4 ms·

So this is a good example of how the 99% vs 1% meme falls short. It's a description of wealth inequality, which is a symptom of the larger conflict between work

So this is a good example of how the 99% vs 1% meme falls short. It's a description of wealth inequality, which is a symptom of the larger conflict between workers and business owners (proletariat vs. bourgeoisie). The central issue isn't that we have wealth inequality, it's about power. Capitalists get to control our economic planning, have a closer ear of our governments, and have an advantageous negotiating position compared to workers allowing them to pay us little while they receive huge profits (leading to inequality). Often times it is in the interest of certain capitalists to get our government to engage in imperialism, or destabilize certain regions, which helps lead to the awful conditions for some people in the Middle East, and I think this helps pave the way to religious extremism. They rightfully recognize nations like the U.S. are partially to blame for their conditions, and unfortunately lash out at the everyday citizens who often had no part in the matter.

edblarney 10y ago
"Often times it is in the interest of certain capitalists to get our government to engage in imperialism, or destabilize certain regions, which helps lead to the awful conditions for some people in the Middle East, and I think this helps pave the way to religious extremism." This is patently false. The US - and 'capitalists' do not want 'destabilization' - over and above all they want 'stability'. Case and point: Saudi Arabia. Here you have an 'extremely conservative Islamic state' - which is culturally the furthest thing from the American ideal - and yet the Americans are their protectors - doing pretty much anything to preserve the stability of that regime. And for what: direct access to Oil - at market prices. That's it. Same thing for Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, Tunisia. And almost Libya until Gaddafi went to far oppressing an uprising, and remember the US supported Saddam so long as he wasn't invading allies like Kuwait. Prosperity is not a zero-sum game. 100% of the Middle East could be thriving and plentiful if they organized themselves in a responsible manner. Most of them should have ample Oil surpluses to found basic progress.
- SpaceDingus9000 10y ago
  I'm not saying all capitalists, I'm saying it is in the interests of certain capitalists. I'm sure McDonald's would love to have a stable region to begin building franchises in. On the other hand, a military contractor's profit is in part tied to conflict ridden regions. I don't really see what your example of Saudi Arabia proves. We sell them arms and purchase much of their oil, it's in a lot of people interests to keep them stable. I'm saying in some cases it is in business interests to keep a region in conflict, and sometimes imperialism leads to instability or a lack of material wealth, promoting extremist thought.
- and0 10y ago
  This is a wildly revisionist view of US influence on the Middle East. For starters, you're assuming that the US government and it's intelligence agencies always understand the actual consequences of their actions and are always successful, which is hilariously false. So instability is a frequently unintended result of meddling in foreign affairs, despite our intentions. And the idea that all these nations would be "thriving" if only they'd "bootstrap" themselves is extremely naive. Iran is a great example of using "ample oil surpluses to found basic progress", when they attempted to nationalize the oil industry. But that would've hurt Western oil profits / consumer wallets, so we overthrew that administration. I'm no ME expert but your understanding of the history of these nations is incredibly shallow. The powerless are not the cause of the world's problems.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    "For starters, you're assuming that the US government and it's intelligence agencies always understand the actual consequences of their actions and are always successful" I didn't assume that at all. In fact, I'd agree with that assessment. But the purpose of US involvement in the M/E is not to 'destabilize' - it's the opposite. Even out of pure self-interest - the US gains from a stable M/E not a 'unstable one'. If you were Exxon - would you rather a stable political regime with which you do business? Or one that is changing all the time - wherein it's so dangerous oil deals are impossible? Do you know how many deals US Oil companies got in Iraq? ZERO. Nada. 100% of Iraqi Oil is extracted, and exported by local entities - and European, Russian and Chinese companies. The US got nothing out of it - granted - some Oil 'services' companies got some decent contracts. It's contrarian and unjustified to indicate that the US wants to engender instability in the region. "I'm no ME expert but your understanding of the history of these nations is incredibly shallow. " Save your ad hominem for Huffpo :) "The powerless are not the cause of the world's problems." The US is not the creator of terrorists. Terrorists (and their ideologies) are the cause of terrorism. Some of them are powerless, some of them are not. The Middle East is rife with natural resources, it's 100% their own fault, collectively, that the ME is mostly a craphole (despite some pretty nice things) and so many of them want to leave for Europe and North America.
    - 10y ago
- timthelion 10y ago
  I think that instability is surprisingly good for capitalists, however, I don't know if they "want" that instability. I live in Prague, and the instability and corruption following the fall of the iron curtain made many people very rich. It also allowed many western capitalists to buy assets in this country for very cheep prices. Right next to my house there used to be a park. Now there is an office building there. The city never built that office building, nor did it officially sell the land. Some corrupt official simply changed the title. Who can build a building like that and bribe an official? Not just anyone. You need money to build a building and bribe officials, so this chaos was very good for people with money. The same with the post office. Our post office has been privatized and is very profitably held by a Czech Billionair. How did that man buy the post office? Of course it was cheep at the time, and there was corrpution, but the main answer, is that he was able to buy it because he had money to buy it.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    I suspect it depends on the kind of capitalist you are dealing with, industrial or financial. Because while it seems financial capitalists thrive on instability, because this allows them to extract arbitrage, industrial capitalists are more likely to have their supply lines and similar disrupted.
    - timthelion 10y ago
      I actually don't think it is that bad for industrial capitalists either. Afterall, a disrupted supply line often just means higher prices once the goods come through. You may be right that there is a distinction here but I think that "industrial capitalists" are rather rare. Few factories are owned by individuals anymore, they are owned by corporations, and those corporations are owned by stock holders. Perhaps direct ownership of factories is bad in times of chaos and that has meant that financial capitalists have gotten richer while industrial capitalists have gone bankrupt. I think that financial capitalists probably thrive best when society is stable for a time, when the capitalists can gather cash, and then unstable for a time, when the capitalists can go on a buying spree, buying things that are not normally for sale such as national post offices, and buying things bellow price.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  True, sometimes special corporate interests want more stability than is sane or helpful; so they support dictatorships. But you can't say they've never wanted to off a stable dictatorship, or done so. Note too that U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia is sharply turning - and no wonder, since the US energy industry is now an exporter and gains from instability and fewer energy supplies coming from the Middle East.

edblarney 10y ago

"Often times it is in the interest of certain capitalists to get our government to engage in imperialism, or destabilize certain regions, which helps lead to the awful conditions for some people in the Middle East, and I think this helps pave the way to religious extremism." This is patently false. The US - and 'capitalists' do not want 'destabilization' - over and above all they want 'stability'. Case and point: Saudi Arabia. Here you have an 'extremely conservative Islamic state' - which is culturally the furthest thing from the American ideal - and yet the Americans are their protectors - doing pretty much anything to preserve the stability of that regime. And for what: direct access to Oil - at market prices. That's it. Same thing for Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, Tunisia. And almost Libya until Gaddafi went to far oppressing an uprising, and remember the US supported Saddam so long as he wasn't invading allies like Kuwait. Prosperity is not a zero-sum game. 100% of the Middle East could be thriving and plentiful if they organized themselves in a responsible manner. Most of them should have ample Oil surpluses to found basic progress.

SpaceDingus9000 10y ago
I'm not saying all capitalists, I'm saying it is in the interests of certain capitalists. I'm sure McDonald's would love to have a stable region to begin building franchises in. On the other hand, a military contractor's profit is in part tied to conflict ridden regions. I don't really see what your example of Saudi Arabia proves. We sell them arms and purchase much of their oil, it's in a lot of people interests to keep them stable. I'm saying in some cases it is in business interests to keep a region in conflict, and sometimes imperialism leads to instability or a lack of material wealth, promoting extremist thought.
and0 10y ago
This is a wildly revisionist view of US influence on the Middle East. For starters, you're assuming that the US government and it's intelligence agencies always understand the actual consequences of their actions and are always successful, which is hilariously false. So instability is a frequently unintended result of meddling in foreign affairs, despite our intentions. And the idea that all these nations would be "thriving" if only they'd "bootstrap" themselves is extremely naive. Iran is a great example of using "ample oil surpluses to found basic progress", when they attempted to nationalize the oil industry. But that would've hurt Western oil profits / consumer wallets, so we overthrew that administration. I'm no ME expert but your understanding of the history of these nations is incredibly shallow. The powerless are not the cause of the world's problems.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "For starters, you're assuming that the US government and it's intelligence agencies always understand the actual consequences of their actions and are always successful" I didn't assume that at all. In fact, I'd agree with that assessment. But the purpose of US involvement in the M/E is not to 'destabilize' - it's the opposite. Even out of pure self-interest - the US gains from a stable M/E not a 'unstable one'. If you were Exxon - would you rather a stable political regime with which you do business? Or one that is changing all the time - wherein it's so dangerous oil deals are impossible? Do you know how many deals US Oil companies got in Iraq? ZERO. Nada. 100% of Iraqi Oil is extracted, and exported by local entities - and European, Russian and Chinese companies. The US got nothing out of it - granted - some Oil 'services' companies got some decent contracts. It's contrarian and unjustified to indicate that the US wants to engender instability in the region. "I'm no ME expert but your understanding of the history of these nations is incredibly shallow. " Save your ad hominem for Huffpo :) "The powerless are not the cause of the world's problems." The US is not the creator of terrorists. Terrorists (and their ideologies) are the cause of terrorism. Some of them are powerless, some of them are not. The Middle East is rife with natural resources, it's 100% their own fault, collectively, that the ME is mostly a craphole (despite some pretty nice things) and so many of them want to leave for Europe and North America.
  - 10y ago
timthelion 10y ago
I think that instability is surprisingly good for capitalists, however, I don't know if they "want" that instability. I live in Prague, and the instability and corruption following the fall of the iron curtain made many people very rich. It also allowed many western capitalists to buy assets in this country for very cheep prices. Right next to my house there used to be a park. Now there is an office building there. The city never built that office building, nor did it officially sell the land. Some corrupt official simply changed the title. Who can build a building like that and bribe an official? Not just anyone. You need money to build a building and bribe officials, so this chaos was very good for people with money. The same with the post office. Our post office has been privatized and is very profitably held by a Czech Billionair. How did that man buy the post office? Of course it was cheep at the time, and there was corrpution, but the main answer, is that he was able to buy it because he had money to buy it.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  I suspect it depends on the kind of capitalist you are dealing with, industrial or financial. Because while it seems financial capitalists thrive on instability, because this allows them to extract arbitrage, industrial capitalists are more likely to have their supply lines and similar disrupted.
  - timthelion 10y ago
    I actually don't think it is that bad for industrial capitalists either. Afterall, a disrupted supply line often just means higher prices once the goods come through. You may be right that there is a distinction here but I think that "industrial capitalists" are rather rare. Few factories are owned by individuals anymore, they are owned by corporations, and those corporations are owned by stock holders. Perhaps direct ownership of factories is bad in times of chaos and that has meant that financial capitalists have gotten richer while industrial capitalists have gone bankrupt. I think that financial capitalists probably thrive best when society is stable for a time, when the capitalists can gather cash, and then unstable for a time, when the capitalists can go on a buying spree, buying things that are not normally for sale such as national post offices, and buying things bellow price.
Nomentatus 10y ago
True, sometimes special corporate interests want more stability than is sane or helpful; so they support dictatorships. But you can't say they've never wanted to off a stable dictatorship, or done so. Note too that U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia is sharply turning - and no wonder, since the US energy industry is now an exporter and gains from instability and fewer energy supplies coming from the Middle East.