Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Next Stage of Capitalism

By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted January 5, 2007.


In his new book Capitalism 3.0, Peter Barnes writes that the costs of our current capitalist system are clear: inequality, stressful lives and a dwindling financial safety net. But how do we revise such a complex system?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by David Morris

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Since the dawn of capitalism, people have been in awe of both its productive and destructive capacities. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels expressed their own wonderment in a widely quoted passage from the Communist Manifesto, published in 1848.

"The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground. What earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?"

Prodigious production, however, imposed an equally prodigious cost on nature and humanity. And humanity did not go quietly into the dark industrial night. So long as people could survive on the land, however minimally, they rarely chose to become industrial laborers. As Karl Polanyi explained in The Great Transformation, they became "Labor" because they had to.

The driving force that made them have to was the enclosure movement. English law and custom were reshaped to segregate and privatize land formerly available to all for grazing and farming. With less and less access to the Commons, impoverished peasants moved into the cities. Over many decades, they became a reluctant and restive industrial workforce.

In his brilliant and so very needed new book Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons, (Berrett-Koehler) Peter Barnes argues that each stage of capitalism spawns its own operating system, its own set of rules and institutions that reflect its historical situation. The enclosures laws reflected a time of shortages and scarcity he calls Capitalism 1.0.

Beginning in the late 19th century and increasingly evident in the late 20th century, we have moved into a period Barnes calls Capitalism 2.0. This era is characterized by surplus, not scarcity. The central economic problem no longer is increasing supply, but soliciting new demand. An increasing portion of the GDP is spent to persuade people to want increasingly superfluous output and to provide them the credit to buy it. Regulations curb corporate excesses; incentives ameliorate the damage caused by those corporations.

Capitalism 2.0 spawns a political battle that focuses on how the enormous wealth generated by capitalism's prodigious engines should be distributed. That battle gives birth to a new set of rules and institutions, including the regulation of corporate behavior, environmental regulations, and the creation of a safety net(minimum wage and maximum hour laws, Social Security, and universal health care -- everywhere but in the U.S.)

To Barnes, the costs of Capitalism 2.0 on humanity are clear: growing inequality, increasingly stressful lives, ever-widening holes in the safety net as capital spills across borders and corporate revenues and power begin to exceed those of many nations.

We need a new set of operating instructions, Barnes argues, that will usher in and guide the creation of Capitalism 3.0. In a remarkably brief 166 pages, Peter addresses and rather astonishingly, largely answers his question, "How do you revise a system as vast and complex as capitalism? And how do you do it gracefully, with a minimum of pain and disruption?"

Capitalism 3.0 grew out of a life of social and political activism and market entrepreneurialism. In the 1970s, Barnes started a profitable solar energy company. In the 1980s, he helped launch the much more profitable and enduring Working Assets phone and financial company. He opens his book with this self-description. "I'm a businessman. I believe society should reward successful initiative with profit. At the same time, I know that profit-seeking activities have unhealthy side effects. They cause pollution, waste, inequality, anxiety and no small amount of confusion about the purpose of life."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: capitalism, peter barnes, commons, carbon

David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minnnesota and director of its New Rules project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Corporate Commons?
Posted by: edith on Jan 5, 2007 1:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like a book worth reading and so commentary on it seems premature until we read it. However it seems that in a society where food, shelter and credit are highly centralized, like in the US where monopolies, limited competition, and a devious partnership between govt and multinational corporations exist, the Commons may only have room in reality for a few powerful players.

The rest of us may be relegated to picking up the cow droppings from the corporate herd grazing on the lush green of the Corporate Commons.


Tom Paine would have been shocked by the contemporary massive size and influence both of the Federal Govt(and its Pentagon) and of the semi-governements called Corporate Power. Do we really know what he would do in an environment like today's?

Alter or abolish it probably, to cite someone else from the Age of Paine, who like Paine, would be on Bush's surveillance list, if he were alive today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Corporate Commons? Posted by: pgj
» How is that to be accomplished? Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Corporate Commons? Posted by: malcolmartin
» RE: Corporate Commons? Posted by: ncg96773
» RE: Corporate Commons? Posted by: wordimpact
Great idea... except for the carbon trading...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 5, 2007 1:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a bit of a technical difficulty with this scheme, unfortunately. See Science Magazine:

"Science 24 November 2006:
Vol. 314. no. 5803, p. 1217
Editorial
Carbon Trading
William H. Schlesinger

"Enthusiasm is spreading for cap-and-trade systems to regulate the amount of CO2 emitted to Earth's atmosphere. In 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set a limit on SO2 emissions from obvious point sources and allowed those who emit less than their quota to trade excess allowances. As a result, regional acid deposition was dramatically reduced. Can the world do the same for CO2?
Fundamental differences in the biogeochemistry of SO2 and CO2 suggest that establishing a comprehensive, market-based cap-and-trade system for CO2 will be difficult. For SO2, anthropogenic point sources (largely coal-fired power plants), which are relatively easy to control, dominate emissions to the atmosphere. Natural sources, such as volcanic emanations, are comparatively small, so reductions of the anthropogenic component can potentially have a great impact, and chemical reactions ensure a short lifetime of SO2 in the atmosphere. CO2, in contrast, comes from many distributed sources, some sensitive to climate, others sensitive to human disturbance such as cutting forests. It is thus impossible to control all of the potential sources...."

"....Because land plants take up CO2 in photosynthesis and store the carbon in biomass, forests and soils seem to be attractive venues to store CO2. Market-based schemes propose substantial payments and credits to those who achieve net carbon storage in forestry and agriculture, but these projected gains are often small and dispersed over large areas. We will need to net any such carbon uptake against what might have occurred without climate-policy intervention. Conversely, will Canada and Russia be billed for incremental CO2 releases that stem from the warming of cold northern soils as a result of global warming from the use of fossil fuels worldwide?"

"If credit is given to those who choose not to cut existing forests, the increasing total demand for forest products will shift deforestation to other areas. Frequent audits will be needed to determine current carbon uptake, insurance will be necessary to protect past carbon credits from destruction by fire or windstorms, and payments will be necessary if the forest is cut. All these efforts will be costly to administer, diminishing the value of the rather modest carbon credits expected from forestry and agriculture..." (continue at the link)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/314/5803/1217

I think simple regulations that limit CO2 emissions (fuel efficiency standards for cars, for example) are the way to go, as well as tax support for renewable energy... some will claim that this is an infringement on personal freedom, but we have lots of laws - against dumping raw sewage in the street, against producing biological weapons in your basement, etc. Burning coal for electricity falls into a similar category - stop doing it and use renewables instead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Privatize or Ownership?
Posted by: laoma on Jan 5, 2007 4:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like a book to read, but there have been more profound and ALREADY working solutions. Must reads are:

Jeff Gates, "THe Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism of the 21st Century", Addison-Wesley 1998.

Jeff Gates, "Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street from Wall Street", Perseus Publishing, 2000/2001.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Privatize or Ownership? Posted by: wordimpact
» RE: Privatize or Ownership? Posted by: chseitz
Saving Capitalism...Why?
Posted by: comm97 on Jan 5, 2007 5:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There can be no "commons". The law of capitalism is to maximize profit. This law is absolute. This is the reason that the drive to the bottom of the wage ladder is accelerating. This is also why we see the falling rate of profit, in most industries. We need a complete change in direction. We need a system based on cooperation and collaboration: not competition. We need a system that guarantees the right of being human. Housing, food, healthcare. This requires a government that is representative and organized on behalf of the 96% of us who work paycheck to paycheck.
Michael

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Also Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: Saving Capitalism...Why? Posted by: wordimpact
It Still Doesn't Sit Well
Posted by: inanaturallight on Jan 5, 2007 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't see marginal reforms of the capitalist system as providing any solution, but rather as the root of the problem. Yes, it does have an amazing ability to extract labor and create new products and wealth, but it is entirely based on individual greed and its whole foundation is based on generating inequality and fighting the common good. This economic model states that natural resources are there to be exploited by those with the wealth to exploit, for their own benefit. The harm this may cause to others is ignored in the equation. Capitalists will direct their riches toward those ventures that are likely to increase their riches, this is the foundation of capitalism and its root problem.
Capitalism won't invest in anything that won't produce a profit, thus it prevents or entirely eliminates the creation of products that are for the common good. Cheap, renewable energy? What are the chances that capitalists will invest in a project that produces prodigious amounts of energy, lasts for 100 years, and costs only pennies to produce? We may be at a technological threshold on our abilities to produce this energy (solar panels, wind & wave power have great potential for benefit, but the profit margins are too low) so instead we hear about bio-ethanol and the "hydrogen economy", because both have the potential for huge profits. If you look carefully both are energy "losers" and biofuels do little to reduce the CO2 load on the atmosphere.
If We the People owned the mechanisms of production, would it be different? Would we be looking to invest in wasteful and damaging projects that harm us all? Or would we be looking for inexpensive ways to obtain energy, transportation, housing? Would we be looking to cure diseases, or just those diseases where there is a profit to be made?
Capitalism is based on individual gain at the expense of others, at exploiting labor, at producing based on profit without regard to needs, to the common good. Tweaking it won't change that, it won't change the fact that 2 percent of the population owns 98 percent of the wealth on this planet.
And a quick peek at socialism in contrast: Look at the reservoir systems here in the US. Cheap, plentiful water coming out of taps all over the country. The reservoir systems are a socialist creation... and served the common good and continue up until they are privatized for profit. You need only look at that privatization process across the planet to see the contrast.
Russia/the USSR was not socialist. It pretended to be founded on socialism but actually the few in power "owned" and controlled all resources. No wonder the common man was not interested in working- all the fruits of his efforts went to the "state" and none came back to benefit him.
Capitalism is a tool of oppression and greed by its nature, and has no place in the family of man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It Still Doesn't Sit Well Posted by: wordimpact
Capitalism depends upon expropriation of the common wealth
Posted by: pgj on Jan 5, 2007 5:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The apparent "success" of private capitalism has always depended and continues to depend on the appropriation of common wealth for private purposes.

Sometimes this is accomplished through the transfer of common wealth to privatehands. In 16th century England this involved the enclosure of common land and placing it in private hands. For example, today in Chiapas, Mexico, in my state of Michigan and elsewhere this involves the legal exploitation of common rights to ground water by private corporations. Another example is the ludicrously generous terms granted to oil and mining leases on public lands in the US.

In other respects capitalist enterprise benefit from the transfer of liabilities resulting from capitalist ernterprises to the common sphere. Examples of this are pollution (of all sorts), global warming, and the reduction in biodiversity.

The reductions in common wealth have never been 'booked' against the resulting gains and assets of private entities, thereby giving an exaggerated appearance of economic success. I strongly suspect that, if such things were taken into account, capitalist enterprises would appear much less successful. Imagine, if you will, if the costs of years of lost life and medical care had been booked against the historic profits of tobacco, coal, asbestos-related, or auto making corporations?

The real question is how will the power be acquired to restore and protect the common wealth? This will amount to nothing less than a revolution (violent or non-violent) against the most powerful, well-organized, and entrenched interests in the world. How is that to be accomplished?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rather than just showing how europe taxes the upper class to disempower them
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties on Jan 5, 2007 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here we have the fakeLeft again sabotaging economic populism by proposing impractical dramatic changes rather than simply explaining how western european nations tax their upper class with progressive taxation that disempowers the upper class by taking away more of their money. Simple!

But no, our fakeLeft sabotages the simple workable ideas that are already in place in the most advanced nations in the world, and instead advances the idea of some unworkable theoretical 19th century philosopher.

When are is the American Left going to wake up and see what these fakeLeft media are all about?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» FYI: VAT Taxes Posted by: CatDad
Bring About a "Social Democracy"
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 5, 2007 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fanciful ideas and philosophies are not going to work. We already have working capitalist societies across Western Europe aplenty, from Denmark to Sweden, Norway and even in North America we have the Canadian example. They all have Universal Health Care and varying degrees of a good social safety net. Now, they tax the upper classes more, which is good, and they also do not have massive amounts of military/national security state spending, which is also good. Perhaps it would be good if we had a different kind of society, but realistically, converting America to a "social Democracy" is an achievable and worthwile goal at this time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's wrong with relying on government?
Posted by: Linette on Jan 5, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
James Kroeger points out how the government can be used to make the marketplace function in a way that ideally serves the interests of the poor and the middle class:

Make The American People Richer

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pipe dreams?
Posted by: jefhadist on Jan 5, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Capitalism says it don't count unless it sells." (Bob Dylan) And good luck getting the rich to "share" much of anything or "redistribute" their "wealth" both within countries, from the haves to the have-nots, or between countries. It took a revolution (still unfinished) in El Salvador to try to rid the 13 families from their stanglehold of greed and all the signs and symptoms of what was happening in France prior to their bloody "revolution" are lining up again. Nothing less than a complete and total spiritual change of heart based on need not greed has much chance of loosening the stanglehold of capitalism, which is by definition heartless. "An injury to one is an injury to all." (IWW) The damage capitalism has rendered requires nothing less than its wholesale abandonment as a sytem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pipe dreams? Posted by: wordimpact
» RE: Pipe dreams? Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Cultural Myopia and Inequality
Posted by: Naomi on Jan 5, 2007 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There can be no reform of capitalism that 'solves' its inherent problems that:
1) Its a western concept that alienates non-western and indigenous value systems;
2) It encourages, even requires, an inequity between people (owners and workers) and,
3) Requires exploitation of the planet to create "progress".

Simply, if we do not find a way to live cooperatively with each other, in ways that do not exploit the Earth - not just the material Earth of western thought - but the spiritual Earth of indigenous culture - then we will destroy ourselves.

The next hundred years will go a long way in determining what happens to us as a species. May we choose wisely.

Naomi Archer
Asheville, NC

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One crucial misunderstanding.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jan 5, 2007 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"those who are trying to curb corporate power and restrain the increasing tendency by cities and states to privatize public goods"

While the author does recognize the astounding return of investment on campaign "contributions", he fails to appreciate that these contributions are the causes of privatization. Governments don't spontaneously decide tp privatize, they are pressured into it by business interests. Maybe this is a misunderstanding on the part of the reviewer, not the author.

At any rate this book looks to me to be a big step in the right direction. Corporate interests are usually diametrically opposed to human interests. Big business controls both political parties. Unless we the people take control of the government and thus control the corporate establishment we are doomed.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One crucial misunderstanding. Posted by: wordimpact
But what about MONEY itself
Posted by: YinRising on Jan 5, 2007 8:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I had 10 grams of gold vs. a kilo of gold, I could say the Kilo took longer to mine, therefore it has more stored energy. It also has more potential energy as I could physically do more with a kilo of gold than a mere 10 gram nug. For instance, I could decorate a whole room with gold leaf from the kilo, as opposed to just a picture frame from the nug.

The kilo of gold obviously has more value than the 10g. nug.

The same could be said for a pound of coco beans (which also used to be used as currency) as opposed to a single pod.

Now for the question nobody wants to touch, especially the Federal Reserve.

Why is a $100 bill worth more than a $1 bill?

Does it take 100 times the resources to produce it?

100 times the ink and 100 times the paper?

No, a $100 bill is worth more because the Federal Reserve says So, and it's word is backed up by US'A military.

I've heard people argue as to why a FIAT CURRENCY is necessary and good, but they are usually rich people, or people afraid to rock the boat with fundamental questions that might make their lives more uncomfortable.

Sorry, I just don't trust fiat currencies, unless I'm the one that get's to decide the values. /sarcasm

As other posters have noted, Ethan Russo's doucumentary, Freedom to Fascism is well worth watching. It might even be on "The Google" by now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An Alternative Appraisal
Posted by: AValencia on Jan 5, 2007 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barnes' proposal to “propertize” the commons and incorporate them into a free market system seems sensible on the surface but reflects an unduly narrow perspective. Rather than seeking fundamental changes in our relationship to the earth and its life, he has chosen to tinker with what is.

He attributes the disappearance of the commons to corporate practices promoted by capitalism. We therefore need to expand the realm of capitalism to incorporate the commons so that market forces will lead to their protection. Moreover, this will mitigate the negative consequences of capitalist endeavor: Income from the commons sphere will be distributed equally to everyone and also will be used to fund programs that will narrow slightly the socioeconomic gap between rich and poor. In essence, capitalism practiced on a wider scale will help counter the negative consequences of capitalism-as-usual.

That Barnes does not find this a paradox might be attributed to a confusion between capitalism per se and the conditions under which it operates. Capitalism is a process for creating and aggregating wealth. How this actually occurs is influenced by such variables as technological capacities and governmental constraints. The distinction Barnes draws between shortage and surplus capitalism (Capitalisms 1.0 and 2.0) does not reflect a change in capitalism; rather, it reflects the advances in technology that increased both resource availability and product variety.

Barnes accomodates the status quo admirably. Corporate destruction of the commons? Make them pay for it. Politicians corrupted by corporate interests? Create a self-managed system that relieves them from having to make tough choices. Ineffective regulatory agencies? Create a self-managed system that obviates the need for government involvement. Need a way to manage the commons? Appoint trustees to act in the public interest. When to do this? When “corporate dominance ebbs,” as it has on a few occasions.

In his effort to avoid rocking the boat, Barnes fails to entertain a commonsense approach, the precautionary principle: If a practice causes harm, end it. If we must continue, minimize the harm caused while seeking nonharmful alternatives. He also dismisses the role of government as executor of the public’s will and protector of the common good.

Under such circumstances, solutions can be straightforward: Greenhouse gas emissions lead to global warming? Halt the emissions. Charge for them, mandate a progressive decrease in their quantity, and penalize severely for transgressions. Privatized access to the internet? Mandate open access. Habitat destruction caused by oil drilling and transport? Use the courts as arbiter of opposing rights and needs.

Of course, common sense and clear choices get complicated when corporate interests enter the picture. But to determine why corporations have such power to promote their interests, and then seek to remove its sources, does not fall within Barnes’ purview. Neither does the notion of democracy; it seems that we are to place our faith in the trustees and managers of the commons—and in a free market that this time will yield its theoretical benefits. Why this should be the case is difficult to fathom.

The notion of a free market as savior relieves us of responsibility for the consequences of our actions. This is the opposite of what we need because if we do not understand what is happening and why, we have no reason to alter what we do.

Even then, history shows that there are no guarantees that we will act as needed. The inhabitants of Easter Island, for example, ruined their environment despite being able to see what was happening. Why was this? How do we differ? Are there human limitations that we need to confront?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An Alternative Appraisal Posted by: wordimpact
Capitalists?
Posted by: willymack on Jan 5, 2007 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's call the scumbags what they REALLY are; cannibals, grotesque parodies of human beings, devoid of conscience, compassion, or anything resembling moral or ethical scruples. To make matters worse, these monsters are lionized at testimonial dinners, and CEOs are given huge bonuses-even when they screw up and their company takes a loss. So pervasive is the hero-worship of these criminals, that their companies are given official status as PERSONS, with all the rights therein, but NONE of the responsibilities. This surrealistic situation approaches insanity on one hand and criminal negligence(on the part of our government) on the other. Is capitalism a viable system? Not in its current form-not by a long shot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Capitalists? Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Capitalists? Posted by: wordimpact
The answer: Return to the Constitution!
Posted by: common intelligence on Jan 5, 2007 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Constitution is the guide:
But now we have no controls of the monetary system because the Money system and the the value there of has been put in the hands of profiteering corporations. The Corporate economic model that is forced on the people and continually accepted without question or historical understanding is the root of problem.

The actual wealth of "money" has been and is systematically whittled away from humanity in order to maintain Profit margins and timely gains in harmony with the stock market clock.
This continual escalating of the inflation of "prices" the whole society must pay, and increase it's prices to keep from deteriorating puts the world in seemingly endless black hole of unnecessary striving in order to perpetuate the false sense of security.

But as a primary action to solve the root of the crisis the Federal Reserve Corporation must be abolished as an out side contractor controlling the vary idea of money and it's control.
When Our Government refuses to interject into the severing of the meaningless "Borrowing" of Fed. Reserve Notes, and then forcing, by taxation, the paying back with interest a imaginary interest on these borrowings of illusionary value ...
well, the people are literally robbed of the wealth of their labors and therefore their vary life.

The way to return to a real economic model is simple. Start telling the Truth about what happened in 1913 to the nation as a whole, in every school and public communication. Then explain the truth of what it will take to bring the system under and umbrella economic responsibility of a true democracy and not an exploitational Fascist one as the United States is. And of course follow the guidelines as dictated in the Constitution.

But sorry it's not going to happen! We're all screwed!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Repeal 'Federal Reserve Board' and Banks
Posted by: mite on Jan 5, 2007 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In this structure (Capitalism), credit, presented as a pure element called "currency," has the appearance of capital, but is, in fact, negative capital. Hence, it has the appearance of service, but is, in fact, indebtedness or debt.
"Operations Research Technical Manual TM-SW7905.1" May, 1979 #74-1120
'Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars'- From the Book: "Behold A Pale Horse" By Milton William Cooper:
www.lawfulpath.com

"Give me control over a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws" 'Mayer Amschel Rothschild' (1743-1812)

It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for it they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. ~ Henry Ford~

You can write thousands of books about capitalism, the key to this country's problems is on December 23, 1913 with the treason committed by a small group of Congressmen. The passage of: The Federal Reserve Act, IRS Act.

These individuals also contributed to the "Bankruptcy of the United States" on March, 1933 and the surrender of our sovereignty to the International Bankers and the enslavement of the free people of this country. (U.S.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Lots of bunk here Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: Lots of bunk here Posted by: Hal
» RE: Lots of bunk here Posted by: ReallyBearish
"Reform" capitalism? What a joke!!!
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jan 5, 2007 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The brutal society we have in the U.S. now is the only possible end-result of capitalism. This is its nature, heart, and soul. It's only reason for existence is to encourage selfish competition among men.

It's like dealing with a black widow spider. I don't plead with it to be a good spider and please stop biting people, or to "reform" its ways. It' a spider---period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The world turned upside down.
Posted by: eightbitriot on Jan 5, 2007 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how do we revise such a complex system?
Uhm, revolution sounds good.

With all these quotes being tossed around, I figure that I may as well contribute, "the working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The world turned upside down. Posted by: wordimpact
It is simple.
Posted by: WitchyNy on Jan 5, 2007 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
95% of the wealth of America is owned by 3% of the people.
Eat the Rich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Capitalism 3.0? Let's Try Morality 101 . . .
Posted by: MAD on Jan 5, 2007 12:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Horace said it best:

"The avarice person is ever in want; let your desired aim have a fixed limit"

Greed is and forever shall be Capitalism 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, etc, etc. Mankind's desire has achieved no such fixed limit, and in all honesty, it probably never will.

To attempt and portray capitalism as something more than naked rapaciousness is pointless. That the means of exploitation for profit have grown more sophisticated is undeniable, but the motives remain the same: the amassment of material wealth. So long as man is spiritually and morally dead, the desire to open new markets, or simply conquer them as the case may be, will never be quenched because doing so is the only means by which avarice is abated.

It's high time we stopped viewing greed and its ancillaries as part and parcel of the normal function of capitalism. The subtle implication hidden in pseudo-scientific articles like these is that we need to harness the power of greed and mould it into something less malign rather than challenge the highly debatable merits of capitalism itself. The capitalist paradigm has been wildly successful, but only for the top 5 or 10% worldwide. We don't need Capitalism 3.0, we need Morality 101.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Globalization in Retreat By Walden Bello
Posted by: rwa on Jan 5, 2007 12:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During globalization's heyday, we were told that state policies no longer mattered and that corporations would soon dwarf states. In fact, states still do matter. The European Union, the US government and the Chinese state are stronger economic actors today than they were a decade ago. In China, for instance, transnational corporations march to the tune of the state rather than the other way around.

Moreover, state policies that interfere with the market to build up industrial structures or protect employment still make a difference. Indeed, over the past 10 years, interventionist government policies have spelled the difference between development and underdevelopment, prosperity and poverty. Malaysia's imposition of capital controls during the Asian financial crisis in 1997-98 prevented it from unraveling like Thailand or Indonesia. Strict capital controls also insulated China from the economic collapse engulfing its neighbors.

Fifteen years ago, we were told to expect the emergence of a transnational capitalist elite that would manage the world economy. Indeed, globalization became the "grand strategy" of the Clinton administration, which envisaged the US elite being the first among equals of a global coalition leading the way to the new, benign world order.

Today, this project lies in shambles. During the administration of President George W Bush, the nationalist faction has overwhelmed the transnational faction of the economic elite. These nationalism-inflected states are now competing sharply with one another, seeking to beggar one another's economies.

Knowing how the IMF precipitated and worsened the Asian financial crisis, more and more of the advanced developing countries are refusing to borrow from it or are paying ahead of schedule, with some declaring their intention never to borrow again. These include Thailand, Indonesia, Brazil and Argentina. Since the fund's budget greatly depends on debt repayments from these big borrowers, this boycott is translating into what one expert describes as "a huge squeeze on the budget of the organization".

But the crisis of multilateralism is perhaps most acute at the WTO. Last July, the Doha Round of global negotiations for more trade liberalization unraveled abruptly when talks among the so-called Group of Six broke down in acrimony over the US refusal to budge on its enormous subsidies for agriculture.

Pro-free-trade American economist Fred Bergsten once compared trade liberalization and the WTO to a bicycle: they collapse when they are not moving forward. The collapse of an organization that one of its directors general once described as the "jewel in the crown of multilateralism" may be nearer than it seems...

Key South American governments under pressure from their citizenries derailed the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) - the grand plan of Bush for the Western Hemisphere - during the Mar del Plata conference in November 2005...

Hugo Chavez has launched an ambitious plan for regional integration, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), based on genuine economic cooperation instead of free trade, with little or no participation by Northern TNCs, and driven by what Chavez himself describes as a "logic beyond capitalism"...

Many in progressive circles still think that the task at hand is to "humanize" globalization. Globalization, however, is a spent force. Today's multiplying economic and political conflicts resemble, if anything, the period following the end of what historians refer to as the first era of globalization, which extended from 1815 to the eruption of World War I in 1914. The urgent task is not to steer corporate-driven globalization in a "social democratic" direction but to manage its retreat so that it does not bring about the same chaos and runaway conflicts that marked its demise in that earlier era.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Capitalism is a failure
Posted by: Trazom on Jan 5, 2007 12:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe we are witnessing capitalism in its final death throes, before a new and more encompassing economic system emerges. The warning signs are everywhere.

We cannot keep up this rapacious lifestyle, limitless in material wants. Nothing is ever limitless.

We are already up to our elbows in debt, both individually and collectively as a nation.

We are selling our futures to the highest bidder so we may have the luxuries of today.

We are already embattled in a race to the bottom in terms of real sustainable wages for the common worker.

We have a marketplace where a corporation's success depends exclusively on net money coming in vs. money going out, with no regard to environmental or human/animal health impacts.

Tell me, what does it mean to society when the following things now exist:

1. interest only loans on homes
2. 40/50/100 year mortgages
3. 8 year auto loans
4. average apartment rent in Manhattan tops $1 million
5. typical health insurance premium for a family of 4 exceeds what one person makes in a year at minimum wage by 30-40%

Does it strike anyone as strange that items 1-3 didn't even exist a few years ago? Isn't this a sign something is terribly terribly wrong with our economic system?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!! Posted by: Douglas
» RE: Capitalism is a failure Posted by: wordimpact
DELUSION @ the VAMPIRE STATE
Posted by: Hal on Jan 5, 2007 1:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both D. Morris and Peter Barnes appear to be either extremely naïve about economic life or worse. Either way this column and its much-pumped book are a futile exercise.

“The Commons” as the key thrust of this unsupported ideology is a notion with less than no anchor on the reality of a brutal cartel system that rules the west and hence, most of the planet.

I’ll say it again:

Real capitalism and its necessary, valid democracy are history – as in they do not exist. They have not officially existed for about a hundred years. In deed and fact, “capitalism” with “democracy” have become obscene killing jokes wherever they are pumped and sold. These words are now no more than Orwellian slogans along with “globalization” and the latest travesty in an utterly phony “war on terror”.

Actual cartel oligarch rule has nothing to do with ideology or theory. Oligarch control is practical and hands-on as one unconstitutional private Ponzi trap “Federal Reserve” Corporation (never federal, no reserves) that counterfeits and force-feeds worthless fiat money to human life in trade for very real debt loads. And that’s only the beginning of criminal cartel blood money rule.

There are 2 ways most people define political-economic governance:

1] Official MSM psyops (psychological command and control) has the west governed primarily out of a DC-London-Tel Aviv axis – as occasionally cooked by random, casual corporate excess and greed.

2] The greatest criminal oligarch class in history (the well known Gilded Age “Invisible Government”) did not simply vanish and instead organized a 1913 coup to stage their agendas. Crucial in this was an institutionalized takeover of the global economy, MSM and “education”.

Version 1] is a very, very naïve outlook. One without credibility at even a whitewashed walk-thru of history. As to version 2]?

Insiders Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Jackson, Wilson, Lindberg, DL George, FDR, T Roosevelt, Goldwater, Einsein, etc, went on record to indict a de facto cartel that rigs and suborns nations as a matter of routine.

Of course without control of the media, “education” and populism thru programs like CIA OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD and COINTELPRO with its LIMITED HANGOUT Washington-MSM carny show – the cartel state in power could not operate.

Again, none of this is theory or ideology. It’s cartel business as a hands-on Vampire State that owns human life as surely as it owns its economic and political organs.

Freedom to Fascism

Griffin on the Federal Reserve Con 1

Griffin on the Federal Reserve Con 2

Federal Reserve by E. Mullins

“I HAVE UNWITTINGLY RUINED MY COUNTRY…WE HAVE COME TO BE ONE OF THE WORST RULED, ONE OF THE MOST COMPLETLEY CONTROLLED AND DOMINATED GOVERNMENTS IN THE WORLD… A GOVERNMENT BY THE OPINION AND DURESS OF A SMALL GROUP OF DOMINANT MEN.”
PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON (on oligarch tyranny, three years after signing a “Federal Reserve Act” and its privately owned “Federal Reserve” Corporation credit monopoly into law. Quote 1916)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DELUSION @ the VAMPIRE STATE II
Posted by: Hal on Jan 5, 2007 1:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
‘THIS [FEDERAL RESERVE] ACT ESTABLISHES THE MOST GIGANTIC TRUST [PRIVATE MONOPOLY] ON EARTH. WHEN THE PRESIDENT [WILSON] SIGNS THIS BILL, THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT OF THE MONEY POWER WILL BE LEGALIZED… THE WORST LEGISLATIVE CRIME OF THE AGES IS PERPETRATED BY THIS BANKING AND CURRENCY BILL.”
CONGRESSMAN CHARLES A. LINDBERG SR. (speaking to Congress in opposition to the global banking cartel and its privately owned “Federal Reserve” Corporation monopoly. December 23rd, 1913)

"THE REAL TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, AS YOU AND I KNOW, THAT A FINANCIAL ELEMENT IN THE LARGER CENTERS HAS OWNED THE GOVERNMENT EVER SINCE THE DAYS OF ANDREW JACKSON.”
PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (on oligarch rule in a letter to handler “Colonel” Edward M. House, confidence man for the cartel and founder of the Council on Foreign Relations. House also handled President Wilson in the foisting of a private and unconstitutional “Federal Reserve” Corporation and its IRS in 1913. FDR speaks of monopolists at cartel centers of New York & London that own the U.S. Government. November 21st, l933)

“BRITAIN IS THE SLAVE OF AN INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL BLOC.”
BRITISH PRIME MINISTER DAVID LLOYD GEORGE (on the money cartel June 20, 1934)

“IF YOU WANT TO BE THE SLAVES OF [PRIVATE CARTEL] BANKS AND PAY THE COST OF YOUR OWN SLAVERY, THEN LET THE BANKS CREATE MONEY…”
“THE MODERN BANKING SYSTEM CREATES MONEY OUT OF NOTHING…[PRIVATE CARTEL] BANKERS OWN THE EARTH. TAKE IT AWAY FROM THEM, BUT LEAVE THEM THE POWER TO CREATE MONEY AND CONTROL CREDIT, AND WITH A FLICK OF A PEN THEY WILL CREATE ENOUGH TO BUY IT BACK.”
SIR JOSIAH STAMP (Governor of the Bank of England; the 2nd richest man in Britain. A man in service to the Rothschilds Quotes 1920 & 1928)

“I DON’T CARE WHO THE GOVERNMENT IS. LET ME CONTROL THE MONEY AND I WILL CONTROL THE COUNTRY.”
MAYER AMSCHEL ROTHSCHILD (attributed to the German godfather of the Rothschild banking cartel and grandfather to his heir Lord Baron Nathaniel Mayer de Rothschild: the de facto owner of the Bank of England and a key promoter of the U.S. “Federal Reserve” Act. 1744-1812)

“LET ME CONTROL A PEOPLE’S CURRENCY AND I CARE NOT WHO MAKES THEIR LAWS.”
LORD BARON MAYER NATHANIEL DE ROTHSCHILD (as English head of a world Rothschild banking cartel in an attributed talk to bankers, 1912. A “Federal Reserve” Act promoted by Lord Rothschild & J.D. Rockefeller via James Paul Warburg and other American agents was signed by President Wilson into U.S. law 1913. 1840-1915)

“COMPETITION IS A SIN…”
“THE ABILITY TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE IS AS PURCHASABLE A COMMODITY AS SUGAR OR COFFEE AND I WILL PAY MORE FOR THAT ABILITY THAN F