Am I the only one? I don't know about anybody else, but I think I see a growing antagonism in the media towards the excessive salaries of top bosses.
There have been attacks on excessive pay by columnists in English and Irish papers. It has featured in the American primary campaigns and I saw a lengthy documentary on pay inequality on DW the German TV station.
This seems to me to be part of a new development. I put it down to the steady collapse of the newspaper industry and the proliferation of small scale TV stations. Relative pay rates are going down in the traditional media. The hacks who used to feel they were part of elite are now looking enviously at high living bosses at the top of big business.
Also, there seems to be a second possible factor. Though I put this forward tentatively. It goes like this. The former rulers, the capitalists, who used to run the businesses and take the profits are being supplanted. Senior management are these days in control. It is executives who sit in the board rooms and take the decisions and use their positions to award themselves fat salaries and bonuses. Meanwhile the old capitalists have to sit back and watch their return on capital falling away bit by bit.
Of course capitalists are still around, gathering in their dividends. But as they see their money and influence declining, they are looking with a jaundiced eye on these new men, their former servants, who are taking over from them. So this is the second factor. We now see envious capitalists happily joining in with the media hacks in their vendetta against the obscene pay of top executives.
It's just populism. Anti
It's just populism. Anti establishment views are important atm. Criticising a small segment rather that the system is good strategy for maintaining the system.
If you believe hacks decide what goes in the media you should consider again. Media have bosses. Bosses decide. As everywhere else.
Capitalism is having a
Capitalism is having a crisis. This time it is not an economic crisis however, but a moral crisis. People are starting to question capitalism and how it materialise.
Is it good to have a system where the 0,1% of the people have so much wealth that they can buy the parliament? Is it good that democracy can be sold like this? The idea that a politician can be bought is not a new idea, but today it happens much more and it cant be kept hidden from the public any more.
I think it has a lot to do with how the banking industry was changed in the 1970ies. I wanted to find a source for this but i couldnt. But i have read about this before. Anyway so they changed how money is created. Money is created when the banks loan out money.
http://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create-money/
Over time this has given the banking industry tremendous amount of wealth. Now banks are still capitalist because their means of production is money. Invest your money (investment) to buy money (means of production) to get money (profits) and then you also create money (new loans which is guaranteed by the tax system of the state so that is just even more money).
Its crazy, its all about money and it means there is no purpose other than to get rich
So the difference between the banking industry and other capitalist industries is that traditional capitalist industries produce something like food which also has use value. Food can be used to satisfy real needs like starvation etc. So in traditional capitalist industries there are an additional real purpose other than to get rich because they also produce use value.
I think this is the moral crisis of capitalism. The intention of capitalism was never about "just get rich" (and fuck everything up in the process), it was about satisfying demands and needs.
Yeah here is what i am
Yeah here is what i am talking about
http://www.abundance-and-happiness.com/bretton-woods.html
The Bretton Woods Agreement
Fractional reserve banking
Fiat money
I don't think the
I don't think the 'positivemoney' campaigners really understand how capitalism, banks and money works in the real world - I'm sure this has been effectively criticised elsewhere on this site so might dig it out later. So the capitalist crisis is economic, political and if you like 'moral' ie it's a social crisis.
Spikymike wrote: I don't
Spikymike
What was the intention of the above link is just that people should understand how money is created.
Ignoring this is like ignoring a big part of how capitalism operates today. And ignoring this is like ignoring a flank where the capitalist exposed themselves which can be open for attack (in debates). The workers can be convinced capitalism is not working. First by exposing them to the way capitalism operates today. They then lose the acceptance that capitalism is good. Their minds becomes open, they start to listen and they can begin to understand how capitalism works in general.
Money's not created by
Money's not created by loaning
radicalgraffiti
radicalgraffiti
lol
https://youtu.be/cO7e0HOlgKQ?t=6m28s
GP, the theory you are
GP, the theory you are proposing is typically one put forward by libertarians who believe that everything will be solved if we get back in the gold standard. As if gold magically has inherent value. This is also why these folks have a hard-on for bitcoin. None of those proposals will do anything to better the lives of the working class. The problem is that labour has to take the form of money and that has everything to do with how the social relationships of production, I.e. that most of us have to sell our labour in order to buy shit to survive.
Something else that should be
Something else that should be mentioned.
Oddly enough the antagonism of the media is all focused on the excessive salaries of top executives. Their antagonism is not directed at private wealth. It is directed against overpaid workers. High worth individuals largely get off Scot free in the media attacks.
I'm not going to watch a
I'm not going to watch a video without a description, but I will assume its bull shit because you posted it
I'm not going to watch a
I'm not going to watch a video without a description, but I will assume its bull shit because you posted it
Khawaga wrote: GP, the theory
Khawaga
I agree. We shouldnt go back to the gold standard, but that doesnt mean there are things we cant learn from the video. like how money is created.
Yeah the problem is we sell our labour because we dont own the means of production. If we did we would only have to sell the products we produce.
Gulai Polye wrote: This time
Gulai Polye
Mate, tell that to people who lost their jobs or their houses or whose pensions plans took a massive shit.
Also, Proudhon's economics have rightfully been dismissed within modern anarchist theory.
Maclane Horton
I don't know if I'd consider executives workers, ya know what I mean?
Chilli Sauce wrote: Gulai
Chilli Sauce
In 2008 there was an economic crisis. in 2016 there is a moral crisis. yeah?
You think the situation in
You think the situation in 2016 is somehow divorced from what happened in 2008? The austerity across Europe; the protests happening in France right now; the rise of Syriza, Corbyn, Trump, and Sanders - you think that's not all directly related to the 2008 financial crisis!?!
Yes i do believe they are
Yes i do believe they are related. The economic crisis transformed into a moral crisis, which is much worse for capitalism, since capitalism relies on the goodwill of the people.
-
-
'...capitalism relies on the
'...capitalism relies on the goodwill of the people.'
That is very true. I’m often woken up early in the morning by the workers cheerily singing, ‘Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it’s off to work I go.’
I mean, I guess the smooth
I mean, I guess the smooth functioning of workplaces and capitalism as a whole relies on goodwill.
However, there's the coercive nature of the market (work or starve) and straight-up state violence in in terms of disruptions or uprisings that's always lurking there in the background.
Also, they're not related, they're the same crisis.
There's lots on Banking and
There's lots on Banking and Credit myths, Currency Cranks, Bitcoin, and also a long critical discussion about some of Graeber's misplace views on this if people can be bothered to search on this site.
Chilli Sauce wrote: You
Chilli Sauce
Chilli Sauce
Can you make up your mind? They are related or not?
What a silly comment. What
What a silly comment.
What I said is that "the austerity across Europe; the protests happening in France right now; the rise of Syriza, Corbyn, Trump, and Sanders" is directly related to what happened in 2008 - and, indeed, it's part of the same crisis.
Although way to derail from your obviously well-thought out theory that there have been two crises of capitalism in the past 10 years - one economic and one moral (whatever that means...).
Chilli Sauce wrote: i dont
Chilli Sauce
(thats how i read it)
You rather wanna attack outward than to look inward after any mistakes you made. It requires to get rid of selfishness and a lot of people has this problem. It is a big problem for humanity and thus it is a big problem for socialism too
-
-
timthelion wrote: Gulai Polye
timthelion
No if you ask people, did we have an economic crisis in 2008 they will say yes. If you then ask them if we are having an economic crisis in 2016 they will say no. But there is a crisis. But its different, its not the same as the one in 2008.
As Chilli Sauce said:
No its not. If it were it would be an economic crisis in 2016. We are having a different crisis in 2016 a crisis that is not economic.
Its like having a system with an input (the crisis in 2008) with an output (the crisis in 2016) then saying the input and the output are the same as if the crisis in 2008 somehow could bypass the system. That would make no sense. And you as a programmer should be able to understand this analogy ;)
Man, if Tim's defending me,
Man, if Tim's defending me, that's worth taking notice of ;-)
To be honest, it's not really that big a deal either way, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find an economist - mainstream or radical - who'd claim 2008 and 2016 were part of two different crises.
In any case, what value do you see in understanding those two moments as two distinct crises?
Quote: In any case, what
Well one could say that the crisis of 2008 was because capitalism followed its own logic. If the workers accepted this and said oh just another crisis, capitalism is still good then nothing would have happened. And capitalism would rebuild and that would be it until the next crisis.
But thats not what happened. Instead the workers are waking up and is starting to questioning this whole system. Its good. It shows there is a momentum which should be guided and strengthened. It might not lead to a revolution this time, but perhaps some big change could happen.
So, I think that's all very
So, I think that's all very optimistic - and sort of premised on a political awakening, if that makes sense - but I still don't see two distinct crises. If anything, it seems like your post sort of makes my point: the response we're seeing now is part of the same crisis that began in 2008.