What Happened to Capitalism? (via “The rude guy”)

A neighbor of mine asked me what to tell his right wing friends who say socialists just want free handouts from the government.

I said: tell them the Big Banks just got over $7 trillion in handouts from the government and the Federal Reserve. At the current rate that equals about 100 years of handouts to the poor. Right now we have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. When the poor make a mistake they suffer. When the rich make a mistake they get a government bailout.



11 Responses to “What Happened to Capitalism? (via “The rude guy”)”

  1. The Translator Says:

    (I’m not angry here; read this as if you were reading Kafka’s whatever)
    This is so way obvious that I’m starting to feel embarrassed about citizens’ in general behavior. Are we doing the clowns here or what? Then I come down and think, okay babe, their attitude is so that outrageous, that it can’t be taken seriously. Of course not. Remove them from your mind; cold turkey. Something “else” is going on here, and it’s pretty much more sinister than a global economy kidnapping. What’s kidnapped here isn’t our economy but the power of human will.

    Honestly, please… at this point I’m not worried about any economic disaster but a major hack in our thinking ability. How? It’s too long to explain: what about terror? what about cultural indigence? (and that includes the broken chains between grandmothers that use to know all the necessary stuff to succeed in a crisis situation, and granddaughters that not, for example). Terror? Yes, but terror about what? Being killed? Isn’t that the oldest terror ever? Something looks different right now.

    Listen: we have a common sense, don’t we? Common sense is way basic, like a short algorithm, and we all (because of the macroculture) have one, and, in each case, is built of pretty much the same bunch of commands. Am I wrong here? If not, tell me. Again, if not, what’s goin’ on here is that something inside ourselves is going terribly wrong. I mean the mental / psychological / emotional (call it as you want) level has a critical bug. It can’t (can’t) be, that common sense’s algorithm, fed with the same chilly food, in most of the cases throws nothing at all, and that (take a look around), here we are, just a couple of souls that I can count with the fingers of just one hand.

    ps: culture is meant to prevent this kind of situations, but the chains with the past are broken. Everybody knows what “1984” is: the background of a prime time television show.

    • I read in recent days, that every decision, every action in our world has an economic reason. And that if something appears not to be driven by economy, it’s just that it’s true purpose is concealed and hasn’t been unveiled yet.

      What’s so devastating here?
      Probably, that all our context in terms of culture, social concerns, education, health, values, terror, that is substantial for us, are just mere instruments for getting profits for those who rule.
      Even the loss of lives is, since the very beginning of mankind, sustained by economy.

      Which doesn’t mean I agree with that perspective, but I cannot either deny it as a reality. Our reality.
      You can always, of course, counteract this dreadful landscape with your vision, your creativity and your willingfullness, but you must do this under the awareness of the tough truth.

      How do you set your mind in a concentration camp?
      Can you point your finger at someone that’s scared to shit, because s/he knows that if stepping wrong, s/he’ll be doomed to die? Can you blame anyone for wanting to survive?
      I’d say we are all not logged in Suecbook, but under some kind of Stockholm syndrome.

      And why have we been kidnapped, for what reason?

      For money. Simple as that.

  2. The Translator Says:

    One more thing. The rude guy’s article is pretty nice. Fully understandable, but post it on fb and it’s not just that no one will read it, it’s the fact that they don’t even bother themselves with the try, because in most of the cases they won’t understand a single thing. Period.

    • Understood.
      But I feel I’m responsible (as someone suggested me not so long ago) for sharing my findings and my concerns, if, from my point of view, they involve more people than me.
      Whether they will understand or not, it escapes my scope of action.

  3. The Translator Says:

    One more: I can’t start strip teasing myself here, because I have an agenda. And my agenda isn’t to be the curious guy that can’t handle anymore our euphemistic lifestyle, so it’s puking truth 24×7, but I can tell you one thing: as far as I can see, open disagreement is a take or leave situation. If one takes it, it takes it 100% (I don’t know exactly what this 100% means); on the other hand, one, of course, can decline the invitation of fate, and that’s okay too. The real problem here, as I see it (and this is fully debatable) is the paradox of the “well intended”. Because we all have good intentions, even some of the righties’ friends of the musician that is a friend of the rude guy have good intentions. Good intentions has the one that sends money to a random child in India and doesn’t even bother himself with checking out from time to time how is he or she. Good intentions has a zen master that thinks about all this stuff as what meant to be, nor good nor bad. But in the case of the guys that are clearly “against” of what’s goin on because they think about this as an unfair situation that needs to change, good intentions may end up being confused with the act itself, and turn to be no more than a balsam for the guilt. That’s the worst of the positions ever. Is acting against the system but in the bad sense. And I’m not talking about ethics at all; it’s about productivity. Any position produces more than ending the conversation with “will see”. If you take a tiny look around, I guess you’ll realize that most of the debates between well intended occupy stuff cyber changers end this way.

    • Too much food for thought…
      Will come back later….

    • I never talk about intentions, I take that we all have more or less the same. If you have an agenda (hope it’s not a concealed one), that’s fine.
      I agree that this is all about effectiveness and not about ethics. It’s about a course of ACTION, more than debating.
      But before acting, you must have at least one or two things pretty clear:

      – Which are your aims?
      – What is the hard data you have?
      – What are your possibilities to change anything according to your aims?

      If your belief (or knowledge) is that we are all equally accountable (citizens, governments, corporations, churches, armed forces, NGOs) then you’d surely come up with an idea that the change must start from within. You’ll be ok if you, in a reasonable time, achieve most of your objectives.

      But if your scan of reality shows you that although you fight as a samurai, there are bigger plans and strategies that don’t take you into account, and what’s worse, they make you believe it’s you who decide, then you are being had.

      You could still try to be happy, but at least you won’t be an asshole anymore.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: