naked capitalism

Richard Kline says:

I really like the editorial at Truthout by Gar Alperovitz, whose work I’ve always respected. His innovative use of Proudhon’s central theis—which thesis was that property prileges cumulative wealth over both labor and insight so severely that it amounts to theft—merits consideration even beyond Alperovitz’s remarks there. And I’ll say that Proudhon has always been my preferred political philosopher; not because his was the most moving analysis or because he offered ready solutions but because he followed his hypotheses through to their conclusions, and had the courage to advocate for them. That’s rarer than one would suppose.

Wealth seldom comes from great personal innovation. It’s easier in the tech age than ever before, but still rare. Peter Norton wrote a good piece of software (anti-virus) and became extremely wealthy. Few other _coders_ became anything like that rich. Patent creators seldom become mega-rich as opposed to moderately wealthy because they don’t have the capital or business skill or distribution access to scale their work; their patent is typically rented out, sold, or most typically simply stolen by those possessing the former capacities.

The principle means to great wealth is finding a choke point on distribution and charging a ‘toll.’ The secondary way to great wealth is charging rent for the use of credit, or other property like a patent or service delivery construct bought up. Yes, those who become vastly rich often work quite hard; they are rarely innovative, however, as opposed to exploitative of opportunities generated but not capitalized (or monetized) by others.

Really, the best property we own is above our neck and in our chests. How we utilize those says everything about our personal character. It should surprise no one that those who become very rich indeed do so principally by taking that invaluable property, putting it up on the shelf of a back room, and nailing the door thereto permanently closed.

PQS says:

Re: Move Your Money.

That was a great story. I have to say, though, that long before these times (8+ years ago), I had a similar experience moving my money out of USBank to a small local bank right across the street that was offering more % for savings….and I didn’t have a huge balance or anything. Yet I got the same panicky look from the people there about not having enough cash to cover my withdrawal, and a similar story from the branch manager about “what can we do to keep you?” I simply told her that they weren’t offering enough interest on my savings account, and just across the street I could make more money, pittance though it was.

I thought there were Federal rules about banks having enough cash to cover withdrawals? Or did that get chaged under Gramm Leach Bailout?

I agree that the “front line” folks at these banks are underpaid and probably overworked. But, “You can’t shake the devil’s hand and say you’re only kidding.”

When my employer starts acting like a parasite on the economy, it’s time to move on.

Danny says:

@Romney and Perry:

What tag best fits?

“Beware the Judeo-Christian Hillbilly Theocracy”?

Or

“Beware the Judeo-Christian Hillbilly Plutocracy”?

barrisj says:

US “losing” the Middle East? Hardly, as this article in the NYT lays out:

U.S. Is Planning Buildup in Gulf After Iraq Exit
MacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. — The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.
[...]
With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new “security architecture” for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.
[...]
“We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Tajikistan after the president’s announcement.
[more...]
http://www.ocala.com/article/20111029/ZNYT03/110293013?p=all&tc=pgall

“…outside interference…”,, just priceless…again illustrating that irony is in fact dead.
These military “alliances” hearken back to the good old days of the Cold War, where such contrivances as Seato, Cento, and Nato itself were assembled by the US as part of the “free world bulwark against Soviet expansionism”. Of course, today such alliances are being cobbled together as “defense against an expansionist Iran” and/or “Islamic terrorism”, whatever. The US seems completely unable or unwilling to understand that its continued military posture throughout the region is in and of itself a prime motivator for so-called “radical Islam”, and perhaps that in fact is the goal: provoke local populations into “asymmetric conflict”, thereby justifying a military presence. “Win-win” I believe it’s called.

ambrit says:

Sir;
Marxs’ ‘wage slavery’ comes to mind.
Also, the idea of ‘self mastery’ has been a continuing persuit among humans for as long as there have been humans. Labour is just one aspect of that endeavour.