in a capitalist system or corporatism, competent psychopaths people become the true powers. but it tends to be symbiotic because corporations need a prosperous society to buy their products. corporatism forces the powerful opulent minority to be dependent on the prosperity of the majority, resulting in a more harmonious or symbiotic economic relationship. just like slave owners who needed to keep their slaves healthy and productive. but unlike leftists who idiotically uses this analogy to dismantle corporations, normal people with common sense are aware that the concept of slavery is a spectrum. a devoted father can be considered a slave to his wife and kids. if miss universe is paying me to have sex with her, you can call me a prostitute all you want i will just laugh at you. the left's analogy is also stupid because slaves did not have any other option while corporate workers have the option to start a small business, be a teacher, an independent trucking operator, an uber driver or join a co-op. chomsky claims tony stark is using propaganda to manufacture our consent in having sex with miss universe - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/propaganda-scapegoat-of-the-left.html
i had a rich capitalist friend who became poor after his burger business went bust. meanwhile there are people from the slums who quit their jobs and started a burger business that uses banana peels instead of beef. the business is very profitable because banana peels have much lower cost. you can get them for free because they are just being disposed as garbage. but banana peels are actually edible. they are high protein, low fat and rich in vitamin b6, b12, magnesium and potassium. there are youtube videos on how to make a banana peel burger if you are interested. i feel sorry for poor people because they have to eat the cheaper banana peel burgers so they live longer healthier lives. banana plants lower carbon dioxide while cow farts increase greenhouse gases. capitalism is evil !!! the poor guys from the slums are tyrants !!! they kicked the butt of my capitalist friend and caused poor people to eat delicious and healthy food.
note that the employees of the banana peel burger business prefer not to go through the headache of owning a business so they chose to work as an employee which according to chomsky is different from slavery only that it's temporary. actually it was abe lincoln who said it but chomsky keeps repeating it in his speeches and tries to apply it to today which is dumb because unlike during abe lincoln's time, workers nowadays don't work 16 hours a day and get beat up by police if they go on strike. it's the same argument that slaves in the 18th century were much better off than slaves in the 17th century therefore there was no reason to abolish slavery. wait i just contradicted myself. i'm such a moron.
leftists say corporations are totalitarians because workers have no say on the direction of the company. that is so stupid because if an employee comes up with a bright idea about the direction of the company then most likely that employee will be rewarded handsomely. if not, then the employees are free to leave and peddle their idea to venture capitalists who are always hungry for bright ideas. that's how the company i worked at for 15 years, altera corporation, was founded. the 4 founders used to work for fairchild semiconductors. management did not agree with their idea of a programmable chip so they left and started altera and now programmable logic is a $10 billion a year industry.
when i was working for altera, anyone who had a good idea about improving our means of production was promoted and given a raise. even a low level employee like me kept getting promoted and given a raise because i was always coming up with good ideas (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2018/11/tech-innovations-by-a-dummy.html). anyone was free to voice their opinions during corporate meetings. leftists keep boasting that in a true democracy, workers get to fire their boss. but when i worked for altera, i got my boss raj kamdar fired because we didn't see eye to eye. he was a nice guy i just did not agree with him on the strategy or vision for our team. upper management decided my way was better so he was let go.
there is a video where chomsky is saying that los angeles was exploding (referring to the riots after the rodney king beating) because jobs were being shipped overseas because corporations just care about profits. but normal people with common sense would understand that the factories would have closed anyways because their competitors were using cheap labor in china so they had no choice but to do the same if they want to survive.
chomsky saying corporations are tyrannical is like a straight guy saying having sex with another guy is gross. it may be true that it would be torture and dehumanizing for a super intellectual like chomsky to be following orders in a corporate hierarchy. but most people have no problem with it. another case of arguing which color is more beautiful. there's no right or wrong, it all depends on your personality. chomsky's opinion is as foolish as me saying i feel sorry for chomsky for having to read all those books because for me reading just 1 book is very painful.
it's also stupid to say corporations are tyrannical because the reality is that corporations are more afraid of people than people are afraid of corporations. that is why i feel putting 20% of my hard earned nest egg in a brokerage or financial institution because if they screw me the whole system will collapse and they got more to lose than i do. corporatism need the majority to be well off to afford buying their products. it's not really symbiotic. it's more like the majority is the master while the opulent minority has to fight each other to kiss up to the master. i even feel sorry for GE corp. it was not able to please it's master (the public) so the stock crashed to just 10% of it's value from it's peak.
the fierce competition among corporations and industries (e.g. downfall of GE) also provides checks and balances. that's why i find it stupid for chomsky to say corporations are unaccountable private tyrannies. corporate CEOs opposed trump's muslim ban and tesla is making electric cars affordable to the general public. elon musk has done more to combat climate change than all the leftists combined. the favorite trick of the left is to confuse competence with power and authority. they always fail to make a distinction.
the beauty with corporatism is that corporations are forced to carry out benign acts or else an aroused public may discover what they are up to and take away the special rights and privileges of the powerful elites. it also allows more economic mobility where anyone who is talented or hard working can become prosperous and even become part of the opulent minority. as oppose to a social democracy where incompetent and corrupt people can easily become powerful if they just happen to be charismatic. i arrived in america in 1993 with only $300 in my pocket and now i'm a member of the petite bourgeoisie. it's very disappointing that leftists never teach people how to join the opulent minority like not get pregnant before graduating high school or make your kids breakfast. i'm no shakespeare but i wrote a poem to to give hints and clues on how to become part of the opulent minority - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/hamiltons-american-dream.html
corporatism also allows the minority to protect itself from the majority. if germany had corporatism during hitler's time the jews would have had senators to protect them from the vile maxim of the nazis. james madison was a genius for establishing a government that is not democratic. or maybe it was just dumb luck because the original intention was to protect the opulent minority from the majority. of course a true democracy would be the ideal system if everyone acts according to principle. but chomsky said america is very racist and i have brown skin so i feel like chomsky wants me to get lynched. chomsky also tweeted that 3/4 of americans believe in the devil and religious miracles. in a true democracy, that does not bode well for degenerates like me who enjoys watching porn.
people have different tastes or standards and the wants of the minority are always different. in bantayan island of cebu, the opulent minority is battling the poor majority who is doing dynamite fishing. thank god the philippines is not a true democracy or the corals and fishes would be all gone. the opulent minority lead by powerful elite mar roxas is trying to stop the majority from killing the poor drug addicts who just happen to be born with mental or emotional illnesses. the UN human rights watch is helping the opulent minority but the majority is just too powerful. STOP DEMOCRACY NOW !!! (joke) - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2017/04/rare-perspectives-on-extra-judicial-killings.html
of course it's not perfect and there will always be cracks in any system. in capitalism, there will always be a few who are useless to the corporations. some of them will be helped by the limited government welfare or subsidy of capitalism and some of them will fall through the cracks and suffer poverty or not get health insurance. but at least there is that opportunity or competition to be part of the symbiotic system.
however, this argument is irrelevant because what matters is freedom and prosperity for MOST people. the left cherry picks the expected imperfections of capitalism. any leftist can create a 2 hour spectacular video that can convince anyone that corporatism is evil and right wingers are evil morons. the bottom line is that the only alternative to capitalism is socialism which can cause more suffering, poverty, chaos, and instability. capitalism is better suited to address the imperfections of human nature such as greed, materialism, individualism, and the desire to dominate. all the possible alternatives have been tried and they failed miserably in the soviet union, maoist china, venezuela, etc ... the social democracies of canada, norway, south korea and germany are still considered capitalist but the difference is that they have a big welfare state. they provide free healthcare and other government subsidies that prevents people from suffering poverty but they still allow tony stark to do business.
for me the debate should be on the size of government. but both sides of the political spectrum should acknowledge that each solution has it's downsides. if government is too big, most people can be too dependent on government which can hurt productivity. society will be too dependent on the performance of the leaders. if the leaders screw up, almost everyone will be screwed - Public Choice Theory: Why Government Often Fails
in a smaller government, society is more resilient and the competent people of society have the option to take care of themselves and be self reliant. example when the greek government screwed up, everyone suffered and their economy was not able to bounce back. on the other hand, during the great recession of 2008, many americans who were competent enough to be well diversified actually benefited from the recession and not only that, the economy was able to recover. i was one of those who benefited from the great recession - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2011/09/once-in-a-milenia-opportunity.html
one might think that with the rise of job automation and artificial intelligence (AI), we should start having a bigger government. but i think we should have an even smaller government and have universal basic income (UBI). this is another advantage of capitalism - it is flexible enough to seamlessly implement UBI when the need arises because of too much automation, which to me is a stepping stone to achieving a true democracy. note that in a true democracy such as libertarian socialism, there is no need for a government.
the left idiotically say corporations are unaccountable tyrannies. it may be true that corporations serve their own self interest, but so does the government (corruption), so does the unions, so does the people (racism). quora is mostly left leaning and i notice a very small blame is placed on the auto companies for the demise of detroit - https://www.quora.com/What-caused-the-decline-of-Detroit. and they make it sound like the corporations had no choice. there isn't even any mention of CEO pay just the P80k a year salary of the mistress of the corrupt mayor. in fact it was the corporations who brought in black workers and paid them good salary in the beginning. the racial riots were caused by the racism of the white people. capitalism had nothing to do with the racial riots. libertarian socialism would have made things worse because true democracy will only work if society is benevolent or selfless enough.
all the problems of detroit can be summed up in 2 words - human nature. if the white people of detroit were made of scandinavians of today, they would have diversified the economy, the government would have been less corrupt, there would have been no racial tensions and the unions would have been willing to compromise so that their company can compete in the world market. it's obvious that inspiring people to strive for self improvement and self reliance is the most important thing in any activist's agenda, yet leftists never lift a finger in this arena. they idiotically insist that changing the system or dismantling corporations is the solution.
example, with the rice hoarding problem in the philippines, a leftist would call for a law that bans rice hoarding or call for stricter enforcement and penalties. this will never work because rich people can always get away with murder. rice hoarders can still get their way through bribery and corruption. on the other hand, a right winger would urge people to fight back by eating alternative staples such as corn and sweet potatoes to lower the demand and hurt the pockets of the rice hoarders. the alternative staples are even healthier.
people who are glad to be working in a corporation will just think chomsky is a lunatic for saying corporations are totalitarians especially when they know that socialism does not allow you to own property and co-ops don't exactly give you 6 months vacation a year. people don't really care for those friday afternoon co-op meetings. especially if they think the other co-op members would rather starve their family than outsource their jobs to china when they cannot compete anymore because their competitors are using cheap labor.
the problem with the left is that they don't consider freedom important even if it's the most important thing for most people. this is why most people think leftists are lunatics. most people would rather sprint towards their personal doomsday clock to protect their freedom like what happened in WW2.
the left tries to make us believe that the corporations are the tyrants and the labor unions are the protectors. that may be true in the past where workers had to work 16 hours a day 6 days a week, losing fingers in the machines, dying in factory fires and the police would beat them to death if they go on strike. during those times, tony stark did not have a heart. but nowadays, it seems to me the labor unions are the ones harming the workers with their blundering efforts to do good.
.
example, the head of a local labor union in cebu tried to help the golf caddies at a country club by convincing them to strike and demand some compensation or benefits that the law says regular workers should receive. the problem is caddies are not regular workers, which is actually advantageous because they don't have to clock in and out at a certain time so they have more flex time or more freedom. their work does not feel like work because it's fun. they had integrity and dignity because their work was not "different from slavery only that it's temporary". caddies are like teammates of the players and they participate in the jokes, bickering and fun. they don't work everyday because they take turns in a rotation but they still earn a decent living just as good as construction workers and sometimes they can be lucky and earn much more if their player is a gambler and wins (and they still get paid their regular fee and tips even if their player loses). they enjoy personal friendship with players and they are given gifts like clothes. some wealthy players give scholarships to their children. most players and caddies develop close friendships.
during the strike an ultimatum was given to those who participated that they won't be allowed in the club if they continue to strike. many caddies refused to return to work. they trusted and followed the labor union leader and when the strikers lost the court case, they were not allowed in the country club anymore and many of them went into a severe depression, drugs, alcoholism, and some of them even got sick and died. it's hard to believe but it's actually true. their children lost their scholarships. it's such a sad story considering many of the caddies were good friends of mine.
you might say this incident highlights the evils of capitalism because there should be no caddies in the first place and everyone should be equal. of course that sounds ideal but that has been tried many times in history and it caused more suffering. besides it was the capitalists who built the golf course and without the jobs provided by capitalists, people would be in their farms tilling the field all day under the blistering heat of the sun. before the industrial revolution, abject poverty and hardship was the norm.
in cebu (where i grew up), there is a town called minglanillia which was the center for the ready-to-wear (RTW) clothes industry. a US multinational corporation setup shop and paid the workers double that of what they usually earn. i forgot the name of the corporation. i tried to google it but can't find an article about it. anyway, the labor unions came in and convinced the workers to go on strike and demand they get paid more because their counterparts in the US were getting paid a lot more. the striking workers were replaced and had to go back to earning very low income.
chomsky says the majority wants to dismantle corporations because there's been a violent opposition to corporations like the labor union strikes in the 1930s. first of all, those workers won't agree with chomsky that property rights should be abolished. i'm sure they want to keep their motorbike and fishing boats. second of all, it actually shows corporatism is a good system because labor laws continue to improve which means it allows for a tug of war between the opulent minority and the majority through legislation.
some corporations need assistance or subsidies for the system to work. it baffles me when chomsky denounces the subsidies as violating the rules of free trade or competition. it's almost like chomsky is living in a planet where everything has to be pure and all rules need to be strictly followed. it's another sign that he is allergic to grey areas and he desires theoretical purity. normal common sense human beings just care about prosperity and if you compare the prosperity between the soviet style state socialism (statesoc) and US style corporatism, it's obvious corporatism provides greater prosperity. you might say the experiment is invalid because americans are different from the russians. but the experiment also happened with less cultural, racial and geographical variables. east germany was abysmal compared to west germany. south koreans are enjoying prosperity while north koreans were eating grass just to survive. citizens of hong kong were better of compared to the rest of china. i know chomsky have denounced maoist china and soviet union state socialism since the beginning but as i pointed out in https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/socialism-demystified.html, libertarian socialism is clearly much worse than state socialism.
it's also ridiculous to a normal person with common sense when leftists complain that corporations are given the rights of a person and given free speech (advertising). why on earth would we care? they never point out the fact that corporations also create a lot of very useful products which even leftists themselves enjoy. the tony starks provide jobs and help the economy. leftists argue that all these can be accomplished by co-ops. this is why i think leftists are such nitwits because it's just obvious human nature that many of our innovations would not have happened if the outcome is the same or many of those inventors would not have spent many sleepless nights if they knew they will just be paid the same as the janitor. i'm sure the scientists in maoist china and the soviet union were given special privileges which is against true socialist or leftists ideals of equity. maybe a time of peak innovation will come and co-ops will be the ideal form of business structure. but for now, i'm putting my money on tony stark.
we pragmatists want to have more control of our destiny through lower taxes and voluntarily help those who suck at controlling their own destiny. we are not people lacking in morality, compassion and empathy as the left claims we are. we have a heart. in my blog i keep labeling capitalists as psychopaths. it's just a figure of speech. technically tony stark is not really a psychopath, it's just that capitalism rewards psychopathic behavior - lack of empathy, glibness, cunning, manipulative (Strange answers to the psychopath test | Jon Ronson). the left seems to be in an endless loop of "rich are evil and poor are the victims" rhetoric. but if they just step out of their bubble and live in the real world, they will realize that the poor are just as evil as the rich. there really is no difference between the morality of rich and poor people. rich people are simply winners of the game. but it's not that anyone is evil. it's the institutions of a capitalist system that's forcing people to act like psychopaths. i agree with the left on that. what makes the left stupid to me is that the alternative they are providing, which is socialism, is worse and cause more suffering. fortunately leftists are beginning to wise up and advocate for a social democracy but even that is a toss up as i discussed in my rant "politics for dummies" (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/politics-for-dummies.html).
i feel the annual gathering of psychopaths in davos is the real united nations. symbiotic greed and selfishness is the most important ingredient for peace and stability. in a true democracy, it will be easy for a non symbiotic evil to hijack society because there will be no lethal symbiotic psychopath billionaires to stop them. timothy mcveigh and ISIS will be the kings of society without the tony starks (https://barenakedislam.com/2014/09/10/isis-in-action-photos-of-islamic-state-savagery-the-media-will-not-show-you-warning-very-graphic/)
when the powers of all countries get together to discuss how they and their future descendants can continue owning private jets and riding their personal submarines in the great barrier reef, i'm pretty sure not going to war will be one of them. i actually feel sorry for these mentally ill billionaires who needs to have a swimming pool on their yachts while i'm perfectly happy cruising with my sweet scholar on my scooter bike on cool starry nights. i saw this TED talk of irwin redlener saying russians are being careless with their plutonium suitcase bombs and how it can easily get in the hands of the terrorists. maybe irwin redlener is an idiot because russia is never even mentioned when the smartest people talk about which country is the biggest threat (https://chomsky.info/the-greatest-threat-to-world-peace/).
when it comes to the climate change issue, i'm resting my hopes on the fact that billionaires love their children too. they have more to lose if climate change affects everyone. but if all climate change does is gradually submerge coastal cities and make alaska and siberia arable for agriculture, i don't think they will give a damn. but i am hopeful humans can address climate change even if tony stark does not have a heart - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/03/my-new-deal.html. the good news is it's not that hard to make the davos sausage fest listen to something that they need to hear. just let an attractive 16 year old swedish girl speak. she will outshine bolsonora.
but of course if you live in the intellectual bubble and your social interaction have been limited mostly to the academic world and the ghandis of the oppressed countries, you will think what i'm saying is moronic. but if you regularly hang with common folks and are aware of their imperfections, you will tend to agree with me.
the left claims that corporations are useless because the state can also innovate. that's actually a stupid argument - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/state-developed-tech-lefts-worthless-trophy.html
i had a rich capitalist friend who became poor after his burger business went bust. meanwhile there are people from the slums who quit their jobs and started a burger business that uses banana peels instead of beef. the business is very profitable because banana peels have much lower cost. you can get them for free because they are just being disposed as garbage. but banana peels are actually edible. they are high protein, low fat and rich in vitamin b6, b12, magnesium and potassium. there are youtube videos on how to make a banana peel burger if you are interested. i feel sorry for poor people because they have to eat the cheaper banana peel burgers so they live longer healthier lives. banana plants lower carbon dioxide while cow farts increase greenhouse gases. capitalism is evil !!! the poor guys from the slums are tyrants !!! they kicked the butt of my capitalist friend and caused poor people to eat delicious and healthy food.
note that the employees of the banana peel burger business prefer not to go through the headache of owning a business so they chose to work as an employee which according to chomsky is different from slavery only that it's temporary. actually it was abe lincoln who said it but chomsky keeps repeating it in his speeches and tries to apply it to today which is dumb because unlike during abe lincoln's time, workers nowadays don't work 16 hours a day and get beat up by police if they go on strike. it's the same argument that slaves in the 18th century were much better off than slaves in the 17th century therefore there was no reason to abolish slavery. wait i just contradicted myself. i'm such a moron.
leftists say corporations are totalitarians because workers have no say on the direction of the company. that is so stupid because if an employee comes up with a bright idea about the direction of the company then most likely that employee will be rewarded handsomely. if not, then the employees are free to leave and peddle their idea to venture capitalists who are always hungry for bright ideas. that's how the company i worked at for 15 years, altera corporation, was founded. the 4 founders used to work for fairchild semiconductors. management did not agree with their idea of a programmable chip so they left and started altera and now programmable logic is a $10 billion a year industry.
when i was working for altera, anyone who had a good idea about improving our means of production was promoted and given a raise. even a low level employee like me kept getting promoted and given a raise because i was always coming up with good ideas (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2018/11/tech-innovations-by-a-dummy.html). anyone was free to voice their opinions during corporate meetings. leftists keep boasting that in a true democracy, workers get to fire their boss. but when i worked for altera, i got my boss raj kamdar fired because we didn't see eye to eye. he was a nice guy i just did not agree with him on the strategy or vision for our team. upper management decided my way was better so he was let go.
chomsky saying corporations are tyrannical is like a straight guy saying having sex with another guy is gross. it may be true that it would be torture and dehumanizing for a super intellectual like chomsky to be following orders in a corporate hierarchy. but most people have no problem with it. another case of arguing which color is more beautiful. there's no right or wrong, it all depends on your personality. chomsky's opinion is as foolish as me saying i feel sorry for chomsky for having to read all those books because for me reading just 1 book is very painful.
it's also stupid to say corporations are tyrannical because the reality is that corporations are more afraid of people than people are afraid of corporations. that is why i feel putting 20% of my hard earned nest egg in a brokerage or financial institution because if they screw me the whole system will collapse and they got more to lose than i do. corporatism need the majority to be well off to afford buying their products. it's not really symbiotic. it's more like the majority is the master while the opulent minority has to fight each other to kiss up to the master. i even feel sorry for GE corp. it was not able to please it's master (the public) so the stock crashed to just 10% of it's value from it's peak.
the fierce competition among corporations and industries (e.g. downfall of GE) also provides checks and balances. that's why i find it stupid for chomsky to say corporations are unaccountable private tyrannies. corporate CEOs opposed trump's muslim ban and tesla is making electric cars affordable to the general public. elon musk has done more to combat climate change than all the leftists combined. the favorite trick of the left is to confuse competence with power and authority. they always fail to make a distinction.
the beauty with corporatism is that corporations are forced to carry out benign acts or else an aroused public may discover what they are up to and take away the special rights and privileges of the powerful elites. it also allows more economic mobility where anyone who is talented or hard working can become prosperous and even become part of the opulent minority. as oppose to a social democracy where incompetent and corrupt people can easily become powerful if they just happen to be charismatic. i arrived in america in 1993 with only $300 in my pocket and now i'm a member of the petite bourgeoisie. it's very disappointing that leftists never teach people how to join the opulent minority like not get pregnant before graduating high school or make your kids breakfast. i'm no shakespeare but i wrote a poem to to give hints and clues on how to become part of the opulent minority - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/hamiltons-american-dream.html
corporatism also allows the minority to protect itself from the majority. if germany had corporatism during hitler's time the jews would have had senators to protect them from the vile maxim of the nazis. james madison was a genius for establishing a government that is not democratic. or maybe it was just dumb luck because the original intention was to protect the opulent minority from the majority. of course a true democracy would be the ideal system if everyone acts according to principle. but chomsky said america is very racist and i have brown skin so i feel like chomsky wants me to get lynched. chomsky also tweeted that 3/4 of americans believe in the devil and religious miracles. in a true democracy, that does not bode well for degenerates like me who enjoys watching porn.
people have different tastes or standards and the wants of the minority are always different. in bantayan island of cebu, the opulent minority is battling the poor majority who is doing dynamite fishing. thank god the philippines is not a true democracy or the corals and fishes would be all gone. the opulent minority lead by powerful elite mar roxas is trying to stop the majority from killing the poor drug addicts who just happen to be born with mental or emotional illnesses. the UN human rights watch is helping the opulent minority but the majority is just too powerful. STOP DEMOCRACY NOW !!! (joke) - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2017/04/rare-perspectives-on-extra-judicial-killings.html
of course it's not perfect and there will always be cracks in any system. in capitalism, there will always be a few who are useless to the corporations. some of them will be helped by the limited government welfare or subsidy of capitalism and some of them will fall through the cracks and suffer poverty or not get health insurance. but at least there is that opportunity or competition to be part of the symbiotic system.
however, this argument is irrelevant because what matters is freedom and prosperity for MOST people. the left cherry picks the expected imperfections of capitalism. any leftist can create a 2 hour spectacular video that can convince anyone that corporatism is evil and right wingers are evil morons. the bottom line is that the only alternative to capitalism is socialism which can cause more suffering, poverty, chaos, and instability. capitalism is better suited to address the imperfections of human nature such as greed, materialism, individualism, and the desire to dominate. all the possible alternatives have been tried and they failed miserably in the soviet union, maoist china, venezuela, etc ... the social democracies of canada, norway, south korea and germany are still considered capitalist but the difference is that they have a big welfare state. they provide free healthcare and other government subsidies that prevents people from suffering poverty but they still allow tony stark to do business.
for me the debate should be on the size of government. but both sides of the political spectrum should acknowledge that each solution has it's downsides. if government is too big, most people can be too dependent on government which can hurt productivity. society will be too dependent on the performance of the leaders. if the leaders screw up, almost everyone will be screwed - Public Choice Theory: Why Government Often Fails
in a smaller government, society is more resilient and the competent people of society have the option to take care of themselves and be self reliant. example when the greek government screwed up, everyone suffered and their economy was not able to bounce back. on the other hand, during the great recession of 2008, many americans who were competent enough to be well diversified actually benefited from the recession and not only that, the economy was able to recover. i was one of those who benefited from the great recession - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2011/09/once-in-a-milenia-opportunity.html
one might think that with the rise of job automation and artificial intelligence (AI), we should start having a bigger government. but i think we should have an even smaller government and have universal basic income (UBI). this is another advantage of capitalism - it is flexible enough to seamlessly implement UBI when the need arises because of too much automation, which to me is a stepping stone to achieving a true democracy. note that in a true democracy such as libertarian socialism, there is no need for a government.
the left idiotically say corporations are unaccountable tyrannies. it may be true that corporations serve their own self interest, but so does the government (corruption), so does the unions, so does the people (racism). quora is mostly left leaning and i notice a very small blame is placed on the auto companies for the demise of detroit - https://www.quora.com/What-caused-the-decline-of-Detroit. and they make it sound like the corporations had no choice. there isn't even any mention of CEO pay just the P80k a year salary of the mistress of the corrupt mayor. in fact it was the corporations who brought in black workers and paid them good salary in the beginning. the racial riots were caused by the racism of the white people. capitalism had nothing to do with the racial riots. libertarian socialism would have made things worse because true democracy will only work if society is benevolent or selfless enough.
all the problems of detroit can be summed up in 2 words - human nature. if the white people of detroit were made of scandinavians of today, they would have diversified the economy, the government would have been less corrupt, there would have been no racial tensions and the unions would have been willing to compromise so that their company can compete in the world market. it's obvious that inspiring people to strive for self improvement and self reliance is the most important thing in any activist's agenda, yet leftists never lift a finger in this arena. they idiotically insist that changing the system or dismantling corporations is the solution.
example, with the rice hoarding problem in the philippines, a leftist would call for a law that bans rice hoarding or call for stricter enforcement and penalties. this will never work because rich people can always get away with murder. rice hoarders can still get their way through bribery and corruption. on the other hand, a right winger would urge people to fight back by eating alternative staples such as corn and sweet potatoes to lower the demand and hurt the pockets of the rice hoarders. the alternative staples are even healthier.
people who are glad to be working in a corporation will just think chomsky is a lunatic for saying corporations are totalitarians especially when they know that socialism does not allow you to own property and co-ops don't exactly give you 6 months vacation a year. people don't really care for those friday afternoon co-op meetings. especially if they think the other co-op members would rather starve their family than outsource their jobs to china when they cannot compete anymore because their competitors are using cheap labor.
the problem with the left is that they don't consider freedom important even if it's the most important thing for most people. this is why most people think leftists are lunatics. most people would rather sprint towards their personal doomsday clock to protect their freedom like what happened in WW2.
the left tries to make us believe that the corporations are the tyrants and the labor unions are the protectors. that may be true in the past where workers had to work 16 hours a day 6 days a week, losing fingers in the machines, dying in factory fires and the police would beat them to death if they go on strike. during those times, tony stark did not have a heart. but nowadays, it seems to me the labor unions are the ones harming the workers with their blundering efforts to do good.
.
example, the head of a local labor union in cebu tried to help the golf caddies at a country club by convincing them to strike and demand some compensation or benefits that the law says regular workers should receive. the problem is caddies are not regular workers, which is actually advantageous because they don't have to clock in and out at a certain time so they have more flex time or more freedom. their work does not feel like work because it's fun. they had integrity and dignity because their work was not "different from slavery only that it's temporary". caddies are like teammates of the players and they participate in the jokes, bickering and fun. they don't work everyday because they take turns in a rotation but they still earn a decent living just as good as construction workers and sometimes they can be lucky and earn much more if their player is a gambler and wins (and they still get paid their regular fee and tips even if their player loses). they enjoy personal friendship with players and they are given gifts like clothes. some wealthy players give scholarships to their children. most players and caddies develop close friendships.
during the strike an ultimatum was given to those who participated that they won't be allowed in the club if they continue to strike. many caddies refused to return to work. they trusted and followed the labor union leader and when the strikers lost the court case, they were not allowed in the country club anymore and many of them went into a severe depression, drugs, alcoholism, and some of them even got sick and died. it's hard to believe but it's actually true. their children lost their scholarships. it's such a sad story considering many of the caddies were good friends of mine.
you might say this incident highlights the evils of capitalism because there should be no caddies in the first place and everyone should be equal. of course that sounds ideal but that has been tried many times in history and it caused more suffering. besides it was the capitalists who built the golf course and without the jobs provided by capitalists, people would be in their farms tilling the field all day under the blistering heat of the sun. before the industrial revolution, abject poverty and hardship was the norm.
in cebu (where i grew up), there is a town called minglanillia which was the center for the ready-to-wear (RTW) clothes industry. a US multinational corporation setup shop and paid the workers double that of what they usually earn. i forgot the name of the corporation. i tried to google it but can't find an article about it. anyway, the labor unions came in and convinced the workers to go on strike and demand they get paid more because their counterparts in the US were getting paid a lot more. the striking workers were replaced and had to go back to earning very low income.
chomsky says the majority wants to dismantle corporations because there's been a violent opposition to corporations like the labor union strikes in the 1930s. first of all, those workers won't agree with chomsky that property rights should be abolished. i'm sure they want to keep their motorbike and fishing boats. second of all, it actually shows corporatism is a good system because labor laws continue to improve which means it allows for a tug of war between the opulent minority and the majority through legislation.
i'm not saying to get rid of labor unions or workers should stop fighting for their rights. i'm saying everyone should recognize it's a delicate balance - https://www.moneycrashers.com/labor-unions-united-states/. just recently in the philippines, my golfing buddy named tony sonsona who owned a furniture business had to close shop because the new labor laws would make his business unprofitable. he shifted to planting bananas and is doing great. maybe his workers found better jobs because of the new labor laws. but it's possible they are unemployed until now. we should also recognize that all good laws and policies that benefit most people have collateral damage. so even if tonry's workers are still unemployed, i won't automatically denounce the new labor laws.
the stupidity of the left is that they want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. the existence of labor unions is actually a good sign that corporatism works. corporatism allows workers and teachers to form large interest groups to rival the power of the corporations. that's why there are much less labor strikes nowadays because the system is constantly being adjusted to find that healthy balance. the workers in nissan even voted to kick out the labor unions. labor unions are not automatically the good guys. even democrats agree labor unions are riddled with corruption and teachers union is ruining the educational system.
the stupidity of the left is that they want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. the existence of labor unions is actually a good sign that corporatism works. corporatism allows workers and teachers to form large interest groups to rival the power of the corporations. that's why there are much less labor strikes nowadays because the system is constantly being adjusted to find that healthy balance. the workers in nissan even voted to kick out the labor unions. labor unions are not automatically the good guys. even democrats agree labor unions are riddled with corruption and teachers union is ruining the educational system.
some corporations need assistance or subsidies for the system to work. it baffles me when chomsky denounces the subsidies as violating the rules of free trade or competition. it's almost like chomsky is living in a planet where everything has to be pure and all rules need to be strictly followed. it's another sign that he is allergic to grey areas and he desires theoretical purity. normal common sense human beings just care about prosperity and if you compare the prosperity between the soviet style state socialism (statesoc) and US style corporatism, it's obvious corporatism provides greater prosperity. you might say the experiment is invalid because americans are different from the russians. but the experiment also happened with less cultural, racial and geographical variables. east germany was abysmal compared to west germany. south koreans are enjoying prosperity while north koreans were eating grass just to survive. citizens of hong kong were better of compared to the rest of china. i know chomsky have denounced maoist china and soviet union state socialism since the beginning but as i pointed out in https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/socialism-demystified.html, libertarian socialism is clearly much worse than state socialism.
it's also ridiculous to a normal person with common sense when leftists complain that corporations are given the rights of a person and given free speech (advertising). why on earth would we care? they never point out the fact that corporations also create a lot of very useful products which even leftists themselves enjoy. the tony starks provide jobs and help the economy. leftists argue that all these can be accomplished by co-ops. this is why i think leftists are such nitwits because it's just obvious human nature that many of our innovations would not have happened if the outcome is the same or many of those inventors would not have spent many sleepless nights if they knew they will just be paid the same as the janitor. i'm sure the scientists in maoist china and the soviet union were given special privileges which is against true socialist or leftists ideals of equity. maybe a time of peak innovation will come and co-ops will be the ideal form of business structure. but for now, i'm putting my money on tony stark.
we pragmatists want to have more control of our destiny through lower taxes and voluntarily help those who suck at controlling their own destiny. we are not people lacking in morality, compassion and empathy as the left claims we are. we have a heart. in my blog i keep labeling capitalists as psychopaths. it's just a figure of speech. technically tony stark is not really a psychopath, it's just that capitalism rewards psychopathic behavior - lack of empathy, glibness, cunning, manipulative (Strange answers to the psychopath test | Jon Ronson). the left seems to be in an endless loop of "rich are evil and poor are the victims" rhetoric. but if they just step out of their bubble and live in the real world, they will realize that the poor are just as evil as the rich. there really is no difference between the morality of rich and poor people. rich people are simply winners of the game. but it's not that anyone is evil. it's the institutions of a capitalist system that's forcing people to act like psychopaths. i agree with the left on that. what makes the left stupid to me is that the alternative they are providing, which is socialism, is worse and cause more suffering. fortunately leftists are beginning to wise up and advocate for a social democracy but even that is a toss up as i discussed in my rant "politics for dummies" (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/politics-for-dummies.html).
when the powers of all countries get together to discuss how they and their future descendants can continue owning private jets and riding their personal submarines in the great barrier reef, i'm pretty sure not going to war will be one of them. i actually feel sorry for these mentally ill billionaires who needs to have a swimming pool on their yachts while i'm perfectly happy cruising with my sweet scholar on my scooter bike on cool starry nights. i saw this TED talk of irwin redlener saying russians are being careless with their plutonium suitcase bombs and how it can easily get in the hands of the terrorists. maybe irwin redlener is an idiot because russia is never even mentioned when the smartest people talk about which country is the biggest threat (https://chomsky.info/the-greatest-threat-to-world-peace/).
when it comes to the climate change issue, i'm resting my hopes on the fact that billionaires love their children too. they have more to lose if climate change affects everyone. but if all climate change does is gradually submerge coastal cities and make alaska and siberia arable for agriculture, i don't think they will give a damn. but i am hopeful humans can address climate change even if tony stark does not have a heart - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/03/my-new-deal.html. the good news is it's not that hard to make the davos sausage fest listen to something that they need to hear. just let an attractive 16 year old swedish girl speak. she will outshine bolsonora.
but of course if you live in the intellectual bubble and your social interaction have been limited mostly to the academic world and the ghandis of the oppressed countries, you will think what i'm saying is moronic. but if you regularly hang with common folks and are aware of their imperfections, you will tend to agree with me.
the left claims that corporations are useless because the state can also innovate. that's actually a stupid argument - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/state-developed-tech-lefts-worthless-trophy.html
one of the drawbacks of corporatism is massive inequality. but i feel it's a a good trade off - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/01/knowledge-bombs-on-inequality.html
i also wrote an article about leftists mocking tony stark - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/leftists-mock-tiger-woods.html
i also have more opinions about powerful elites in https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/04/dont-greece-the-hand.html
(for more of my knowledge bombs, click the "ian's knowledge bombs" banner at the top of this article and choose any article in the table of contents that piques your interest)
No comments:
Post a Comment