A Must Read: The Crash Of ‘09 - The Collapse Of ‘10

[DetroitDad]

The comment about Detroit breaking up into suburbs. 100% true. So true that the suburbs have the mindset that they do not need Detroit yet the very suburbs are becoming the home for ex-Detroiters [[code for Black people). I wondered why L. Brooks Patterson woke up like he was in a new world.

Our suburbs can't even get along with other suburbs. They look down on each other for petty reasons, they all fiercely protect their assets and resources from each other, and some fight to keep certain groups out. It really is like Rome during the Middle Ages. Are gated communities, cement bermed office buildings, and exclusive suburbs really that different from the giant fortresses that everyone moved to during the Middle Ages? They let our differences divide us, and I don't know if it's unreasonable to think the track record proves that this is human nature in the face of crisis. If that is the case, it's not unthinkable to consider that this could happen to the U.S. as a whole.

[Bobl]

quote: "...the rest of the country is learning that you have to produce tangibles if an economy is going to survive longtime..."
One kernel of truth that describes much of the problem. Add to this the complete deregulation of the financial giants, and the tombstone epitaph is complete.

[lpg]

Didn't we import part of our homes from China in the 90's ?? The contaminated drywall that is just now starting to cause problems in the South.

[MrJones]

This article was written by no friend of the US. He's blatantly trying to disspirit his Christian enemies, thereby helping bring about the Armageddon he forsees.
Granted, there is the possibility much "paper" wealth to be lost, but the Balkanaization of the US? Alaska and Hawaii being given over to Russia? Please.
Those in this counrty who have lived willingly on scraps will continue to do so, but those with enough pride, balls and intelligence will overcome the obstacles we must face and bring the country into a brighter future. Sad, but we're better off without those who jump off overpasses. Don't join them.

[casscorridor]

Capitalism may or may not continue. The market economy may or may not continue. Never assume one way or the other, or that you don't have a role in deciding what happens.

Under capitalism, those who has the most say are those who have the most bargaining power: in the form genetics [[natural talent, strength, intellegence) or property [[real estate, factories, stocks). How one is rewarded is also based on these criteria, and while a small number of individuals sit in comfort and with little effort sacrafice get rewarded great amounts, most of us give way more effort and way more sacrafice in order to make their life of pleasure possible. Under capitalism, those who endure the most costs get rewarded the least. Under capitalism, it has been said, "good guys finish last." I prefer to say under capitalism, garbage rises.

I saw we reward people for the effort and sacrafice alone [[assuming everyone can work, if not then they should be rewarded based on need, such as children). Payment is not equal from person to person, but it is also not grossely inequal. It is rather based on how much a person freely chose to work, and how much effort/sacrafice went into that work. Those who chose to work more, would be rewarded for it.

And I saw we have democratic workplaces and a balanced mix of work, so that no person has a more/less empowering 'job complex.' No longer will one huge group spend all day doing boring, repetative, and onerous tasks, while a much smaller group enjoyed creative and empower tasks. No, now everyone will right to a balanced mix of tasks. Just as before women entered the workforce, and the talents, skills and potential of half the human population were held down, freeing around 80% of the population and allowing them to meet their fullest potentials will prove the increase productivity, efficiency and innovation.

You might ask: what if we got rid of the worst parts of capitalism, and tried to have democratic workplaces, and tried rewarding people based off their efforts rather than bargaining power while maintaining market allocation over resources? What would happen is that slowly the market would errode the participatory democratic workplace, and errode conditions in the workplace due to the pressures of the market. Many workplaces might find themselves hiring managers again, and to begin rewarding based on sheer output rather than effort and sacrafice.

Markets undermine solidarity, diversity, equity and democratic self-management. Not to mention, they are horribly inefficient, and almost never achieve equaliberium [[supply meeting demand) so we have a overabundance of missles, tanks and prisons, and a undersupply of food, health care, education, housing, and other neccesities.

I advocate that we abolish markets as an economic system, and move toward democratic planning over the economy. With a participatory planning process, we could ensure that we attain self-management [[having say of the decisions that effect me, in proportion to the degree in which I am affected) and solve the classic my rights impinging on your rights problem. Now production, consumption and allocation will be determined democratically, assisted by technology, on a mass scale. Entire industrial economies will be planned, participatorily, by millions of people. Information on all economic activitiy will be available instantly to everyone, allowing for innovations to be made availible to all [[not hid, as in capitalism), and allowing workers and consumers to deliberate about economic activity in workers and consumers councils federated up to the regional and national level, assited by facilitation boards [[workers and consumers working together, rather than pitted against each other). Each actor in the economy would propose a plan, [[invidividual workers or individual consumers and entire communities, workplaces, regions and industry federations), that would be made available to all other actors. At first the plans will not corespond... too high of consumption request and too low of production. But after succesive "iterations," facilitated by iteration facilitation boards [[IFBs), the plans would converge to result in a single "plan" for the entire economy. One that takes into account the needs and desires of the individual, without undermining the needs and desires of other individuals and the collective society, and social and environmental impact.

This is NOT central-planning like the soviet union, and neither central-planning or markets could never take into acount the diverse needs, desires, aspirations and concerns of millions of people. Gone will be the days of boom and bust and people not getting what they need. Come will the days of every human meeting their fullest potential. The outcomes will be truely beautiful. Imagine a world where nice guys raised up and instead of pushed down, and where garbage no longer rises and instead gets put in the dust bin of history.

I call this Participatory Economics, or Parecon for short. And although my description is brief and may not be that great or articulate, I invite you to learn more and decide for yourself. Because I feel we can all agree that our economy is messed up, and we need a solution. What will it be?

[R8RBOB]

Didn't we import part of our homes from China in the 90's ?? The contaminated drywall that is just now starting to cause problems in the South.

Can we stop with the importing of Chinese goods? It has been proved over and over that they don't give a F&%$ about Americans. Lead-based toys, contaminated toothpaste and drywall made with fly ash. The same type of fly ash that spill in eastern Tennessee late last year.

[MrJones]

CassC - You post is articulately expressed, but I feel your idea of what passes for value in the real world is off.
God bless the heart of anyone who works hard at his/her job in life, but hard work alone is no criteria for the value of the work. Neither is how many "votes" someone can gather for himself from his peers. The USA is as wealthy as it STILL IS because Capitalism works. Its not always kind or fair, but more people will prosper under it.
The skills of someone who can create a software program that people will give a million dollars for is always going to be more valuable to the world than someone's laying a nice path with brick pavers. [[Unless he paves the road to a diamond or gold mine)
Frankly IMO, the idea of deciding Democratically the compensation of a worker is something likely taught at Slip-and-Fall School. Sorry if that offends.

[Retroit]

I find the "Anti-Capitalism" sentiments expressed above quite disturbing. casscoridor, your detailed description of Parecon sounds wonderful in theory. But the problem is that theories that are contradictory to human behavior are very hard to enforce.

The U.S. economy isn't lagging because Capitalism has failed, but rather because Capitalism has taken of like wildfire in Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, China, India, etc. The more competition you have the smaller the U.S.'s share of the Global Economy Pie.

[DetroitDad]

I find the "Anti-Capitalism" sentiments expressed above quite disturbing.

I don't understand why. I would think it's always good to ask questions and explore options in this country.


CassC - Capitalism works because it motivates people. If someone has to do a boring task no matter how much they contribute, they aren't really going to care much for the system, and have no motivation to contribute to it. It might work at first out of novelty, but would probably not work once the idea becomes old, and all the next generation knows. It's the game and the never ending pursuit of happiness that makes capitalism work.

1. The main problem is that too few people know how to play the game.
2. The other problem is that there is no secure opt out option for those who don't want to play.