Capitalism:The Rigged Game
It might be helpful in the present crisis to view capitalism like a game. This is not meant to minimize the suffering of those who are being affected the worst, so the nature of the game is indeed serious. But there is "cheating" in the present state of capitalism in the form of subsidies and bail outs. Of course this has been going on long before Obama took office. Lobbying also provides an unfair advantage, because laws end up shaping the extent to which corporations can make even more money-often to the detriment of small business and unfortunate individuals who won't directly benefit from it. This is not to mention the shaky ground of the legality of the federal reserve.
Thus, the rules of the game are changed in accordance with vested interests. Taxpayer money is being used to save companies that would otherwise lose the game and be forced to file for bankruptcy. They are not allowed to lose. How is this fair play? After all, capitalism is supposed to be based on competition, so they say.
These bail outs can also be viewed like insurance payoffs that mostly just benefit those who were "winning" before the problems began. This would obviously include the large banks, and insurance companies like AIG. Pools of money are collected in case something unforeseen happens. Some of this money pays for space shuttles and the like in the name of taxes, but this money is more like insurance with the passing of TARP and the stimulus bill . It is deemed necessary in case of the need for more bailouts. In other words, it's like auto insurance that is involuntary.
The stimulus bill money will be used to create jobs, but few have even taken the time to read all of the rules. A blueprint for saving the game was only read by a few before it was signed by Obama. The rules of the game seem to be changing on a weekly basis. The weekends bring more change while the population tries to relax. One company is allowed to fail and another is bailed out-even when they have subsidiaries in Venezuela or partially owned by hedge funds. We are kept in the dark about the possibility of nationalizing the banks yet trading in the stocks is still allowed.
In Socialism pools of money could be grouped together to take care of basic needs rather than act as bail out funds for large corporations. There is lots of whining about socialism from those who call themselves conservatives. Their standard claim is that socialism doesn't work-that it has never worked and any massive change to save the current system is mislabeled as a move towards socialism. Here, subsidies for a new sports stadium are no different than welfare for food stamps, but there are still those who ignore the corporate welfare part of the equation. They complain about those who should do more to provide for themselves, but they willingly put out their hands to receive government help to finance a new stadium or they have local taxes pay for pet projects like space tourism. This is not to mention the massive subsidies in the agriculture business.
They often fail to mention that throughout history socialism has often been coupled with dictators. Even National Socialism wasn't really socialism depending on how you define it of course. It was more like capitalism towards a focused war goal of a dictator. Socialism would work from the bottom up beginning with an agreement on basic needs through voting. Those who want more than their basic needs could easily work more for what they want. Nobody would stop them. It is clear that capitalism isn't working in it's present form either. It's in a state of intensive care. Nobody seems to be winning.
Many individuals feel contradictory feelings or ambivalence about participating in this capitalist game because they don't believe in it or realize deep down that the game is rigged. Capitalism works from the top down in it's present form. This is a transition phase of economic history. The current rigging of the game isn't a move towards socialism, but emergency measures to save capitalism. Many realize that a system dominated by "cheating" capitalism will probably be here to stay in their life time, but they are forced to play the game, especially those who must put food on the table for their kids.
However, any move towards changing the game being played (a game that is supposed to be based on competition) is a threat to those who legitimately won in the past. Why should these hard workers be willing to give up their winnings in order to redistribute wealth? So they attack the life supporting measures of saving capitalism and call it a move towards socialism when in fact it is really like insurance payoffs to keep those winning who might otherwise lose.
Thus, the rules of the game are changed in accordance with vested interests. Taxpayer money is being used to save companies that would otherwise lose the game and be forced to file for bankruptcy. They are not allowed to lose. How is this fair play? After all, capitalism is supposed to be based on competition, so they say.
These bail outs can also be viewed like insurance payoffs that mostly just benefit those who were "winning" before the problems began. This would obviously include the large banks, and insurance companies like AIG. Pools of money are collected in case something unforeseen happens. Some of this money pays for space shuttles and the like in the name of taxes, but this money is more like insurance with the passing of TARP and the stimulus bill . It is deemed necessary in case of the need for more bailouts. In other words, it's like auto insurance that is involuntary.
The stimulus bill money will be used to create jobs, but few have even taken the time to read all of the rules. A blueprint for saving the game was only read by a few before it was signed by Obama. The rules of the game seem to be changing on a weekly basis. The weekends bring more change while the population tries to relax. One company is allowed to fail and another is bailed out-even when they have subsidiaries in Venezuela or partially owned by hedge funds. We are kept in the dark about the possibility of nationalizing the banks yet trading in the stocks is still allowed.
In Socialism pools of money could be grouped together to take care of basic needs rather than act as bail out funds for large corporations. There is lots of whining about socialism from those who call themselves conservatives. Their standard claim is that socialism doesn't work-that it has never worked and any massive change to save the current system is mislabeled as a move towards socialism. Here, subsidies for a new sports stadium are no different than welfare for food stamps, but there are still those who ignore the corporate welfare part of the equation. They complain about those who should do more to provide for themselves, but they willingly put out their hands to receive government help to finance a new stadium or they have local taxes pay for pet projects like space tourism. This is not to mention the massive subsidies in the agriculture business.
They often fail to mention that throughout history socialism has often been coupled with dictators. Even National Socialism wasn't really socialism depending on how you define it of course. It was more like capitalism towards a focused war goal of a dictator. Socialism would work from the bottom up beginning with an agreement on basic needs through voting. Those who want more than their basic needs could easily work more for what they want. Nobody would stop them. It is clear that capitalism isn't working in it's present form either. It's in a state of intensive care. Nobody seems to be winning.
Many individuals feel contradictory feelings or ambivalence about participating in this capitalist game because they don't believe in it or realize deep down that the game is rigged. Capitalism works from the top down in it's present form. This is a transition phase of economic history. The current rigging of the game isn't a move towards socialism, but emergency measures to save capitalism. Many realize that a system dominated by "cheating" capitalism will probably be here to stay in their life time, but they are forced to play the game, especially those who must put food on the table for their kids.
However, any move towards changing the game being played (a game that is supposed to be based on competition) is a threat to those who legitimately won in the past. Why should these hard workers be willing to give up their winnings in order to redistribute wealth? So they attack the life supporting measures of saving capitalism and call it a move towards socialism when in fact it is really like insurance payoffs to keep those winning who might otherwise lose.