The All Stick Policy Review

The All Stick Policy Review Politics and social commentary on day to day history, politics, current events, social policy and life in America. Society change page.

11/20/2024

This Hanukkah, make it a season to remember!
Preserve your cherished memories in a truly meaningful
way 👉 https://t.site/4anGWml

10/15/2024

The Problem is Capitalism

Posted on30th April 2019

It is a weapon pointed at the living world. We urgently need to develop a new system.
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 25th April 2019
For most of my adult life, I’ve railed against “corporate capitalism”, “consumer capitalism” and “crony capitalism”. It took me a long time to see that the problem is not the adjective, but the noun.
While some people have rejected capitalism gladly and swiftly, I’ve done so slowly and reluctantly. Part of the reason was that I could see no clear alternative: unlike some anti-capitalists, I have never been an enthusiast for state communism. I was also inhibited by its religious status. To say “capitalism is failing” in the 21st century is like saying “God is dead” in the 19th. It is secular blasphemy. It requires a degree of self-confidence I did not possess.
But as I’ve grown older, I’ve come to recognise two things. First, that it is the system, rather than any variant of the system, which drives us inexorably towards disaster. Second, that you do not have to produce a definitive alternative to say that capitalism is failing. The statement stands in its own right. But it also demands another, and different, effort to develop a new system.
Capitalism’s failures arise from two of its defining elements. The first is perpetual growth. Economic growth is the aggregate effect of the quest to accumulate capital and extract profit. Capitalism collapses without growth, yet perpetual growth on a finite planet leads inexorably to environmental calamity.
Those who defend capitalism argue that, as consumption switches from goods to services, economic growth can be decoupled from the use of material resources. Last week, a paper in the journal New Political Economy by Jason Hickel and Giorgos Kallis examined this premise. They found that while some relative decoupling took place in the 20th century (material resource consumption grew, but not as quickly as economic growth), in the 21st there has been a re-coupling: rising resource consumption has so far matched or exceeded the rate of economic growth. The absolute decoupling needed to avert environmental catastrophe (a reduction in material resource use) has never been achieved, and appears impossible while economic growth continues. Green growth is an illusion.
A system based on perpetual growth cannot function without peripheries and externalities. There must always be an extraction zone, from which materials are taken without full payment, and a disposal zone, where costs are dumped in the form of waste and pollution. As the scale of economic activity increases, until capitalism affects everything from the atmosphere to the deep ocean floor, the entire planet becomes a sacrifice zone: we all inhabit the periphery of the profit-making machine.
This drives us towards cataclysm on such a scale that most people have no means of imagining it. The threatened collapse of our life support systems is bigger by far than war, famine, pestilence or economic crisis, though it is likely to incorporate all four. Societies can recover from these apocalyptic events, but not from the loss of soil, an abundant biosphere and a habitable climate.
The second defining element is the bizarre assumption that a person is entitled to as great a share of the world’s natural wealth as their money can buy. This seizure of common goods causes three further dislocations. First, the scramble for exclusive control of non-reproducible assets, which implies either violence or legislative truncations of other people’s rights. Second, the immiseration of other people by an economy based on looting across both space and time. Third, the translation of economic power into political power, as control over essential resources leads to control over the social relations that surround them.
In the New York Times on Sunday, the Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz sought to distinguish between good capitalism, that he called “wealth creation”, and bad capitalism, that he called “wealth grabbing” (extracting rent). I understand his distinction, but from the environmental point of view, wealth creation is wealth grabbing. Economic growth, intrinsically linked to the increasing use of material resources, means seizing natural wealth from both living systems and future generations.
To point to such problems is to invite a barrage of accusations, many of which are based on this premise: capitalism has rescued hundreds of millions of people from poverty – now you want to impoverish them again. It is true that capitalism, and the economic growth it drives, has radically improved the prosperity of vast numbers of people, while simultaneously destroying the prosperity of many others: those whose land, labour and resources were seized to fuel growth elsewhere. Much of the wealth of the rich nations was – and is – built on slavery and colonial expropriation.
Like coal, capitalism has brought many benefits. But, like coal, it now causes more harm than good. Just as we have found means of generating useful energy that are better and less damaging than coal, so we need to find means of generating human wellbeing that are better and less damaging than capitalism.
There is no going back: the alternative to capitalism is neither feudalism nor state communism. Soviet communism had more in common with capitalism than the advocates of either system would care to admit. Both systems are (or were) obsessed with generating economic growth. Both are willing to inflict astonishing levels of harm in pursuit of this and other ends. Both promised a future in which we would need to work for only a few hours a week, but instead demand endless, brutal labour. Both are dehumanising. Both are absolutist, insisting that theirs and theirs alone is the one true God.
So what does a better system look like? I don’t have a complete answer, and I don’t believe any one person does. But I think I see a rough framework emerging. Part of it is provided by the ecological civilisation proposed by Jeremy Lent, one of the greatest thinkers of our age. Other elements come from Kate Raworth’s doughnut economics and the environmental thinking of Naomi Klein, Amitav Ghosh, Angaangaq Angakkorsuaq, Raj Patel and Bill McKibben. Part of the answer lies in the notion of “private sufficiency, public luxury”. Another part arises from the creation of a new conception of justice, based on this simple principle: every generation, everywhere shall have an equal right to the enjoyment of natural wealth.
I believe our task is to identify the best proposals from many different thinkers and shape them into a coherent alternative. Because no economic system is only an economic system, but intrudes into every aspect of our lives, we need many minds from various disciplines – economic, environmental, political, cultural, social and logistical – working collaboratively to create a better way of organising ourselves, that meets our needs without destroying our home.
Our choice comes down to this. Do we stop life to allow capitalism to continue, or stop capitalism to allow life to continue?
Posted in economic justice, environment and the natural world
Policies (T&Cs, Privacy, Cookies)
Follow George on Twitter
Get the latest articles by email
© 2024 George Monbiot
Site by Rui Zhang

08/25/2023

One of the, if not most significant, problems with the concept of Artificial Intelligence, A.I.. Is, that it simply throws gas on the problem 'Free Will'.

Cold logic bounced against the concept of, choosing to ignore a rule. Or even just the best idea considered by the data, because one can and it serves a shared long term interest of the one making the comparison or judgement of adherence.

Humans already have an insane level of this learning curve already, without asking A.I. to amplify the already established weakness of humanity.

Learning requires failure to grasp some concepts. Putting ones hand on a stove element that while black, is still extremely hot.

While there are defining elements to the arguments used. It's sincerely, exponentially, compounding the failure of humanity.

When the rules are all there are, then the answers and outcome are easy to quantify.

The problem is human beings, the human condition, if you will. We enjoy the ability to knowingly and willingly break the rule, whether unwritten, social or legal.

With it, comes our life as we know it and aspects of that life we choose to see or not. The basic reality is, that free will is exemplified in all we see today and has come before.

If only we could hold ourselves to a heavenly standard. Follow the rules, for Christians anyway, would mean "... for I've inscribed the law upon his heart. He knows right from wrong."

For others? Excluding the abnormal psychology area .... yeee haw .... is a concept pretty much shared with humanity.

We, who have that thing called a conscious. Know for a fact when we do wrong. Rationalization is the justified sedation, most often for personal profit in some manner or another, of ones conscious over the sounding alarm.

08/12/2023

From 2021 still true today as before. Maybe people just want to join the oppressors. They certainly don't seem ready to throw off their chains.

AUGUST 12, 2021
Neoliberalism: America Has Arrived at One of History’s Great Crossroads
BY THOM HARTMANN

The Democratic Party is having an internal battle over the “small” and the “large” infrastructure bills, but what’s really at stake is the future of neoliberalism within the party. The smaller “bipartisan” bill represents the neoliberal worldview, including public-private partnerships and huge subsidies to for-profit companies, whereas the larger “reconciliation” Democratic Party-only bill hearkens back to the FDR/LBJ classic progressive way of doing things.

Milton Friedman began selling neoliberalism to America in the 1950s, and we fully bought into it in the 1980s. Most Americans had no idea, really, what this new political/economic ideology meant; they just knew it involved free trade, economic austerity/tax cuts and deregulation/privatization.

The free trade part, we were told, would bring about the end of great-power wars because countries that were economically interdependent wouldn’t dare ruin their own economies by going to war with a significant trading partner.

The “McDonald’s Theory” hatched by Thomas Friedman was argued on TV and in the newspapers: no two nations that had McDonald’s fast-food restaurants, we were told (falsely), had ever gone to war with each other.

Free trade was also going to eliminate poverty in the world by giving every country an “even playing field” to compete for manufacturing jobs.

High-wage countries like the US and the UK would have to stop protecting their laborers with unions, whose wage and benefit demands were merely “drags on the economy” and prevented the “magic of markets” from working.

Low-wage countries would pick up much of that work, but over time their people would rise into the middle class, too, and everything would even out.

And, indeed, trillions of dollars of wealth were sucked out of the American working class as union membership plunged from around a third of workers to about 6% in the private marketplace today, all while China saw the fastest and strongest rise of a middle class in the history of the world. There are now more middle-class Chinese than the entire population of the US, as the American middle class sank below being half our population for the first time since the postwar era got seriously underway.

Austerity was supposed to end ghettos, crime and poverty in America by withdrawing the supports “lazy” people used to get by without having to work.

In the neoliberal story, Black people weren’t isolated in their neighborhoods by redlining and racist designs for highways, power-plants and other polluting industries; they lived in “public housing” on “welfare” and made more and more money, the neoliberal story went, as they had more and more babies out of wedlock.

Reagan told the story of the “strapping young buck” in line at the supermarket upsetting all the hard-working white people when he whipped out his food stamps to pay for his steak and beer; it was the male complement to Reagan’s Black “welfare queen” myth. Cut off his food stamps, the logic went, and he’ll be forced to look for gainful employment
even if there were no jobs within miles and white employers wouldn’t then hire Black people.

The occasional Black rags-to-riches stories, like Herman Cain or Ben Carson, were celebrated and held up as an example of how neoliberal austerity policies would “transform the ‘hood” and bring about both racial and economic integration nationwide. Meanwhile, harsh prison sentences, mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws would end the scourge of “super-predators” on our streets.

And neoliberalism’s tax cuts for the morbidly rich would incentivize them to start new businesses and “create jobs.” Everybody would win!

Deregulation, we were told, would enable all of this “free market magic” to happen quickly, because businesses were more nimble and knew better what they needed to do to make their products than did “government bureaucrats.”

Even regulations that most people agreed with, like pollution controls, were unnecessary, the neoliberalism advocates told us, because businesses that polluted would be “shamed in the marketplace.”

If they refused to clean things up and their pollution was harming people, we were told, they’d be “held accountable in the courts” by the families of the people they’d damaged or killed.

Deregulation would also end economic depressions, because no banker or stockbroker in his right mind would take such big chances that a misstep could wipe out large sectors of the nation’s economy.

Republican Senator Phil Gramm made this very point on the floor of the Senate in 1999 when selling the end of the 1933 Glass-Steagall law that prevented checkbook banks from using their depositors’ money to gamble in the stock, bond and real estate markets.

Everybody applauded and banksters started gambling and became billionaires. And, of course, it led us straight to the Bush Crash of 2008 when the entire system seized up and you and I bailed out Wall Street with trillions of dollars, hundreds of billions of which the banksters simply pocketed.

Privatization was a subset of deregulation, moving control over essential services like water, power and schools out of the public/governmental arena and into the hands of the rich and their allies. Privatization was supposed to make water cleaner, electricity cheaper and schools better.

Tragically, as Americans are now realizing as we wake up from our neoliberal dream, all were lies.

Flint, Michigan was a disastrous water privatization scheme pushed by the Republican administration of that state that has destroyed the lives of thousands of now-brain-damaged children.

California and Texas suffer from regular blackouts while the stockholders and executives of their power companies stash billions in their money bins.

Public schools around the country have been kneecapped as their resources are reallocated to corporate, for-profit charter schools.

Reagan installs Neoliberalism

From the 1930s to 1981, a period of time spanning more than two full generations, the American political and economic system was run under a “well-regulated capitalism” system conceived by economist John Maynard Keynes and put into place in 1933 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

A top income tax bracket of 91% that kicked in at around $3 million a year in today’s money guaranteed that nobody became obscenely rich, while strong protections for workers and their right to unionize ensured a good chunk of corporate profits went to the workers who created that revenue.

Anti-trust laws were so vigorously enforced that in the 1962 antitrust case of Brown Shoe Co. v United States, the Supreme Court blocked the merger of Brown and GR Kinney, two shoe manufacturers, because the combination of the two would have captured about 5 percent of the US shoe market. (For comparison, Nike today has 18 percent of the US shoe market.)

Throughout that period America became steadily safer and cleaner as worker protections became law (and got their own agency with OSHA), pollution and dangerous products were regulated (and the EPA was created), and government stepped in proactively to reforest America (with the Civilian Conservation Corps) and provide American families with low-cost clean electricity (the Hoover and Bonneville Dams and the Tennessee Valley Authority, among others).

But starting in a big way in the 1950s a number of front men for big money industries and dynastic fortunes stepped forward to argue that all of this regulation and taxation was not a benefit or economic stabilizer but, instead, a certain road to economic doom and social perdition.

Milton Friedman argued (in his book Capitalism And Freedom) that high wages, taxes and regulation were stifling the economy in a way that would surely lead to hyperinflation and ruin, predicting a disaster far worse even than the Black Tuesday stock market crash and ensuing Republican Great Depression that Herbert Hoover kicked off in 1929.

Russell Kirk argued (in The Conservative Mind) that if the American working class became sufficiently wealthy then minorities would rise up, wives would want to have careers and young people would become libertines, flouting the rules of society.

The result, Kirk predicted in 1951, would be a Civil Rights movement that could overthrow white control of America; a women’s movement that would sweep away socially-stabilizing patriarchy; and a student movement that defied authority, law and the draft, all leading to social chaos and our inability to fight wars.

Inflation gives neoliberals the lever they needed

Inflation had always been the thing that Friedman and his acolytes most loudly warned against, but when it came to America its cause wasn’t what Friedman had predicted.

In 1973 several Arab states went to war with Israel and the US openly took Israel’s side in the conflict. Enraged, the oil-rich states — led by Saudi Arabia — cut off the supply of oil to America in what is now known as the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973-1974.

There are two main ways inflation happens: a country debases its currency (as happened in Germany in the 1920s and Zimbabwe in this century) or a commodity that’s at the core of an economy becomes scarce (in the case of Zimbabwe it was both: food became scarce at the same time the government went on a money-printing binge).

The US has never had a serious problem with debasing our currency (although that’s what Friedman was hysterically warning against), but everything in our economy — from manufactured goods to travel to food production and distribution — runs on oil.

The oil shock so shook our economy that Richard Nixon, no fan of government intervention in markets, resorted to wage and price controls while people formed mile-long lines to get gas on the odd- or even-days they could do so, based on the last digit of their license plate.

The result of that oil shortage was a subsequent shortage of pretty much everything else, and when things are scarce their price gets bid up. Inflation hit 12% in 1974 and stayed high while oil slowly worked its way back through the economy until 1981 when it dropped down to “mere” 8.9%.

Friedman, Reagan and the wealthy funders of the Republican Party saw this inflation, which was devastating the Jerry Ford and Jimmy Carter one-term presidencies, as a political gift. To a man, they insisted it was caused by FDR’s and LBJ’s “welfare state” policies and the “big spending” associated with them, even though that was a complete lie.

Reagan was sworn into office just as inflation was beginning to abate (it dropped to 3.8% in 1982) and he told America that we needed to embrace an entirely new economic theory if we were to avoid another era of 15% mortgage rates and wage-eroding price increases.

America, shook by that decade of seemingly intractable inflation, bought his sales pitch and Reaganomics — AKAneoliberalism — became the operational economic and political system of America in 1981. Everything from trickle-down to busting unions to “ending welfare as we know it” and “tough on crime policing” fell under this single rubric.

Democrats buy into neoliberalism

As the oil shock wore off and the American economy entered a period of strong rebound in 1982, it seemed that Reaganomics/neoliberalism was working.

Expanding on the idea, Reagan and Bush the Elder negotiated what Bush called a “New World Order” of “free trade.” While people would still be constrained by national borders, there would no longer be borders or barriers for the flow of money and corporate goods.

They rolled out the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which later birthed the World Trade Organization (WTO) and negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that was later signed by President Clinton.

Bill Clinton had become a believer, in part because it was good politics; Reaganomics was getting credit for the end of the oil-shock-caused inflation and subsequent hard times and was popular.

Reagan’s destruction of American unions had also dried up the Democratic Party’s main revenue source, so by 1992 jumping into bed with giant corporations and the super-rich had become a political survival strategy for Democrats.

Embracing multinational corporations that wanted to move their expensive-labor manufacturing facilities overseas meant overflowing campaign coffers for the newly-neoliberal Democratic Party and Clinton’s political arm, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

It was time, Clinton told us, to consign the policies of Roosevelt and Keynes to the dustbin of history. There was a “New Democrat” Party (there’s still a “New Democrat Caucus” in Congress for neoliberal hangers-on) and a new, young, vigorous president was taking the reins of government.

It worked for a while, but by the early 2000s Americans were starting to see through the entire neoliberal façade, as over 50,000 factories had moved from the US to Mexico, China and other developing countries while wages in the US had collapsed. The middle class was going backwards, or staying flat at best, and discontent roiled the country.

After a brief feelgood period of punitive war after 9/11, Americans were again ready to shake things up; they did so in an historic move by electing our country’s first Black president, Barack Obama.

While Obama, like Clinton, had campaigned on themes that made it seem he was rejecting neoliberalism, in fact he was as deeply in its camp as were Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush.

By the time of his presidency neoliberalism was simply conventional wisdom in political circles, having been adopted in the UK in 1978 by Margaret Thatcher and large parts of it adopted by much of the rest of Europe in the 1990s and early 2000s. Onward to Davos to party with the neoliberal billionaires!

But, still, as noble and soaring as Obama’s rhetoric was, and as good and decent a man as he was (in contrast to the war criminal and torturer Bush, h***y Clinton, or the evil Nixon), neoliberalism still wasn’t working for anybody except America’s biggest corporations and richest individuals. And American workers knew it.

Enter Donald Trump, the political equivalent of The Little Boy Who Said The Emperor Has No Clothes. Trump attacked neoliberal policies of both parties, although never directly using the word “neoliberal.”

Free trade, he said, had been a disaster for American workers. And voters knew he was right.

Rich people were gaming the tax system — he knew, he told us, because he did it, too — and he was going to put an end to that. Americans wanted tax fairness, and when Trump said his rich friends “will hate me” because he was going to raise their taxes so much, voters believed him.

And austerity had not only not ended crime but was driving working class people into the poorhouse. Nobody, Trump proclaimed, would be a better friend to Social Security, Medicare, housing supports and other entitlement programs that supported the poor and middle class alike than him.

Most of his solutions were lies, of course, but the American people wanted to believe that this reality TV star and billionaire was just the savior America needed.

To top it off, Trump spoke what many white people considered “politically incorrect truths” about race and immigration. “They” were stealing your job and threatening to r**e your wives and daughters, Trump told white Americans, and he was just the guy tough enough to deal with “them.”

Outside of tearing a few thousand brown-skinned children away from their parents and symbolic tariffs on Chinese products that backfired badly, Trump couldn’t pull any of it off. He was as much a follower of neoliberal ideology as any American president since Reagan, his rhetoric aside.

So Americans, still wanting to get rid of neoliberalism, decided to try the Democrats again in 2020, giving that party control of the House, Senate and White House. Joe Biden, a canny politician sensing the mood of the country, openly denounced many of the tenets of neoliberalism and, in the first six months of his presidency, accomplished Keynesian stimulus programs that would have left Clinton, Bush or Obama in shock.

Now the Democrats and the Biden Administration face a choice.

Do they finish the job and end neoliberalism altogether, bringing our manufacturing back home, rebuilding the power of organized labor, and raising taxes and regulations? Or do they declare “mission accomplished” and revert back to neoliberal policies?

Turning back neoliberalism would be an accomplishment for the ages, something impossible even five years ago.

Bringing American manufacturing back home, raising top income tax rates to the above-50% level that stabilizes the explosion of great wealth, and building a 21st century social safety net with free college and Medicare For All would guarantee the Democratic Party — like it did from the 1930s to 1980 — would control most of the US government for generations.

It would also strengthen democracy itself in America, leading us towards the multiracial, multiethnic all-in society promised in our Founding documents but not yet fully realized.

However, there are powerful forces arrayed in defense of neoliberalism, including the Supreme Court, massive transnational corporations and an activist billionaire class the Court empowered with rulings like Citizens United.

If the neoliberals win and Biden and the Democrats back down, it’s unlikely America will simply slide back into a “friendly neoliberalism” like we had before the Trump presidency.

Instead, we will almost certainly follow the path that Russia and Hungary have trod, embracing Friedman’s economic policies and the authoritarian strongman politics of oligarchy necessary to enforce them. It will be the end of the largest and most noble parts of the American Experiment.

America has arrived at one of history’s great crossroads.

This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

02/01/2023

In the debate on homelessness. Two problems I see most are these.

1: It seems the discussion seeks to engage, at a point past identifying the actual problem. Or better said, a matter of when one chooses to enter commentary on a problem. Where in its evolution, from source to current event, has one decided to have a thought?

2: The fervent desire to help, creating an acceptance of failed policy and program; due to longevity of the help and/or results. Due to failing to address the issue of poverty. This shared with number 1.

I think, to ram things home. The argument, discussion.... moral statement. Should proceed along the lines.

Until we realize Neoliberal/Neoconservative plans are failing us all. Well, all but the top 10 percent.

And decide that, maybe; just maybe, a society that emphasizes everyone needs money, might want to make sure everyone has a living wage job.

All we're doing is, deciding how much we want to spend, to continue to believe our version of reality.

Moving the visual reminder, of our failure of belief, from one untenable spot to another. How much, to not really fix things, just cover it over? That's really the only thing one should focus on.

We need to fix the actual problem, which would require us actually changing how we think. Or allocate the funds that keep the Neoconservative/Neoliberal dream today, alive.

Whichever seems like a better idea. Otherwise it is exactly what we're doing now, failing ourselves and the future, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

11/21/2022

My biggest point about all things can be found in this statement.

In an artificially depressed world of income. I am watching my cat die for a lack of money.

I am supposed to accept so many arguments, about why in a world where the number of jobs are kept deliberately disproportionate to the number of people.

I am to blame for not finding somewhere, some how, the money to save her.

No one, under ANY circumstances should be placed into that kind of decision.

Any argument, philosophy, law or mandate of G_D that puts someone in a position to mourn for the life of another, due to a lack of money, is by definition immoral.

11/18/2022

I have never been one to bandy about quotes and drop names indirectly, as if those I quote agree with me.

I have my favorite things uttered by others.... they inspire me.

They do not, on the other hand, serve as my foundation for belief in whatever it is I'm talking about.

I don't need to quote others for truth to be understood. One either recognizes the elephant on their chest, as described by me, or they dont.

I have always considered myself to be and have the views and beliefs worthy of quoting. I think of myself as the quoted not the quoter.

I speak and words fall from my lips unto the ears of the like minded or they don't.

Quoting someone's favorite poem, analogy or thought, to gain their belief and agreement... seems so pathetic and beggerish.

Great Men speak to inspire. Their words are the quotes we live by. They are not the proof of anything but agreement.

Weak is the proof, built on the back of said agreement, as evidence of why one should listen.

Address

San Francisco, CA

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The All Stick Policy Review posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to The All Stick Policy Review:

Share