Nice clip, ouyangwulong, I agree, by and large, with your clip title. I wonder how much of this recent turmoil can be placed at the feet of globalism. While I'm not opposed, shouldn't we at least expect global economic pangs. Now debt that's a cultural issue, not capitalistic, and quite disturbing. I think our problems boil down in large part to that alone.

I find it interesting the comment at which you chose to let this clip die. We discussed this before. I do not remember you being as bluntly disgusted with capitalism as Masbury, though you were no cheerleader either. You at least seem to have some basic guiding principle that leads you to choose intellectual honesty.

Do we not agree th...

Nice clip, ouyangwulong, I agree, by and large, with your clip title. I wonder how much of this recent turmoil can be placed at the feet of globalism. While I'm not opposed, shouldn't we at least expect global economic pangs. Now debt that's a cultural issue, not capitalistic, and quite disturbing. I think our problems boil down in large part to that alone.

I find it interesting the comment at which you chose to let this clip die. We discussed this before. I do not remember you being as bluntly disgusted with capitalism as Masbury, though you were no cheerleader either. You at least seem to have some basic guiding principle that leads you to choose intellectual honesty.

Do we not agree that it is not the system that fails, it is the people that fail the system?. And in a free society guided by the concept of Liberal Democracy are we not responsible for this failure? Not Capitalism. And is it not true that while many negative impacts have been caused by our capitalist system that it is not the system that causes abuse rather a FEW people? Have not the people of America and the World benefited not only from the system of American capaitalism, but the resulting product of the liberty of individuals to achieve whatever success they find suitable for themselves? Foriegn Aid (Consisting of innumerable aspects and the generosity of American individuals)

I prefer to say we are in an age of Corporate Totalitarianism caused by borderless corporations ( a birth pang to be sure and very dangerous ) But I guess you do not believe that since you say totalitarianism is on the ash heap of history as you revealed on another clip.

I wish you would have commented in reply to Masbury's comment.

Sadly I'm too busy to keep up with every clip. As you can see, after clipping, I neglected this one entirely.

Actually, I think we should consider the system that Masbury is describing. Bush's opposition to health care for poor kids was said to be a philosophical disagreement. (I'm having trouble imagining Bush discoursing on philosophy, but that's another story...)

What philosophy could promote someone to make such a cold and unfeeling decision? I would imagine that Bush, or whoever is supplying his philosophy, would argue that free health care to poor kids would restrict the free market, because it would limit the abilities of companies to sell their products at natural free market value...

Sadly I'm too busy to keep up with every clip. As you can see, after clipping, I neglected this one entirely.

Actually, I think we should consider the system that Masbury is describing. Bush's opposition to health care for poor kids was said to be a philosophical disagreement. (I'm having trouble imagining Bush discoursing on philosophy, but that's another story...)

What philosophy could promote someone to make such a cold and unfeeling decision? I would imagine that Bush, or whoever is supplying his philosophy, would argue that free health care to poor kids would restrict the free market, because it would limit the abilities of companies to sell their products at natural free market values.

That is to say, companies could demand anything price they want for health care, being as we can't live without it, but if the government intervenes they will have to deal with a competitor who is not operating for profit, and thus undersells them and drives down the price, hurting their potential profits.

This "Philosophical" perspective amounts to little more than crass corporate profiteering, and is really not worthy of the dignified moniker of "philosophy."

Also, it does not describe the capitalism of Adam Smith, or even F.A. Hayeck. (Not that I can imagine Bush as having read "The Wealth of Nations," let alone "The Constitution of Liberty" or "Economic Freedom." Imagining the Presidential bookshelf is singularly depressing.)

So the questions remain: what is capitalism? and what is Bush talking about with his philosophical objections?

Capitalism, as I see it, is the philosophy of economic freedom. It is one of the pillars of Classical Liberalism, and it was a product of the Enlightenment. I'll call this "Enlightenment Capitalism." Bush's philosophy is different in several key ways. To what extent it is new remains open to debate, but it emerged in its present form sometime during the late 80s in intellectual circles, and politically came of age during the Clinton administration, when the history of Regan's capitalist policies was revised and re-interpreted by wayward Neo-Conservatives caught up in the Republican...

So the questions remain: what is capitalism? and what is Bush talking about with his philosophical objections?

Capitalism, as I see it, is the philosophy of economic freedom. It is one of the pillars of Classical Liberalism, and it was a product of the Enlightenment. I'll call this "Enlightenment Capitalism." Bush's philosophy is different in several key ways. To what extent it is new remains open to debate, but it emerged in its present form sometime during the late 80s in intellectual circles, and politically came of age during the Clinton administration, when the history of Regan's capitalist policies was revised and re-interpreted by wayward Neo-Conservatives caught up in the Republican Revolution. I'll call this "Savage Capitalism" (a term I picked up from Edward Said, to differentiate it from Enlightenment Capitalism)

So I think we should compare these two ideologies along three points: 1. Their Motivation 2. Their Means and 3. Their Practice.

I. Motivation

By motivation I mean the goals, and the social situation that the ideology is influenced by or reacts against.

In Enlightenment Capitalism the motivation is largely the traditional Enlightenment values of liberty and equality.The reaction was against Mercantilism, where in the economy was controlled by the powerful elite, and the priority was the accumulation of material wealth. Adam Smith's revolutionary idea was that a country's wealth was not necessarily determined by what they possessed, but by the commerce they conducted.

Smith's goal was not mere wealth but prosperity, and he argued persuasively that consumers and producers needed to be equal partners in an open marke...

I. Motivation

By motivation I mean the goals, and the social situation that the ideology is influenced by or reacts against.

In Enlightenment Capitalism the motivation is largely the traditional Enlightenment values of liberty and equality.The reaction was against Mercantilism, where in the economy was controlled by the powerful elite, and the priority was the accumulation of material wealth. Adam Smith's revolutionary idea was that a country's wealth was not necessarily determined by what they possessed, but by the commerce they conducted.

Smith's goal was not mere wealth but prosperity, and he argued persuasively that consumers and producers needed to be equal partners in an open marketplace free from control and collusion by the powerful. Thus, we can say that Smith's capitalism is firmly anti-materialist.

The goals of Savage capitalism are ostensibly efficiency, profit, and "freedom."

It would be easy to presume that Savage Capitalism is a reaction against the Keynsian integration of socialism into American Capitalism as a legacy of the great depression, but if that were the case, why did it wait until the 90s to rear its head?

I would argue that it is in fact a reaction against the rise of another phenomenon: regulation and oversight. The 1970s and 80s marked the beginning of a movement, using things such as class action law suits and other activism, to hold companies responsible for their actions towards the environment, their workers, and their customers. These restrictions frustrated corporations averse to social responsibility, and began breeding discontent among the economic elite.

The ideology of Savage Capitalism is not in fact one of economic freedom, but one of social freedom. It seeks to remove the social obligations and limitations placed on companies by bothersome moralists or economic alarmists.

This becomes increasingly clear when we consider the means by which these ideologies pursue their goals.

II. Means

If Adam Smith's goals were economic freedom and equality (equality of opportunity, that is to say) then the logical way to pursue these goals is by dismantling institutions of control that restrict the market. Although this has most often been identified with government intervention, it is not limited to the state.

In his final book, F.A. Hayek warns that tyranny can come not only from governments, but from corporations as well. To provide a free marketplace, one must also be sure that the market is free from interference by private parties as well.

A prime example of this is the way that health insurance providers have intimidated and colluded with hospitals and doctors to rais...

II. Means

If Adam Smith's goals were economic freedom and equality (equality of opportunity, that is to say) then the logical way to pursue these goals is by dismantling institutions of control that restrict the market. Although this has most often been identified with government intervention, it is not limited to the state.

In his final book, F.A. Hayek warns that tyranny can come not only from governments, but from corporations as well. To provide a free marketplace, one must also be sure that the market is free from interference by private parties as well.

A prime example of this is the way that health insurance providers have intimidated and colluded with hospitals and doctors to raise the price of health care, a daily necessity, so that it becomes impossible to live without health insurance. By using their power to force hospitals to raise their prices, they have artificially tilted the market in favor of their product.

The idea of Enlightenment Capitalism is to protect the consumers, so that the consumer need, desire, and financial ability determine the value of a product, instead of allowing prices to be set by the ruling elite of a country.

Typical polices of Enlightenment Capitalism include deregulation, giving customers more choices, and forcing companies to compete fairly. Examples of this include the breaking up of the Pan Am and AT&T monopolies.

Savage Capitalism, on the other hand, has goals of profit and efficiency and freedom from social responsibilities, so the way it achieves these goals is by the elimination or non-enforcement of regulations. (Not the same as deregulation.) This is to say, removing oversight and limitations on the way that corporations do business. The requirement that a corporation be held responsible for dangerous products is inconvenient to some companies, so they seek to end the legal liability through class-action suits.

Essentially, Savage Capitalism seeks to protect corporations from the consumers.

III. Practice

By practice, I mean the reality of these ideologies when implemented as policies by their proponents.

The deregulation of AT&T, or the break up of Pan American Airlines resulted in healthy competition, and lower prices, as well as a strengthened economy. (Although poor and impulsive management has proven damaging in the airline business, this isn't a result of deregulation.)

Bush, as you will notice, has not deregulated anything. The goal of savage capitalism is to centralize power in the hands of the elite, rather than decentralize it by dispersing it among everyone in the society.

The results of his non-regulation of the insurance industry, energy market, and most recentl...

III. Practice

By practice, I mean the reality of these ideologies when implemented as policies by their proponents.

The deregulation of AT&T, or the break up of Pan American Airlines resulted in healthy competition, and lower prices, as well as a strengthened economy. (Although poor and impulsive management has proven damaging in the airline business, this isn't a result of deregulation.)

Bush, as you will notice, has not deregulated anything. The goal of savage capitalism is to centralize power in the hands of the elite, rather than decentralize it by dispersing it among everyone in the society.

The results of his non-regulation of the insurance industry, energy market, and most recently, mortgage market, have been uniformly disastrous. They have resulted in higher prices, poor and often disrupted service, and a lack in genuine competition. This is dangerous to the free market because companies such as Enron or more recently Countrywide Financial built up their buisnesses and profits without competing in a fair market, meaning that the value and security of their products was over rated since profits were vouched safe by collusion and cutting corners, rather than genuine competition.

Thus, I would say that what Masbury is criticizing is not the Capitalism proper, but instead a revival of the old Mercantile system where powerful elites in the political and corporate world consolidated their power of the masses by unchecked use of power in pursuit of simple and immediate material profits.

Not only do I think this is wrong, but I think it is dangerous.

Actually, I think we should consider the system that Masbury is
describing. Bush's opposition to health care for poor kids was said to
be a philosophical disagreement. (I'm having trouble imagining Bush
discoursing on philosophy, but that's another story...)

Ouyangwulong, Please. Bush does not oppose the program Masbury referred to. Bush's bill does MUCH, MUCH mpre in helping underprivelaged kids to health care. This was a partisan charade by the Democrats that is in line wiht the political division by hacks for the purpose of leading their useful idiot around by their underwear labels.

Now, give me chance to re-focus, as I am in a bit of a snit here and calmy reply to the ...

Actually, I think we should consider the system that Masbury is
describing. Bush's opposition to health care for poor kids was said to
be a philosophical disagreement. (I'm having trouble imagining Bush
discoursing on philosophy, but that's another story...)

Ouyangwulong, Please. Bush does not oppose the program Masbury referred to. Bush's bill does MUCH, MUCH mpre in helping underprivelaged kids to health care. This was a partisan charade by the Democrats that is in line wiht the political division by hacks for the purpose of leading their useful idiot around by their underwear labels.

Now, give me chance to re-focus, as I am in a bit of a snit here and calmy reply to the rest of your comment if I feel compelled as I did not yet make it any further.

Commenting with you in the context of Masbury's comments will be quite a challenge. Not very open-minded in my view and he makes my eyes bleed.

To respond more directly to your comments, Willhelm, I would like to consider totalitariansim and globalism.

I should clarify: I believe that lefitist totalitarianism (Radical Socialism, Communism, etc.) is done for, but I trust totalitarianism is too tempting to not reassert itself. I just think we will soon lay to rest the virulent legacy of Marx. Or so I hope. (I do have an optimistic streak.)

As to globalism, I feel globalization, although certainly an destabilizing force responsible for much of the chaos in societies around the world right now, is nevertheless inevitable. Just as the Age of Exploration caused upheaval, war, and eventually settled out, so to will our new age of statele...

To respond more directly to your comments, Willhelm, I would like to consider totalitariansim and globalism.

I should clarify: I believe that lefitist totalitarianism (Radical Socialism, Communism, etc.) is done for, but I trust totalitarianism is too tempting to not reassert itself. I just think we will soon lay to rest the virulent legacy of Marx. Or so I hope. (I do have an optimistic streak.)

As to globalism, I feel globalization, although certainly an destabilizing force responsible for much of the chaos in societies around the world right now, is nevertheless inevitable. Just as the Age of Exploration caused upheaval, war, and eventually settled out, so to will our new age of stateless global trade and communications. I firmly believe that the nation state is an institution rapidly approaching obsolescence, but that is another debate.

At any time of upheaval, there are always people who will attempt to exploit the chaos, however, I think that they will fade eventually as the fluid dynamic of change congeals into the next phase in history. (Consider Portugal and Spain, whose power thrived during the chaos of exploration and expansion, but declined shortly after the world settled into its new horizons.)

In the end I would agree with you completely. We have a great system. However, our great system requires people serve it in good faith. (A remnant of the perhaps naive enlightenment values on which both democracy and capitalism are based.)

As I see it, America in both democracy and capitalism has stood up for equality and liberty, and against the control and exploitation of many by few. This has always been a source of bitter vitriol for those who do not support our values, who seek to become dictators in their own right, who want to enrich themselves at the expense of the people, and who want to force their will over the will of others less powerful.

It is not simply a question of a few bad apples. It is an attack on our system and our values.

I think Corporate Totalitarianism is a great word, and I certainly agree that it is the problem, not capitalism itself. In fact, I see it as an enemy of capitalism.

As to Bush and the question of child care, I would expect more of you. Does your hard nosed cynicism of political animals melt when it comes to the Bush administration? Do you think they have any intention of insuring un-insured children? If so, then why haven't they done it?

However, I will grant you, Bush is a more complex person than the ideologues that he surrounds himself with. I think in his heart he would like to see poor children healthy rather than get an extra dollar in his pocket. I think he would like to welcome the...

I think Corporate Totalitarianism is a great word, and I certainly agree that it is the problem, not capitalism itself. In fact, I see it as an enemy of capitalism.

As to Bush and the question of child care, I would expect more of you. Does your hard nosed cynicism of political animals melt when it comes to the Bush administration? Do you think they have any intention of insuring un-insured children? If so, then why haven't they done it?

However, I will grant you, Bush is a more complex person than the ideologues that he surrounds himself with. I think in his heart he would like to see poor children healthy rather than get an extra dollar in his pocket. I think he would like to welcome the huddled masses yearning to be free to become Americans. I don't think he's racist, and I don't think he's amoral.

On the other hand, the government that he heads is a very different issue. The extent to which he has expanded the power of the executive branch, the way he has eroded the Constitutional protections of Americans, and the way he has refused to consider ideas in opposition to his own have allowed his good intentions to go dangerously astray. He has also allowed a corrosive influence of special interests and big businesses to infiltrate our government in the interest of preserving and consolidating his own power.

This conceit is the undoing of democracy. It is even more terrifying that all the people out there voting for Hilary Clinton appear not to have learned the lesson here about the threat of arrogance to democracy.

Do you think they have any intention of insuring un-insured children? If so, then why haven't they done it?

I think a better question would be why have not the Left in Congress signed Bush's bill that increases coverage MORE than the Dems? What philosophical difference is causing them to deny this REPUBLICAN program remain in tact?

What is the philosophical difference that causes the Left in America to USE this issue in a way that is destructive and causes the hatred you see in people like Masbury?

YOU tell me. Ouyangwulong, Why do the Left put their philosophical "outlooks" ahead of the children? All the Left has to do is PASS the bill which, again, INCREASES funding per ...

Do you think they have any intention of insuring un-insured children? If so, then why haven't they done it?

I think a better question would be why have not the Left in Congress signed Bush's bill that increases coverage MORE than the Dems? What philosophical difference is causing them to deny this REPUBLICAN program remain in tact?

What is the philosophical difference that causes the Left in America to USE this issue in a way that is destructive and causes the hatred you see in people like Masbury?

YOU tell me. Ouyangwulong, Why do the Left put their philosophical "outlooks" ahead of the children? All the Left has to do is PASS the bill which, again, INCREASES funding per child MORE than the DEM bill. Give me a break, Ouyangwulong.

Is this really the game you want to play?

Essentially, Savage Capitalism seeks to protect corporations from the consumers.

And competition I presume. More corporate totalitarianism.

Does your hard nosed cynicism of political animals melt when it comes to the Bush administration?

No, but intellectual dishonesty sets me off because in it is the politically-blind partisanship that I find so disgusting. In some cases, such as this one where the facts are so obvious, it leads me past the cynicism of political animals to a level of disgust for the hatred that is so firmly planted in the hearts of those blind to the facts. You can hate Bush all you want. He’s no hero of mine either. I have been a staunch ...

Essentially, Savage Capitalism seeks to protect corporations from the consumers.

And competition I presume. More corporate totalitarianism.

Does your hard nosed cynicism of political animals melt when it comes to the Bush administration?

No, but intellectual dishonesty sets me off because in it is the politically-blind partisanship that I find so disgusting. In some cases, such as this one where the facts are so obvious, it leads me past the cynicism of political animals to a level of disgust for the hatred that is so firmly planted in the hearts of those blind to the facts. You can hate Bush all you want. He’s no hero of mine either. I have been a staunch critic though I believe history will judge him better than I do.

America in both democracy and capitalism has stood up for equality and liberty,

And that is not an easy thing to do as these are not entirely compatible concepts. There is a balance required and that is the trick of political games.

Which do you care for most, equality or Liberty?

Like I said, I agree entirely with your clip title. Thank you for the outline. I found it enlightening, useful, I learned something new and I agree almost entirely.

Of course, I'm not a registered Democrat, I'm just a "liberal" in some sense of the word, but I'll take a stab at why they might not be signing on for Bush's SCHIP bill:

1. Pride.

They would much rather get things done under their own President so they can get the credit for them. Regan did the same thing with the Iranian hostage crisis where his people sabotaged Carter's attempts to get them free until the day Regan was inaugurated. Politics as usual.

(This is actually most disappointing to me in that the democrats didn't show more support for what I thought was a fairly reasonable proposal on immigration from Bush.)

2. Distrust

With terms like fascism bouncing around on both sides, I...

Of course, I'm not a registered Democrat, I'm just a "liberal" in some sense of the word, but I'll take a stab at why they might not be signing on for Bush's SCHIP bill:

1. Pride.

They would much rather get things done under their own President so they can get the credit for them. Regan did the same thing with the Iranian hostage crisis where his people sabotaged Carter's attempts to get them free until the day Regan was inaugurated. Politics as usual.

(This is actually most disappointing to me in that the democrats didn't show more support for what I thought was a fairly reasonable proposal on immigration from Bush.)

2. Distrust

With terms like fascism bouncing around on both sides, I think that there is extreme distrust of Bush, and it is presumed that if he's supporting something that sounds good, it must be cover for something really terrible. In all fairness, he has done this before. Not every time, but as they say, once burned, twice as cautious.

3. Bush's compromise is talking about something totally different...

The goal of the bipartisan legislation on SCHIP in 2007 was to expand the number of children covered, because the current program does not cover many children who desperately need it.

Bush offered a compromise where he spends the money (something he's good at) but doesn't increase the number of children covered. This is why you can say it pays more money per child, without bothering to explain that it doesn't solve the problem of under-insured children not covered by SCHIP, which is the issue at hand. Thus, for legislators who voted to expand coverage, the Bush proposal was apples to oranges, and didn't achieve the goal they had set out to achieve.

Under-funding and Under-coverage, in my opinion, are both problems, but we shouldn't solve one and ignore the other. We need a proposal that takes care of both.

Typical of his style, the Bush plan makes a good headline but avoids solving the problem.

However, a far more interesting question is which I would take when the chips are down: liberty or equality?

Equality is much easier to defend morally, especially in situations where my liberty might menace your liberty. (Gun ownership is an obvious dilemma in this vein.)

Emotionally, instinctively, by personality and lifestyle, I am clearly predisposed towards liberty, but that's an impulse, and quite possibly a selfish decision. Hardly the makings of a philosophical judgment.

What is more, I'm a white male from the upper middle class who has the mental and physical abilities to excel in just about whatever job I want. That means that in the event we throw equality out the window, I ten...

However, a far more interesting question is which I would take when the chips are down: liberty or equality?

Equality is much easier to defend morally, especially in situations where my liberty might menace your liberty. (Gun ownership is an obvious dilemma in this vein.)

Emotionally, instinctively, by personality and lifestyle, I am clearly predisposed towards liberty, but that's an impulse, and quite possibly a selfish decision. Hardly the makings of a philosophical judgment.

What is more, I'm a white male from the upper middle class who has the mental and physical abilities to excel in just about whatever job I want. That means that in the event we throw equality out the window, I tend to land on top, and so obviously, I stand to gain more from liberty.

So although I would much rather have a beer with Hayek or Mises, I'm not quite as confident of the agency of liberty in improving the lot of everyone in society. Partly because I know that in the event of total liberty and competition, I would be right there on the front lines, using the less fortunate as stepping stones to glory. I'm not proud of it, but I know what a dog-eat-dog wold can be like, and it doesn't bring out the best in people.

So, as you said, there must be a balance between the two. At a certain point, my lack of equality gets in the way of my liberty. But in the police state that will come after Hilary gets elected, my equality will be ensured by virtue of my conformity to every letter of the Glorious Leader's vision. Obviously, that kind of social engineering reduces life to a battle against the state for mere survival.

So I think we need to find not just a balance, but a logical relationship between the two. I think that equality as a principle can be used to ensure liberty, but that liberty is the ends and equality simply a criterion.

I am for the "Equality of Liberty" as opposed to the "Liberty of Equality."

The principle of equality can be applied very simply to society: everyone is equal, therefore no special treatment, no special liberties granted for one that are not granted for the other. No liberties revoked for one that are not revoked for all. This seems like a reasonable social contract by which we can assent to certain governing principles without unfairly empowering a select few. Of course, breach of the social contract would abrogate it, and thus we need not worry about liberties of those who live in violation of our laws. (Once it is ascertained in a civilized manner that they have broken our social contrac...

I am for the "Equality of Liberty" as opposed to the "Liberty of Equality."

The principle of equality can be applied very simply to society: everyone is equal, therefore no special treatment, no special liberties granted for one that are not granted for the other. No liberties revoked for one that are not revoked for all. This seems like a reasonable social contract by which we can assent to certain governing principles without unfairly empowering a select few. Of course, breach of the social contract would abrogate it, and thus we need not worry about liberties of those who live in violation of our laws. (Once it is ascertained in a civilized manner that they have broken our social contract. I favor exile for serious non-violent criminals.)

What this essentially comes to is the equality of freedoms. If you have the freedom to believe in your religion, then I have the equal freedom to believe in mine.

However, liberty does not extend to non-individuals. A corporation cannot have rights, as it is not a citizen, nor should it be afforded special protections of the law which are normally unavailable to citizens. Confederations of people should not be allowed to wield undue power simply by virtue of their strength numbers, or in finances.

This would amount to nothing more than mob rule, and it would disenfranchise those not fortunate enough to be part of a big organization. I believe in defending the right of Americans to be independent, and not have to join the mainstream.

By contrast, one who values equality above liberty has a different agenda. (Since I live in China, Chairman Mao comes to mind...) They think of equality as liberation from exploitation. I think of exploitation as the abrogation of freedoms. They feel that we will be "liberated" (from exploitation) if we are all reduced to equality, but this is not the same as Liberty with a capital L, which I see as the fundamental ability of the individual to exercise their own free will.