

you are too kind. this is a big topic though, and i hope we can keep some focus as it develops.

i agree somewhat about jumping the gun, and do not expect a collapse. solutions will be found because they must. curbing the excesses of 'limited liability' may be a good idea.

Peace

HG

i did not respond earlier because i felt your points were located outside the main drive of the blog. i will use whatever terminology you would prefer. the real question is, is there any semblance of justice in the current market system? do you not see a crisis of legitimacy in the politico-economic system today?

we can look at it another way too. this could be the long-expected clash between the state and ever-growing corporations. i think bp just scored an own goal for corporations. 

Peace

fooladi

chill dude. i consider myself a marxist, of the democratic evolurionary type. i just don't get your points. if you can explain calmly, we probably agree far more than you expect

Peace

vpk

thank you. i like you too. you give positive vibes. and you turned out a socialist too, which makes you a star :) 

chashm! i will be more tolerant. it is the way i would prefer to be.

Peace

HG, if we all agreed, there would be no point in debating

But curiously, the velayate vaghih fan club , tend to confuse a "deep, intellectual" discussion, with stringing along big sentences with big words dug out of dictionaries, with no meanings. It is a bit like reciting Quran in arabic without knowing the contents, it sounds nice, but....

The outcome is, that these people, including this particular blogger get confused with the facts and get annoyed, defensive and abusive once corrected. I must confess though, I find it mildly amusing watching this anger and frustration, otherwise I wouldnt even bother commenting on these pages, dont you? :)

fooladi

although, i don't agree with some of the points that you've made, i do agree that this character cyclops finds it disrespectful to be corrected.  many of the premises and generalizations in this blog are patently false or misleading.  the person didn't even bother to look up the meaning of limited liability company to conjecture that a llc sells shares without being liable.  she confused corporations who sell stocks with limited liability companies who do not sell shares.  not to mention the extrapolation from adam smith from the 1700s to the sophisticated economic thought that is prevailing today.

economics addersses efficiency of systems and not equity.  equity, or fairness, considerations stem from people's attitudes which in a democracy (hopefully) is reflected in the actions of their elected representatives in the government.  in an undemocratic government, the central government decides what is good for the people.  economic thought has evolved from the time of adam smith who was a pioneer in labor economics.  the evolution of economics has gone through many phases including capitalism to what we have today: market-based economies.  capitalism occurs (has occurred) in every government in the world, past and present.  marx formalized the idea in his book.  what cyclops has gotten herself into is mixing many ideas, facts and falsehoods and is trying to come up with a conclusion.  nonetheless, it does not take away from the discussion that follows between commenters.

niloofar, wow!

Talking of disrespectful, angry and frustrated tone, look at your comment:

"there is an intense inner anger and bitterness in you that distorts and muddies your message"

Now tell us, how did you manage to string along this "clever psychoanalytical" sentence? all yours or did you get help from your therapist?!

Niloufar Jan: Anger

I will not speak for Fouladi; I will speak for VPK.

Yes there is anger and with good reason. We had our nation taken away from us 30 years ago. Those who did it lied and cheated. Remember all of Khomeini's talk of freedom and how he wanted just to go to Quom and teach. Not to mention the free electricity to fool the gullible. Next thing we know they go around executing people and confiscating their property. Khomeini thumbs his nose at us and justifies is at Taggieh! Lying is fine in the cause of Islam. So much for his integrity.

Then they want to impose Islamic "purity" (one for Q) on us. No respect for opposing points of view. Death penalty like it was nothing. 

Next they so wreck the military that Saddam is emboldened enough to attack us. Once the brave Iranian soldiers win Imam says no to 30 billion reparations.

He then removed the one sane Mullah to replace him. Then picks the most asinine nut job just to perpetrate his hate of Iranian people. Now we have this mess on our hands. 

NP: I like you, I really don't know why! But I think you are able to have Ensaf. Please open your eyes and be fair. Who would not be angry at this. Many people see you as defending the IRI so they get mad. We love Iran and it makes us mad to see it so tortured. I implore you to put yourself in our shoes. At least you see where people are coming from and will not be surprised. The IRI will be removed soon. We need to be together to promote a just and reasonable replacement.

Niloufar, I must applaud

Niloufar, I must applaud you for being able to generate an informative dialogue on this crucial issue. l like this forum, where people, including laity, hiding behind the shield of anonymity, can express their opinion on every issue without fear or reservation.

It is still too soon to mourn the triumphant time of capitalism.

VPK

Sharing in any society would be Just and reasonable IF everyone had assumed the responsibility and the obligation of carrying their own weight and not solely rely on Government hand outs. Now this does not wash away the ill nature of Unethical practices by corporation owners and their habit of paying themselevs before they pay others and costing the masses and the middle class their jobs and their livelihood. But at least as a general principle. people MUST assume some responsiblity.

If you can find a way to Mobilize blacks and motivate them to go out there and find employment and STICK With and be able to clime up, then people like you and me could say very well then, we will chip in when you are in need.

 Once they have been able to successfully reign in their lifstyle, i.e Take control of the "human production line" or as we say the Beza Beza buisness that they have got going on and curb it and be more mindful of it and instead contribute more by staying on the job more days than they stay off it, Then i'd be more convinced that i have some obligation as to share (whatever it is that i am supposed to share) with them. Who wants to Keep on giving when there is no receiving in Return?

fooladi

there is an intense inner anger and bitterness in you that distorts and muddies your message. this is why you start your message with tripe like 'let me educate you...'. it belittles you and puts you in the 'not worth it category'. of course i would not engage with you on content. you cannot possibly be considered a reasonable or interesting or even funny debater. that is as plain and simple as i can put it for you.

niloofar:

My dear "sister" or "brother": There is nothing "disrespectful" in my response. I just throw facts at you, hoping you could grasp one or two! Now, it's bad, but expected that you get annoyed and frustrated each time I empty a bucket of ice cold water over you by showing how fundementally false your comments are. If you dont like being disagreed with, go comment on a IRI sponsered blog or forum. There I'd be taken care of for daring to disagree with you, otherwise, tough cookie, this is called democracy, sister. Get used to it! 

fooladi

now let me educate you a bit: change your tone, be respectful and be clearer about what you are saying. as is, you are angry, confusing, and frankly, not worth the bother.

Socialism

does not mean moftkhori. It means that we work together. I help you when needed. You in return help me when needed. It goes against the cowboy mentality of some. It also goes against the sickening selfish mentality ot Ayn Rand and her nut jobs. Without socialism there will be no society. Just the law of jungle. I live near a jungle but I don't want to live inside of it! 

The real problem with socialism in USA is this: the wealthier whites don't want to share with the poorer blacks and browns. It is as simple as that. If the needy were white and blond we could have had socialism in the USA 100 years ago.

VPK

niloofar: You should stick with Adam and Eve, instead of

Adam Smith, at least by believeing in Adam and Eve you can day dream about "behesht" in after life if you life is so miserable under capitalism in this real world....

But let me try and educate you a bit: Love him or Hate him, Karl Marx was spot on, just look at the mess the capitalism is in today. Really, if it was not for the critical help of buffoons like pahlavi or Velayate faghih regimes in Iran who on one hand scorn capitalism and on the other hand supply it with cheap oil, capitalism would be gone in matter of months in it's place of birth, USA and Europe.A lot of people would love to say that "Marxism is dead because Soviet Union has collapsed". This is denial of basic scientific facts and wishful thinking! Marxism, and it's brilliant practical implementation, Marxism Leninism is the ultimum winner due to it's  scientific basis and because it is based on the will of the masses. Sadly for you and some other readers of this forum, what I say are not slogans, but facts. 

the trouble with Socialism

you eventually run out of other people's money!!

doostan

indeed this an audacious attempt at identifying one of the key political and economic issues of the day in a very succinct manner. it is not meant as a detailed academic piece with references etc, but it is a serious (scientific) discussion of political economy, and those who claim it lacks substance should argue against the content rather than make general statements to the effect. Some appear to be surprised that i 'dared' venture into this (their?) area. but it is my specialty :)

fooladi: you are resorting to slogans again. the approach is in fact classical political economy, not marxist. my few references allude to adam smith, not marx. pls read again.

midwesty: you may be a 'free marketeer', but i think we are agreed on the need to reign in the banks, judging by your discussion of usury in the current system. as for the alleged 'free market', this is a political invention not an economic one. it protects the privileges of the 'haves' against the 'have-nots' through notions such as 'limited liability'. if you can deliberately cause the destruction of the housing market without any repercussions for yourself, then this is not 'freedom'. it is anarchy or lawlessness of some sort. a freedom to exploit others with immunity. this is not economics.it is a political privilege inscribed into laws.

Real Mccoy: this is not about dismissing capitalism, but simply highlighting one if its main shortcomings that need fixing. but if as you claim "The progress of humankind is, without a doubt, the direct result of the
free market", did we not have progress before 'free markets'? and is capitalism the end of history of good ideas? i think not. fukuyama was wrong.

marjaneh jan: thanks aziz. this has to be the top priority of today for all those faced with crises.  obviously we are very much in agreement. the system has many people with licence to kill and many with the licence to steal with immunity. the burden of stopping this madness is on our shoulders as ordinary citizens as the elite will never try it. obama's current effort against wall street is a desperate attempt to look like something is being done. it is part of the same show.

eroonman: what do you mean by 'markets correct themselves'? isn't this discussion an attempt to help push such a market correction? or is it supposed to be done by an 'invisible hand' from 'above'? have to say that free market ideologues sound rather religious, almost to the extent of telling 'ordinary people' to stay out of their 'economics-from-above' business! i do agree with you to some extent about the bailouts. but it goes to prove that there is nothing free about the market or the system. you concentrate on the bailouts alone, but let me ask you: who or what determines the price of petrol? is it the market? the food you buy every day: do you think the market determines the price? supply and demand? what about the decades old agricultural subsidies in usa and europe? the two fundamental commodities that drive the rest of the market are food and energy. neither has anything resembling a free market. in fact, every market is politically determined.

varjavand khan: what part economics is not subjective? No disrespect meant to anyone here, but 'economists' - particularly of the washington consensus type - are clearly among the most incompetent of all experts, and they consistently pull the wool over our eyes with double speak and unsupportable claims. what matters is the reality on the ground, and if the people are raising questions about the nature of the system, it is time to act on it, in my opinion, in order to being back legitimacy and stability. i have also given a few reasons why the current crisis is not a typical cyclical event. but i agree with you that this does not challenge the system fundamentally. however, i do think it is time to intervene and to take the bull by the horn. it should be a system that we are happy with too and not just 'theirs' (corporations). will look at the article you kindly referred to.

VPK: totally agree with you. and 'wow' to your last comment! :)

peace

vpk:Unfortunately, those on

vpk:Unfortunately, those on the far right, many of whom are in the same economic boat as everyone else, continually votes against their own self-interest (anti-regulations, anti-taxation, etc.).

Free Markets

work in theory but fail in practice. The world history is filled with free market failures. Therefore free markets are good to write papers about but bad to live with. The reason people like them is that it allows some to get really rich. Of course at other people's expense.

The funny thing is that proponents of free markets are often academics who live in "socialist" universities with tenure and no risk; politicians who live off the government and go ahead and condemn it. The whole thing is a joke.

Americans are so brainwashed they actually buy into this theory. Just see the tea party these guys fight for the right of rich to screw them. 

I take a moderate socialist system any day over US style free markets.