Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Language of Looting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: The Language of Looting

    Originally posted by mr_fibuli View Post
    I do live in the wrong country - the BEEB won't let foreigners access these links - I do however have a region free dvd player

    I have The Young Ones, Quatermass, Fawlty Towers, Boys from the Blackstuff, Blackadder, etc etc. so I would agree about British TV though I'm not up to date on what is going on now. I was in England in the summer but didn't watch much TV. There does seem to be an increase in the amount of American rubbish you can get in the shops - compared to 20 years ago if my recollection is correct.
    Try this link instead, the program is called The Victorians by Jeremy Paxman. Paxman is the heavyweight presenter of Newsnight. This series is a magnificent example of the very best of BBC.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hvg67

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: The Language of Looting

      Originally posted by Chris Coles View Post
      Try this link instead, the program is called The Victorians by Jeremy Paxman. Paxman is the heavyweight presenter of Newsnight. This series is a magnificent example of the very best of BBC.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hvg67
      It looks like a great programme but the link will not work - I'll either have to buy it from amazon.co.uk if it eventually gets released or get a torrent download.

      I'll see if I can get it somehow. Thanks for the tip.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: The Language of Looting

        Originally posted by rchdenton View Post
        Yes, I can't help thinking Michael Hudson shoots himself in the foot to a large extent. He knows so much and is so passionate that his delivery is quite difficult to comprehend. I am left very impressed but unable to agree with his conclusions - in fact I'm not always sure I know what they are.
        I am a little late to this thread but I want to recommend a very similar essay written by Phil Agre in 2004 called What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

        Originally posted by Phil Agre
        From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.
        Agre's "conservatives" are roughly the same bad guys as Hudson's "neoliberals" and our own Chris Coles' "feudalists". The essential theme is the same. The bad guys are rentiers. They defend their privileged position by preventing the rest of us from thinking clearly about justice and equality.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: The Language of Looting

          'Ere ye go Mr. Fibs. A color corrected avatar for yez. From one of yer mangy socially dysfunctional cousins "south of the border", like.

          MR. FIBS COLOR-CORRECTED AVATAR.jpg.jpg

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: The Language of Looting

            Originally posted by quigleydoor View Post
            I am a little late to this thread but I want to recommend a very similar essay written by Phil Agre in 2004 called What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

            Agre's "conservatives" are roughly the same bad guys as Hudson's "neoliberals" and our own Chris Coles' "feudalists". The essential theme is the same. The bad guys are rentiers. They defend their privileged position by preventing the rest of us from thinking clearly about justice and equality.

            Agre's viewpoint is wide ranging but misses two aspects that are more important;
            1. There are just as many "conservatives" that have been taken in by the, what I will describe as "extreme" conservatism, as there are as he describes them, Liberals.
            He is trying to finish with an argument that says "we" should all be "democrats". I disagree because we should not be speaking to any particular group within society. Why not? Because in my humble opinion, most individuals, when presented with a well thought out debate will come down on the side of real freedom. That it is a tiny minority that have a desperate desire to dominate the rest (as he puts it) as Aristocrats.

            A well placed debate will appeal to a much broader audience than simply one side group. The debate should placed in front of everyone.
            2. he has placed the wrong hymn sheet in front of us. We should all be looking forward, not backwards.
            He sounds as though, having travelled across a vast desert and made a great thing of defining all the dreadful things we have had to endure, we must now continue forward reading from the same script.

            I liken our situation as though, having travelled across the desert, we are faced with a simple wooden post and rail fence with a gate in it. Beyond the gate is a wonderful lush green, vibrant, valley full of opportunity. All we have to do is open the gate and step through. Once on the other side, we do not need, indeed, have no wish, to continue to try and work as though we are still in the desert.

            If we were, in reality in such a position, we would throw away the book about desert living and concentrate upon what we need to do to build anew. In that case, no one thinks in the negative, but instead always positively; how to build this or that. How to gain access to the water we need, not why it is not there.

            If we open that gate and step through with an intention to make the very best of the new road ahead, for everyone; it is my opinion that most so called "conservatives" will follow and be indistinguishable from anyone else.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: The Language of Looting

              Exactly what does “a free market” mean? Is it what the classical economists advocated – a market free from monopoly power, business fraud, political insider dealing and special privileges for vested interests – a market protected by the rise in public regulation from the Sherman Anti-Trust law of 1890 to the Glass-Steagall Act and other New Deal legislation? Or is it a market free for predators to exploit victims without public regulation or economic policemen – the kind of free-for-all market that the Federal Reserve and Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) have created over the past decade or so? It seems incredible that people should accept today’s neoliberal idea of “market freedom” in the sense of neutering government watchdogs, Alan Greenspan-style, letting Angelo Mozilo at Countrywide, Hank Greenberg at AIG, Bernie Madoff, Citibank, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers loot without hindrance or sanction, plunge the economy into crisis and then use Treasury bailout money to pay the highest salaries and bonuses in U.S. history.


              How about "none of the above" are even remotely close to a free market? The closest the U.S. was to a free market economy was the bulk of the 19th century when no central bank existed. For example, I agree that the Glass-Steagall Act is needed but only to deal with moral hazards created by other government regulations like FDIC insurance and fractional reserve banking.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: The Language of Looting

                Originally posted by rchdenton View Post
                Yes, Galbraith mentions something about the CIA causing endless grief for him when he was US ambassador to India. The Bay of Pigs, Iraq... more disinformation than intelligence. But seriously the US is a lot more violent than Europe or Canada or downunder (I'd have to look up the figures but 10 to 20 times higher murder rate from memory). I think it must be genetic - it is the stuff of the Norman/Viking aristocracy and the Hundred Years War. That would strangely fit with Michael Hudson's analysis.
                The US is not more violent that Europe. We just spread out murder out more evenly. Europeans prefer a good world war every now and then to do their killing and get it over with.

                Comment

                Working...
                X