Pulp Fiction is the Greatest Film Ever, Anyone who doesn't agree is a Republican
Capitalism relies on getting people to buy and consume what they don’t need. It also relies on a constant stream of media brainwashing. That is not healthy. The dominance of rightwing Thatcherism-Reaganomics, consumption and greed caused the crash. Capitalism was rescued from catastrophe by inverted socialism- corporate welfare, companies and banks saved by the state and less well off. Too many powerful vested interests could not have allowed otherwise. I said shortly before the crash (that so many right-wing so-called economics experts didn’t see coming) that capitalism as practised was a very risky system- economically with huge debts and encouraging reckless risk-taking, and for the environment and future of our planet. It involves massive waste and devastation of natural resources. An unequal society can never be a happy fulfilled society. Socialism has mitigated the worst excesses of capitalism, made it more palateable and with safer working conditions- fear of revolution helped dilute some of the cruel excesses that would lead again to Dickensian conditions. 3 million are in prison in the USA. A huge percentage of the population is obese. Those are signs of failure not success. They are signs of what is seriously wrong with the Reagan-Thatcher model and always will be. No decent society would tolerate homelessness. Many so-called democracies are not democracies at all, but fixed by powerful interests, exclusive rather than universal in suffrage or with unfair and unbalanced party political machines at work, parties and candidates dependent on vested interests.
The threat of ruthless still powerful capitalism fighting tooth and claw to protect its interests gave rise to ruthless dictators in countries that had revolutions, while Chile’s democratically elected Marxist government was overthrown with US support. Rightwing capitalism relies on wars and imperialism, exploitation rather than true democracy. It has been dominant worldwide but in spite of so many international scientific advances, does not cure the damage done the planet, does not stop starvation, while so much is thrown away. It has had economic disasters before- the great depression, economic chaos and the crash caused the rise of fascism. If unchecked it will lead us into the abyss, and destroy the planet.
Oh and Pulp Fiction is not the greatest film of all time- and i am a Republican: i believe in doing away with monarchy.
I agree – Pulp Fiction is not the greatest film of all time. But it’s pretty damn good.
@Kenji -
I wouldn’t worry too much about the monarchy in the UK – they’re a mere hop skip and a jump away from Hello! cover irrelevance. I’d worry much more about the tits that are actually at the helm of this wobbly ship right now. Or The Spin Doctors, as I call them.
Actually, I don’t want to get into any of this (as I don’t know how any of it has anything to do with Pulp Fiction (which is certainly not very high in my own estimation, anyway), but this quote from Kenji did catch my (cryptic) eye:
Kenji said:
and i am a Republican
You don’t know how happy this made these two men…
Nice one, Kenji! You just made my day.
Kenji rocks!
… whodathunkit …
@Kenji
Capitalism in and of itself is merely a propertarian free market. It doesn’t necessitate the consumption of what we “don’t need”. incidentally, that is a loaded postulation to begin with, given what we “don’t need” is totally subjective. That being said, humans can live an austere lifestyle within the context of capitalism.
The cause of the crash was caused by artificially low interest and government channeling of said interest into the housing market. This is a stark contrast from Thatcherism and Reaganomics, which promote monetarism. Monetarism suggests a money supply calibrated with the size of the economy. The policy used to cause the current recession was that of Keynesian economics (which always ultimately causes recessions). It was only the bailouts that elongated the recession. If they had never occurred, the recession would have been over within a year of its germination. Not to mention, the pervasive regulations and other such barriers to entry only slow the progression of the economy. These corporatist and socialist policies never work for the better of anyone and always cause greater stagnation and lower living standards.
“Capitalism” is not an umbrella term for the drug war, corporate welfare, or the military industrial complex. Indeed, libertarians are the ones who actually advocate capitalism, unlike the neoconservatives and social democrats who have so much in common that their main point of contention is Big Bird. If you want capitalism to work, don’t bring it down with socialism or corporatism. That includes corn subsidies (which caused the obesity epidemic), the drug war, the bailouts, subsidies, and regulation. Free markets are the only way to achieve the highest amount of prosperity and the highest standard of living.
Incidentally, I don’t think Pulp Fiction is the greatest film ever, and I am not a republican. I am a monarchist. :)
…what we “don’t need” is totally subjective.
Like movies!
So, we’re still pretending that capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive frameworks in endless opposition, while evidence suggests that only a pragmatic combination of the two leads to a strong economy and a free society. Its too easy to cite the abuses of capitalism as a critique of the system itself. Likewise the “free market” mantra ignores the social safety net needed for any civilized society and the necessity of the kind of regulations that would have prevented the current crisis. Pure capitalism would lead to a Dickensian nightmare, while pure socialism is incompatable with a free society. Furthermore most governments do feature elements of each, so maybe we should stop throwing either term around like they’re dity words.
Also, Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece and I’m a Democrat.
@Brad S
I’m unfamiliar with whatever evidence that unadulterated capitalism leads to a Dickensian nightmare, but if you’re referring to the conditions which Dickens described himself, that doesn’t negate laissez-faire. In fact, it was at the time Britain metamorphosed from a more mercantilist to free market society that living standards skyrocketed. Nobody really thinks about the living standards pre-Dickens. They were far worse and were only getting much better because of, not in spite of capitalism. (It also shouldn’t be suggested that Victorian Britain was completely laissez-faire either.)
The “social safety net” mantra was not originally based on an inherent need in an actual social safety net. The first modern welfare state was created by Bismarck in an attempt to appease German socialists. Even after World War II, the massive welfare states were only created in a fallacious Keynesian attempt to stimulate economic growth. Yet, these systems only perpetuate welfare traps, and this is evidenced by the fact that when they’re increased in size, they only create more dependency by crowding out the labour market. There is no evidence that laissez-faire is a recipe for destitution. In fact, after the pervasive stagnation prognosticated by the post-war consensus, the neoliberal revolution decimated the welfare state and thus the welfare trap (not entirely though). The respective economies only improved and unemployment was frictional until is subsided. The most optimal means of create a prosperous society necessitates the complete abolition of a welfare state.
>>The most optimal means of create a prosperous society necessitates the complete abolition of a welfare state.<<
If the “welfare state” were completely abolished, not just reformed and reduced as enacted by Clinton, what would happen to those too poor, ill, young or old to fend for themselves. If the answer is nothing, we are at a moral impass. Any government assistance would consitute a form of socialism and a limited version of welfare.
If the welfare state were completely abolished, the same would occur that does when the welfare state is mitigated. Crowding out of the market is reduced, thus the provisions are less expensive and of higher quality in the market. Prior to the introduction of Medicare in the US and the NHS in the UK, there were no gluts of destitute people unable to access health care, because health care was not nearly as expensive. Even for the destitute margins of society at the time, there was still enough prosperity for religious hospitals and Shriner hospitals to take in those who couldn’t pay. If we assume that society is charitable enough to be altruistic through the state (which is inefficient in and of itself), we can expect and already have seen how it occurs in a free society. Even as those downtrodden that have existed without the welfare state still exist with it, albeit much worse with the latter. Thus, “social safety net” should not be a default answer, especially when it is demonstrated not to work and to create a welfare trap.
I don’t think I’d like to live in Cineastic’s world :(
“If we assume that society is charitable enough to be altruistic through the state…”
Cineastic
“Yeah, that’s exactly what I expected. “Oh, it’s the government!” The market never deserves any blame, but all the credit. And I’m the deluded, weaselly idiot…”
Explain to me how that constitutes “deconstruction of an opinion”.
I’m really more curious how you rationalise your ad hominem attacks as warranted. You know, the ones you specifically ignored that I pointed out. No, I do not “hold a grudge” against you as you so strangely fabricated. However, I do think lowly of you as I just said because you were audacious enough to use ad hominem attacks. Read again so you get it right. And then try to rationalise what you said that I quoted from you.
Your pervasive pontification of the necessity of redistribution of wealth is indicative of an onus which you fail to fulfil. Unless you can, your proposition is based entirely upon a counterfactual conditional. It is something you have been repeatedly evading to the point of ridicule. As long as you’re consistently surmising all failures of socialism are mere No True Scotsmen, you will always be beleaguered by a counterfactual conditional, i.e. you will have absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever that your own theoretical stylised redistribution of wealth will ever work.
No, we’re not done. As long as you keep fabricating bizarre notions about my character in that I supposedly hold “grudges” against you and whatever else paranoid rantings you have up your sleeve. It’s obviously a ploy from you in an attempt to obfuscate your argument, or lack thereof. But I won’t have any of it.