Showing posts with label demand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label demand. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 4, 2018

Capitalism's Stunning Contradiction

A good discussion on how capitalism & capitalists keep exploiting the general public. Of course, politicians are in their pockets, too, which means that these capitalists also control the government, which is supposed to look after the general public in a democracy.

Capitalism is only going to concentrate the wealth in a few hands & make the general public poorer & poorer. After all, there's no limit to the human greed. Greedy capitalists will keep taking money from the public, & keep making it poorer & poorer, without any regard to general living standards to their workers. At the same time, I am not defending the communism because we have seen its problems in Russia & China; far too much inefficiency & control when everything is handed over to the government.

The root cause of world's modern problems with resource depletion, poverty, & mass unemployment is this continual & increasing greed of capitalism. It is an unstoppable train, which will continue on, until & unless, the world put back religion & ethics in its economic system.

This Earth can definitely support a lot more people compared to current population, but it cannot support people when the resources are being depleted to make a few people on the top of the pyramid richer & richer. This world cannot support more people when those rich people keep hoarding cash & splurging on expensive, but useless, items, like buying football clubs, billion-$$$ mansions, whole islands, etc. With religion (any religion for that matter) & ethics, instead of throwing away their money on these useless materialistic things, they could invest in improving people's lives by investing in medicine, food, agriculture, & alleviating poverty.

Essentially, the world has not changed in the past millennia or so. Brutal monarchs, then, used to forcibly take their public's money & spend on themselves. Monarchs of current times are these super-rich elites (the "one-percenters") who keep hoarding money by drip-feeding their workers & spending that money on themselves. Instead of spending the money on charities, it would be better to not cut costs so much that the general public suffers cuts in paycheques & unemployment, in the first place. Those monarchs were the government themselves & current "monarchs" control the government.

The world is only going to get worse & worse, unless & until, people start involving religion & ethics in their daily lives & businesses, instead of a weekly attendance in a place of worship. Religion & ethics will help putting the fear of death & answering to a higher authority in the people's hearts, & let them think hard before brutally cutting down jobs, & costs, to ultimately make themselves even more super richer, & spend money frivolously on completely unnecessary items in their lives.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: I think it's getting clear to a lot of people that capitalism is out of solutions within its own framework. I mean, first of all, in terms of financial reform, there's been nothing serious enough. It's pretty clear there are still enormous financial institutions that are still speculating wildly, and the same stuff that happened in '07 and '08 is likely to happen again. It's kind of a question of when rather than if.

RICHARD WOLFF, PROF. EMERITUS OF ECONOMICS, UMASS AMHERST: That's right.

JAY: The issue of demand in the economy, low wages and such, nothing's changed. And climate change, capitalism, so far, at least, does not consider it a threat to capitalism to have global warming, and they're not really getting serious about it. So, I mean, are you finding that there's this sense of that, that there aren't solutions here anymore?

WOLFF: I think two things are happening. The one that's most important is that as the crisis since 2007 lingers and lingers, this crisis that was not supposed to happen, that was not supposed to cut so deep, continues to do all of that and to last and last and resist government efforts to change it, that people are shifting and beginning to want to look beyond the crisis years since 2007 and ask the question whether maybe we're not in a bigger, longer-term dilemma for capitalism. And I think we are. And if I could sketch it for a moment, think it would help people to see this as a momentary downturn within a longer crisis.

And here's how I would summarize it. For the first 200, 250 years of capitalism, which begins in England, goes to Western Europe, and then to North America and Japan, the capitalist system, it concentrated in those countries, concentrated its factories, its offices, and stores there where it began. And it turned the rest of the world--Asia, Africa, Latin America--into a hinterland to provide the people, to provide the food, to provide the raw materials. And that was how the world was globally organized.

Then in the 1970s something radically changed. With a jet engine, you could get anywhere in the world in a matter of hours. With modern telecommunications and the computer, you could monitor a factory in Shanghai from Cincinnati as easily as you could manage a factory down the street in Cincinnati. And so capitalists--and I want this really to be driven home if I can--capitalists in the 1970s in Western Europe, North America, and Japan have basically said to the United States and Western Europe and Japan, goodbye, we're leaving, we are abandoning you. You are not where the profit is. The profit is in those places we can now go to where we pay a small fraction of those wages, where we can operate with impunity, where the poverty of these societies, itself a product of all of this, makes them desperate to have the jobs that we can provide. It's a perfect scenario. We made a lot of money for 200 years in the West, and now we're leaving.

And I think the emblematic city that kind of shows this is Detroit, a place that was the apogee, the peak of capitalist efficiency in the 1960s, sustaining 2 million people population, today 700,000, a city that has been literally ripped apart and destroyed because three corporations decided, for profit, to leave that place and say goodbye and leave behind the desolation, the unemployment, the collapsed housing, and all the rest of a city and now has to be the largest bankruptcy of any American urban area in our history.

I think the capitalists of the world are saying to Western Europe, North America, and Japan, we were willing to give you higher wages because we were able to reorganize the planet for 200 years. Now our future is in the areas that are cheap for us--the rest of the world--and we're abandoning you.
...

... So basically they're saying to the West, we're leaving. Now, of course, if you make it worth our while not to leave by bringing the wages and the costs, well, we might reconsider. But then what they're saying to the American people is, you can have a choice of a slow decline as we leave or a rapid decline to slow our departure. This is an unbelievable proposition to present to Western Europe, Japan, and the United States and I think will shape the basic political struggles in all these places for years to come.

JAY: But it's so self-destructive even for capitalism, because now you've taken a market that was the consumer of last resort for the world and turning people into increasingly low-wage workers. You're going to sell your profits where? The places that are already low-wage workers? I mean, it's really completely--.

WOLFF: You know, it's wonderful, 'cause as you introduced me as a Marxist, Marx was fond of saying that capitalists are caught in a stunning contradiction. Every capitalist tries to lower the wage costs, reduce the workers, substitute a machine, cut the wages, never wanting to face the fact that if all capitalists are trapped in a system where they're systematically reducing the wages, then they won't be able to sell what those wage workers are producing. And if you don't face that, you're caught in the contradiction that what the system makes you do undoes you by the absence of anyone to buy this stuff. And there we are, back to the naked, basic contradiction of a system that doesn't want to face that it has these kinds of internal problems.

JAY: So in terms of long-term decline, why isn't this cyclical? We've seen these things over the last century. Why is this any different?

WOLFF: Well, I think that we have the cyclicals, but the one thing that I find so interesting is that this one has certain unique characteristics. It was really out of the blue in the sense that almost nobody saw this kind of thing coming. Everyone assured us, not just the president and the politicians, but the economists, that it wouldn't last long. That was wrong. That it wouldn't cut deep. That was wrong.

But I think the thing that really strikes me is the kind of utter failure of anyone in this system to cope with this other than the 1 percent. The politicians can't figure out a solution. The bankers can't, as you rightly put it--for example, the banks that were too big to fail without exception are now bigger than they were then. Nobody is solving it. And even the mass of people are like deer caught in the headlights not knowing which way to go. In the '30s, after all, they joined unions, they joined socialist and communist parties, and that made a difference. At this point, there is the behavior of a system that kind of knows that this isn't just a temporary crisis, there's something fundamental shifting. And yet no one quite knows what to do.

JAY: ... I've always been struck that one of the things that Marx and Engels said that I think gets completely underestimated is that socialism isn't just some good idea. It's not a better policy that we could adopt. It's something that actually grows within capitalism. You get these massive enterprises, and they're fabulously well-planned. Like, you take Walmart, you get a toothpaste off of a shelf in Walmart, they know to get another toothpaste thing going somewhere in China. But the individual, as you say, the individual enterprises try to drive down wages, but they also get extremely efficient, and especially with computerization and digitization. Walmart is a planned economy.

But it's, like, the biggest private employer. I mean, Marx's whole point is this is actually--this is the seeds of socialism, except they're privately owned.

WOLFF: That's right. They're privately owned. They're driven by the maximization of profit for a tiny fraction of the population. And then you can't be surprised that the capacity, what they're capable of doing, which is a staggering saving of labor for the community, ends up not saving the labor for the community at all, because the whole point of it is to gather absurd wealth in the tiny number of hands. And Marx's point was this is an irrationality that even the best public relations cannot forever cover over.

And I think we're in a moment where, both in the short-run crisis and this longer-run decline, the irrationalities, the contradictions--. Look, basically capitalism is saying to particularly the American working class, for 200 years, we really exploited you on the job, but we gave you rising standard of living. Compensation of an awful day was that you could go someplace at the end of the day and have something called a happy hour to console you for the unhappy hours prior. Now capitalism is saying to you, we're going to exploit the hell out of you, but we're not giving you a rising standard of living. We're actually giving you a falling one. We're condemning your students to debt they can't handle. We're taking away the benefits. We're taking away all of the job prospects and hopes for the younger generation. We're going to work you on the job more hours than ever, and we're going to give you less for it. Whatever you think about the past, I'm not clear that the American working class will find that an acceptable offer.

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Elephants murdered for tusks by soldiers of African warlord Kony

I'm sharing this article not to share the story of murdered elephants in national parks because human lives are not sacred anymore, so animals are way down the list.
 
What I am actually trying to share with article that if you may recall the social media campaign, from 2012, I believe, when Kony's face was plastered all over the social media, with the message to stop this guy in his tracks. Everybody from Alaska to Timbuktu & Sweden to Australia was feverishly sharing this guy's pics on social media, without sparing couple minutes to think how this campaign is going to help.
 
Problem is that if a sane person say anything against these kinds of moronic social media campaigns, that sane person will be shut out like he/she got the plague.
 
Well, the end result of all that sharing is what ... that Kony guy is not only alive but, apparently, doing very well ... killing elephants for their ivory tusks, which in turn, are financing his army.
 
On a side note, the trade for ivory, & consequently, Kony & his army, cannot be stopped until influential & rich elites of the developed world stop buying these Ivory tusks. Kony & any other poacher is simply a supplier. Simple business sense is that a supplier only exists as long as the customer exists (i.e. supply exists because of demand). If demand stops, supply itself will stop.
 
Be it trying to end the killings of elephants by Kony (or any other poacher) or stopping Kony from murdering humans, influential elite must be involved through political means to bring about any meaningful change, instead of young & naïve millennials trying to do something through social media.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Warlord Joseph Kony's bloodthirsty Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) is slaughtering elephants at an unprecedented rate & trading their valuable tusks for bullets.
 
The poaching of elephants in Garamba National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo is increasing rapidly, with more than 130 killed in the southern region in less than 12 months.
 
Poaching is not uncommon in African parks, but rangers at Garamba have made a worrying discovery - the ivory is helping fund the LRA's war.
 
Mr. [Sasha] Lezhnev, who returned from the DR Congo last week, has learned that a single elephant tusk can be traded for 18,000 bullets.
 
'They don't need guns, they have plenty of available guns, it's really bullets they need,' he added. 'It takes only one bullet to kill an elephant.'
 
The LRA - a violent rebel group led by Kony - is renowned for being one of the most brutal forces in the world.
 
They have become notorious for murder, mutilation, rape, widespread abductions of children and adults, & sexual slavery.
 
As well as the rebel group, a recent report by the Enough Project revealed renegade elements of the Congolese national army & armed poachers from Sudan are responsible for the recent upsurge in poaching.
 
In the past, poachers have used very basic methods to slaughter the elephants, killing just one or two at a time.
 
Now, heavily armed groups are using professional techniques & are bringing down 3 to 8 of these majestic animals at a time. Their tusks are then cut off with chainsaws.
 
There is also evidence of at least 9 of the 131 elephants killed in Garamba in the past 12 months being shot from helicopters.
 
In May last year, 10 elephants were murdered in one day alone in Garamba, according to African Parks, a conservation group that manages the park with Congolese authorities.
 
At Virunga National Park, also in the DR Congo, the elephant population has decreased by 90% in the last 20 years, according to UNESCO.
 
One of the reasons for the increase in elephant poaching is likely to be the rise in the price of ivory, which is at a record high because of demand in parts of Asia, according to the Enough Project.
 
On the black market, elephants tusks are valued at between £13,300 & £117,000 depending on their size.
 
Since the 1980s, the Garamba elephant population has fallen to about 2,400 from approximately 20,000, largely due to poaching.

Saturday, May 9, 2015

Government accused of allowing arms manufacturers to export in secret

In one of my previous blogs, I mentioned the fact that the most arms sales around the world are done by the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to, (surprise surprise), countries that are known around the world as authoritarian & perennial human rights abusers; South Asian, Middle Eastern, African, Central Asian, & Southeast Asian countries.

I further gave the analogy in that blog that how would the public feel if their municipal / regional police force starts selling arms & weapons to the general public. Wouldn't the deaths by gun increase, then? Anyone off the street will get a gun & start shooting around. Would the public; American, British, German, French, Canadian etc., feel safer then? I don't think they'd be feeling much safer then.

Ironically, this same public of these developed countries blame the people & religion of these authoritarian countries & label them as "terrorists" & say, we are all "civilized" here in the West.

The West is the biggest seller of these weapons. There was a great 2005 movie, "Lord of War" exploring this topic, too. The leaders have to peddle fear of the foreigners (xenophobia) to win elections because then, they can wage wars in foreign lands, under the pretense of those "barbarians" coming to destroy our freedoms & democracy. After all, those companies, like Lockheed Martin, BAE, Northrop Grumman etc. make products, hire labour, & need wars in foreign lands so their products can be used by their customers, domestic or foreign, in the field. No wars = no demand. No company would survive if its products are not in demand. That's business 101.

On top of that, since these companies heavily export to foreign countries, it further helps the current accounts of the "developed" countries. More sales / customer demand = positive increases in domestic GDP & international positive current accounts. That's economics 101.

Another point worth mentioning here is that the whole public of the West, knowingly or unknowingly, is complicit for the murders of thousands of people, both innocent & guilty, in those foreign lands. How? Everyone, or most of us in the West, pay taxes. Government takes those taxes (its income) & heavily subsidizes arms & weapons manufacturers. Many are also employees of these manufacturers.

Think of it this way, that if a person, who loves smoking pot / drugs but can't find them around him/her; can he/she ever become a drug addict?

Similarly, if the West stops providing high-tech arms & weapons to these authoritarian regimes around the world, then, how would those regimes commit human rights abuses or even wage wars against each other or (shockingly) try to kill Westerners? They wouldn't have weapons. And since they themselves are "uneducated barbarians," they won't be manufacturing such high-tech weapons themselves. They need weapons just like a drug addict needs drugs, & the West is ready to supply those "drugs" (weapons) to the "drug addicts" (authoritarian regimes).

So, if people want peace around the world, the solution is extremely simple. Get the governments in the West to stop supporting / actively selling weapons to the corrupt regimes around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Government is today accused by MPs of attempting to mask the scale of Britain’s arms trade by actively encouraging manufacturers to sell weaponry under an opaque procedure which keeps the value of exports out of the public domain.

Under a little-noticed shift in Britain’s policy governing sales of weapons & other sensitive equipment, exporters are being asked to seek “open” licences which allow multiple consignments to be sent to the same destinations abroad without the value of the goods being publicly declared.

The Parliamentary watchdog on arms sales strongly criticised the move, saying it will “inescapably reduce the transparency” of Britain’s arms exports & increase the risk that rules to halt inappropriate sales will be broken.

The annual report by the Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) reveals that the UK sold arms more than £5bn to countries on the Government’s own human rights black list & questions whether ministers are imposing adequate controls on weapons being sent to authoritarian regimes.

The Export Control Organisation (ECO), the Government agency which oversees the sale of military & “dual-use” goods abroad, recently admitted that it is encouraging exporters “where possible” to shift away from Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs), which approve a single consignment of controlled goods to be sent abroad within a two-year limit.

Instead, officials want companies to apply for Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs), which allow an uncapped number of consignments to named destinations over a five-year period without an obligation to immediately specify the “end user”.

While the value of SIELs is made public, the value of OEILs are not declared because their open-ended nature means their value cannot be calculated at the outset.

The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, which oversees the ECO, said its expects its policy to apply to “less sensitive goods” & all licences will continue to be judged against criteria designed to prevent inappropriate exports.

But figures obtained by The Independent show that the number of OEILs issued has increased in the last 5 years, reaching a peak of 2,001 in 2011, compared to 883 in 2009.

MPs said their concern about a growth in OEILs was deepened by figures which showed the Government has had to revoke or modify 99 of the licences since the start of the “Arab Spring” revolts in 2010 to destinations including Bahrain, Egypt, Libya as well as Russia since the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine.

Among the revocations were licences for missile technology to Russia & tear gas & CS grenades to Bahrain.

The report said the policy to encourage OIELs was “likely to increase the risk of breaches of the Government’s own arms export control policies” & a reduction in the ability of Parliament & the public to scrutinise the scale of exports of weaponry.

Sir John Stanley, the chairman of CAEC, said: “There will certainly be a significant loss of transparency from the switching policy given that the Government discloses the value of SIELs but not of OIELs.”

In an effort to improve accountability, the MPs called on ministers to disclose for the first time the value of arms which actually leave Britain under OIELs every quarter.

Campaigners said the MPs’ findings added to existing concerns that exports under OIELs were going unmonitored, especially to countries with ongoing human rights concerns including Thailand, Pakistan & Vietnam.

Andrew Smith, of the Campaign Against Arms Trade, said: “There is already a lack of transparency in the arms trade, & the growing use of OIELs is only making this worse. They allow arms companies & governments to sell even more weapons without having to make it public when they are doing so.”

The MPs said that their findings concerning exports to countries with poor human rights records, including Bahrain & 5 others which do not feature on the Government’s own black list, meant that Britain needed to be far stricter with its approvals & should now take the step of naming the “end user” - whether a state body or a private company - for all arms exports.

The Government said it would respond to the MPs’ report in due course. A spokesman said: “We rigorously examine every licence application on a case-by-case basis against internationally recognised criteria. Risks around human rights abuses are a key part of our assessment & we do not grant licences where there is a clear risk that it might be used for internal repression.”

Britain cleared the export of weaponry including parts for combat jets, tanks & targeting equipment to Israel at the height of its assault on Gaza last summer, a Parliamentary report reveals.

Details of 12 export licences show that the licences were worth more than £600,000. They included £330,000 of components for tanks sent to Israel via Germany & £95,000 of combat aircraft components dispatched via America.

MPs called on the Government to declare whether it believed the technology in the licences may have been used in “the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law” in Gaza.