NationStates Jolt Archive

Another Grauniad article (http://society.guardian.co.uk/environment/story/0,14124,1516493,00.html)

Directing destiny

Giving more power to the G8 nations will not eradicate poverty, say Adam Jones and Lisa Michael. Distinct, autonomous grassroots alternatives to capitalism will.

Wednesday June 29, 2005
The Guardian

Imagine a country paralysed by protest, with hundreds of thousands of people blockading the highways and barricades springing up everywhere. The orders of the police, the appeals of the government and the condemnations of the media are being ignored. More people are joining the popular uprising. The cause for dissent? The policies of the G8 industrialised nations.

This is not a vision of the anti-G8 protests soon to take place in Scotland. This is happening in Bolivia right now.

Bolivia has qualified for Gordon Brown's latest debt relief package, due to be ratified at next week's G8 summit. It also qualified for the previous one, the Highly Indebted Poor Countries initiative. The remit for qualification on both occasions was not only extreme poverty and indebtedness but also "good governance". A notion that, of course, for the G8, involves the privatisation of state assets, including water, gas and oil.

In fact, it was only in return for further control over Bolivia's economy that a portion of its debt was cancelled. This is but one example of why debt relief, in many parts of the world, has become synonymous with an intensification of the neo-liberal onslaught. As businesses have profited to the detriment of the poor, resistance has become a matter of survival.

We live in confusing times: millionaire pop stars shake hands with politicians and tell us that what the poor need is for more power to be given to the G8, that this will make poverty history. Yet, around the world, those excluded from power are increasingly reaching the conclusion that the lives of ordinary people, wherever they are, are unlikely to be improved by the policies of the G8. And, moreover, that the task of building alternatives to the current inhumane and ecocidal social order lies squarely with us.

In other words, while the Bolivian popular uprising may seem worlds away from the protests being planned in Scotland, there are several very real and important parallels that connect these seemingly different realities. The issues at stake, such as human dignity, poverty, access to land and control of resources; and the primacy of active resistance, whether blockading the roads of Bolivia or the roads leading to Gleneagles, are clear illustrations of this. However, and perhaps more importantly, the organisational forms being adopted by radical movements across the world are also displaying increasingly common features.

Ever since Mexico's Zapatista rebels declared "Enough is enough!" in 1994 when protesting against the extreme poverty the Chiapas indigenous peoples were experiencing, a rich tapestry of struggle has been woven by social movements around the world. Weaving between the world's north and south they reveal an increasingly global movement which is resisting capitalism while simultaneously creating living alternatives.

Some of the most important threads that run throughout this "movement of movements", and which connect the Bolivian uprising and the groups organising around the G8 summit, are those of decentralisation, autonomy and horizontality. These are movements in which power is dispersed in diffuse networks, where difference is celebrated rather than sublimated, and where there are no official leaders or spokespeople.

"Take me to your leader!" is not only the first demand of aliens to earthlings in science fiction movies; it is one echoed by police to protesters, journalists to revolutionaries. But it is a demand, when directed towards the participants in the global network of grassroots anti-capitalist movements, that can never be met. Ask the workers of Zanon, one of many self-managed factories in Argentina; the squatters of European Social Centres; the Zapatistas; or the participants in the US Direct Action Network, which shut down the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle.

All will tell you that the means towards radical social change are inseparable from the ends. All will be able to show you their own, distinct, experiments with alternative modes of social organisation. While none can offer a perfect blueprint for a future society, they each demonstrate that other worlds are possible.

Several hundred people, as part of the Dissent Network, have spent almost two years organising resistance to the approaching G8 summit, while attempting to demonstrate exactly such alternatives. Meetings have typically been open, participatory (and slightly chaotic) assemblies. People have sat in circles, allowing everyone present an equal voice, as opposed to sitting facing a panel of specialist speakers. Decisions have been made through a process of consensus, taking the opinions of everyone on board, rather than deferring to a central committee.

Perhaps most ambitious, however, are the "convergence" spaces that have been opened by Dissent for those wanting to get involved with resistance to the summit. Based in locations across Scotland, their aim is to provide spaces in which everyone can get involved in shaping what takes place, and the alternatives to be demonstrated.

One of these spaces, the Hori-Zone, "a zone of self-organisation, horizontal decision making, ecology and autonomy in action", lies less than 15 miles from the luxury Gleneagles Hotel. It is a huge, temporary, self-managed space on the outskirts of Stirling. Based on the principle of ecological sustainability and employing, where possible, fossil fuel-free power sources and ecological toilets and water systems, it is preparing to welcome thousands of protesters from around the world.

The space will be self-run as a complex experiment in direct democratic processes. With more than a slight nod of acknowledgement towards Argentina's popular uprising in 2001, which inspired many involved with Dissent, the Hori-Zone will be divided into barrios, or neighbourhoods, each of which will be responsible not only for the day-to-day running of their area of the camp (cooking, disposing of waste and so on) but also for deciding upon, and planning, the means by which they hope to resist the summit.

The G8 meetings are about the consolidation of power. This year is no exception. The policies are the same, only the spin is new. However, whether this year's summit will be remembered for grandstanding yet more duplicitous agreements, or as the moment in which the world that the G8 represents is rejected, is up to us. If we are to choose the latter, it is paramount that we begin to develop and demonstrate living alternatives to capitalism in the here and now. The Hori-Zone may turn out to be exactly such an example. We hope to see you there.

• Lisa Michael is a member of the Laboratory of Insurrectionary Imagination and Adam Jones is a member of Brighton Dissent; both are involved with the Dissent Network, promoting resistance to the G8 summit. Details at Dissent (http://www.dissent.org.uk/)

*yawns*

Y'know. We might take shit like this more seriously if the writers knew the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism. They prove themselves to be ignorant at best. Two reasons:

1) They DON'T know the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism, so you can never really take anything seriously that comes out of their willfully ignorant mouths.

2) They DO know the difference and they use Capitalism in the place of Corporatism (which is what they're really talking about) as a propaganda tool...which also makes me dismiss their ramblings.

*walks to the store to buy smokes*

Actually, the first answer is to quit giving them money. It's like giving kids crack and then being suprised when they need more.

*yawns*

Y'know. We might take shit like this more seriously if the writers knew the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism.

oh boo hoo, the writers don't use your propagandistic ahistorical nonsense definition. so what?

errr...... isn't poverty CAUSED by capitalism? (or corporatism?) (don't fuss the average man like me about that Texpunditistan) (I'm sure if they were entirely different things people would not confuse them)

Capitalism and corporatism. Both are problematic; both produce incredible wealth and incredible deprivation.

errr...... isn't poverty CAUSED by capitalism? (or corporatism?) (don't fuss the average man like me about that Texpunditistan) (I'm sure if they were entirely different things people would not confuse them)

No, in capitalism it would be the person's failiure to develop marketable skills and compete that are responsible for poverty. (Naturally, this is a theoretical explanation and not a real-world explanation, since obivously not all poverty comes from simple failiure on behalf of the person). This is generally true in the US, but not so in many 3rd World nations that are unfairly exploited/oppressed and dominated economically.

Capitalism and corporatism. Both are problematic; both produce incredible wealth and incredible deprivation.

Yes, but they are the only systems that work at present.

errr...... isn't poverty CAUSED by capitalism? (or corporatism?) (don't fuss the average man like me about that Texpunditistan) (I'm sure if they were entirely different things people would not confuse them)

Har! No, poverty is caused by the condition of humans using agriculture and living in cities and such. In other words, a facet of civilization.

errr...... isn't poverty CAUSED by capitalism? (or corporatism?) (don't fuss the average man like me about that Texpunditistan) (I'm sure if they were entirely different things people would not confuse them)
No, poverty is essentially caused by inefficient use of labor when you get right down to it. Also, it depends on whether you are describing poverty as a relative situation or as a static situation. In the former, then you could say that capitalism causes poverty but only because the people on top have so much more wealth than those on the bottom, not because most of those on the bottom are actually impoverished. If the latter then capitalism actually lessens poverty as most people gain purchasing power although the amount they have will always be exponentially less than those at the top. Corporatism is quite different from capitalism. This is because it involves the government. Anything involving the government is by definition less efficient and more resource consuming than any action performed by a free market. Thusly, government programs tend to cause poverty when they exercise authority over an area. Look at the effects of rent control for a major example of this.

Christ, Ravenshrike, you really know how to tread out tiresome dogma.

government is by definition less efficient and more resource consuming than any action performed by a free market
Er, no. Not "by definition".

capitalism actually lessens poverty as most people gain purchasing power although the amount they have will always be exponentially less than those at the top
Highly contentious.

capitalism actually lessens poverty as most people gain purchasing power although the amount they have will always be exponentially less than those at the top

Highly contentious.

Actually, what leads to increases in purchasing power are controlled inflation and increasing productivity. Capitalism makes it easier to rein in inflation because companies have to keep prices low enough to keep consumer demand strong. The money flow is much more liquid in a capitalist system, so inflation is again easier to rein in. The faster rate of technological innovation in a capitalist system increases productivity, and these factors combine to raise purchasing power.

Thus, capitalism itself does not reduce poverty, but it puts systems in to place that do.

Anything involving the government is by definition less efficient and more resource consuming than any action performed by a free market.

by definition, eh? who needs empirical evidence? we've got ideology!

by definition, eh? who needs empirical evidence? we've got ideology!

It's bad to use "definition" to argue a point but there is empirical evidence for the inefficency of government when it becomes involved in economic matters.

How do the writers propose African nations get out of poverty? Are we just going to keep giving aid to every nation for ever more?

Capitalism is the only system which stimulates growth in the economy and raises living standards. Only by Africa getting a greater share of the world trade and markets will its people be lifted out of property. In many African countries it takes a year's wages to register a company- in many rich countries it is free. African governments must encourage entrepreneurial attitudes in their people and create a culture of wealth creation, not wealth handouts.

Of course there are problems with some of the conditions tied into some aid packages and African leaders have been corrupt and accepted bribes from large corporations but that is no reason to attack capitalism and deny Africa the opportunity to improve its situation.

The G8 has to agree to axe trade barriers and farm subsidies, and then it is down to Africans and charities.

by definition, eh? who needs empirical evidence? we've got ideology!
Definition follows the empirical evidence. Again, look at things like rent control(disasterous government action), private school budgets, budgets of merc. groups vs. the budget of a comparable army unit, etc... In all cases, where the free market contends with the government without restrictions placed on it by said government, it can do it cheaper and with better quality.

I hate articles like this. It took me half the article to get a sense as to what this author is trying to say. If citizen roadblocks are a good thing, perhaps the author might like explain why.

Poverty is a relative thing and collectivist, cooperative societies will always be relatively impoverished compared with individualist, competitive societies. But if you value your neighboor's well-being above your own, knock yourself out. Just don't help him by doing something against his will "for his own good."

Being an enemy of the G8 does not make one an enemy of capitalism, nor does being a fan of the G8 make one a fan of capitalism.

Actually, what leads to increases in purchasing power are controlled inflation and increasing productivity. Capitalism makes it easier to rein in inflation because companies have to keep prices low enough to keep consumer demand strong. The money flow is much more liquid in a capitalist system, so inflation is again easier to rein in. The faster rate of technological innovation in a capitalist system increases productivity, and these factors combine to raise purchasing power.

Thus, capitalism itself does not reduce poverty, but it puts systems in to place that do.What do you think capitalism has to do with inflation? Price inflation is caused by one thing: monetary inflation. Monetary inflation is when new money is printed, which is almost always what is done by governments. Without direct government control of the banking system, private banks would be prevented from significantly inflating money, either by law or by consumer demand. In fact, increases in productivity would lead to price deflation, as it once did in the United States.

No, in capitalism it would be the person's failiure to develop marketable skills and compete that are responsible for poverty. (Naturally, this is a theoretical explanation and not a real-world explanation, since obivously not all poverty comes from simple failiure on behalf of the person). This is generally true in the US, but not so in many 3rd World nations that are unfairly exploited/oppressed and dominated economically.

What do you consider to be marketable skills and how do these skills ensure a person will not be underpaid for the work they do?

You are all wrong! But keep posting your eroneous assumptions on Economics. Maybe someone will eventually guess right.

You are all wrong! But keep posting your eroneous assumptions on Economics. Maybe someone will eventually guess right.

Poverty is a relative thing and collectivist, cooperative societies will always be relatively impoverished compared with individualist, competitive societies.

Bullhockey. They will be relatively impoverished compared to those competitors who do good by exploiting their fellow human beings in an individualist competitive society. They will be very wealthy compared to the many poor who are marginalized and mistreated by the aforementioned competitors in a capitalist(AKA competitive and individualist) society.

How do the writers propose African nations get out of poverty? Are we just going to keep giving aid to every nation for ever more?

Capitalism is the only system which stimulates growth in the economy and raises living standards. Only by Africa getting a greater share of the world trade and markets will its people be lifted out of property. In many African countries it takes a year's wages to register a company- in many rich countries it is free. African governments must encourage entrepreneurial attitudes in their people and create a culture of wealth creation, not wealth handouts.

Of course there are problems with some of the conditions tied into some aid packages and African leaders have been corrupt and accepted bribes from large corporations but that is no reason to attack capitalism and deny Africa the opportunity to improve its situation.

The G8 has to agree to axe trade barriers and farm subsidies, and then it is down to Africans and charities.

I'm assuming that the word I've emboldened was supposed to read 'poverty'. It is a sad fact that - through typographical error - you've managed to make your statement significantly more accurate.

Y'know. We might take shit like this more seriously if the writers knew the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism.
While it is true that there is a difference between capitalism and corporatism, it is also true that capitalism inevitably leads to corporatism. Unless, of course, you can prove that that won't happen.

Actually what leads to increases in purchasing power are controlled inflationActually, deflation is a much worse problem than a comparative amount of inflation. (2% deflation compared to 2% inflation).

Giving more power to the G8 nations will not eradicate poverty, say Adam Jones and Lisa Michael. Distinct, autonomous grassroots alternatives to capitalism will.

I guess that's why Wal-Mart has been able to effectively destroy every small town business in America. It's not that anyone "gave" power to Wal-Mart - it's the economy of scale that they have. Give the local people cheaper products, and they aren't going to bother with shopping at the local "grassroots" store.

I'm not saying that Wal-Mart is going to eradicate poverty - but neither is the grassroots effort.

The problem with the Walmart analogy, though, is that, not only did it "destroy" the "mom and pop" stores, it also destroyed the wages of the people working in those areas.

You could argue that Walmart screwed up people's lives by allowing them the complacency of a minimum wage job. There is no reason to go off to college and "better" yourself (because there are no "good" jobs where you are) when you can get a job at Walmart in high school and think how good you got it; ten years later you're still there with a 10 cent an hour raise.

Higher employment rates?
Lower average wages.

I am now going to include a smiley, because it looks nifty, and not because I understand what it is supposed to represent.
:gundge:

Well to stop starvation let it starve out, none give a damn anymore and no nation or corporation will step up to make a truely great change, sucks but hey, live in sand eat sand.

Another Grauniad article (http://society.guardian.co.uk/environment/story/0,14124,1516493,00.html)

Directing destiny

Giving more power to the G8 nations will not eradicate poverty, say Adam Jones and Lisa Michael. Distinct, autonomous grassroots alternatives to capitalism will.

Wednesday June 29, 2005
The Guardian

Imagine a country paralyzed by protest, with hundreds of thousands of people blockading the highways and barricades springing up everywhere. The orders of the police, the appeals of the government and the condemnations of the media are being ignored. More people are joining the popular uprising. The cause for dissent? The policies of the G8 industrialized nations.

This is not a vision of the anti-G8 protests soon to take place in Scotland. This is happening in Bolivia right now.
Yes the people of Bolivia has successfully bitch-slapped the politicians.

but...Its not G8 related...

Bolivian has a political Apartheid...just like Sud-Africa used to have.
A White minority ruled for the past 100 years...they rule a majority of Andean people...

most Andeans barely speak Spanish...and most do not read or write it...so they can be easily cheated at the election...the full electoral prosses is held in spanish...debates, brochures,poll stations, balots, the whole enchilada.

all that has changed with the emergence of Evo Morales...a clear favorite with most if not all Andeans...

now Bolivians are very suspicions of the way the white minority has won last elections...The they took it to the streets...and the people prevailed.(for a change)

The gas dealings and the coca pesticides were just the sparks on the Bolivian Apartheid powder keg.

Even if Evo Morales is a lefty...It is wrong for the Anti-G8 crowd to appropriate the victory of the poor Bolivian people...victory earned with blood.

Yes the people of Bolivia has successfully bitch-slapped the politicians.

but...Its not G8 related...

Bolivian has a political Apartheid...just like Sud-Africa used to have.
A White minority ruled for the past 100 years...they rule a majority of Andean people...

most Andeans barely speak Spanish...and most do not read or write it...so they can be easily cheated at the election...the full electoral prosses is held in spanish...debates, brochures,poll stations, balots, the whole enchilada.

all that has changed with the emergence of Evo Morales...a clear favorite with most if not all Andeans...

now Bolivians are very suspicions of the way the white minority has won last elections...The they took it to the streets...and the people prevailed.(for a change)

The gas dealings and the coca pesticides were just the sparks on the Bolivian Apartheid powder keg.

Even if Evo Morales is a lefty...It is wrong for the Anti-G8 crowd to appropriate the victory of the poor Bolivian people...victory earned with blood.
I must somewhat retract this post (untill I look into it)
I just received an Email...with a link in spanish...the clip shows EvoMorales denouncing the FMI (Fondo Monetario internacional) policy for Bolivia.

so in a way he is also denoucing some G8 policies towards Bolivia.

OceanDrive2 - I don't think the anti-G8 protestors are for a moment claiming responsibility for Bolivian activism; rather, they are in solidarity with them.

While it is true that there is a difference between capitalism and corporatism, it is also true that capitalism inevitably leads to corporatism. Unless, of course, you can prove that that won't happen.

Capitalism has continually led to corporatism because of government interference in the market. If the government would stick to what it's supposed to, which is essentially enforcing contract law and little else, corporatism would not arise. So far however, corporations have offered money to politicians and politicians have taken the bait. They can't leave well enough alone.

errr...... isn't poverty CAUSED by capitalism? (or corporatism?) (don't fuss the average man like me about that Texpunditistan) (I'm sure if they were entirely different things people would not confuse them)

no.

poverty is caused by one or more of the following:

a)Bad luck (getting run over by a car, for instance)
b)Laziness
c)Bad genes (for instance, being a complete moron)
d)Crime (IE, if you're a criminal, you will probably end up being poor)
e)Poor financial decisions (EG, buying lottery tickets instead of investing)

IF anything, Capitalism gives people a chance at earning a good living with all the jobs it creates (capitalism being the system that rewards entrepreneurialism, and entrepreneurialism invariably leads to job growth).

It's up to individuals to F up the chance that capitalism provides, using the above listed means.

There are more, but i'm sick of thinking.

hehe

There are more, but i'm sick of thinking.

hehe
Really? I wasn't aware you had been.

hehe

oh boo hoo, the writers don't use your propagandistic ahistorical nonsense definition. so what?
hmmmm.... kind of like that pesky ahistorical definition of "communism"? ;)

Actually, deflation is a much worse problem than a comparative amount of inflation. (2% deflation compared to 2% inflation).How? What problems are caused by current price deflation in computers and electronics?

How? What problems are caused by current price deflation in computers and electronics?
Deflation in one or two areas is not problematic, but neither is inflation in one or two areas. I was referring more to deflation across the board, especially with regards to currency.

Capitalism has continually led to corporatism because of government interference in the market. If the government would stick to what it's supposed to, which is essentially enforcing contract law and little else, corporatism would not arise. So far however, corporations have offered money to politicians and politicians have taken the bait. They can't leave well enough alone.But that's the point. Can you conceive of a country in which corporations will not offer money to politicians, and if so, what will prevent them from doing so?

How? What problems are caused by current price deflation in computers and electronics?

Deflation lowers prices, which lowers profits. In turn, companies have to lay off workers, which results in less consumer spending, which results in lower profits and more deflation. Eventually, the whole cycle ends in a serious depression.

Even if it was in only one industry, deflation soon spreads to the industries related to them and outward throughout the economy.

What do you think capitalism has to do with inflation? Price inflation is caused by one thing: monetary inflation. Monetary inflation is when new money is printed, which is almost always what is done by governments. Without direct government control of the banking system, private banks would be prevented from significantly inflating money, either by law or by consumer demand. In fact, increases in productivity would lead to price deflation, as it once did in the United States.

Price inflation comes from companies raising prices, usually due to increased labor costs or material/transportation costs. This is why oil is such a threat despite an increasingly tight money supply. This is why data like the Consumer Price Index is so important. Inflation occurs whenever prices go up, regardless of the amount of money available. However, unlike in a state controlled economy, a capitalist economy can control inflation better because competition makes it harder for companies to pass costs on to consumers through price increases.

I'm going to G8; to be at the street barricades, I don't give a damn for all of you armchair intellectuals and how the virtues of capitalism are great; all talk and no walk.

For all the rest against Capitalism; I strongly suggest you get off your ass and do something!

Ya Basta!

See you there.

*yawns*

Y'know. We might take shit like this more seriously if the writers knew the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism. They prove themselves to be ignorant at best. Two reasons:

1) They DON'T know the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism, so you can never really take anything seriously that comes out of their willfully ignorant mouths.

2) They DO know the difference and they use Capitalism in the place of Corporatism (which is what they're really talking about) as a propaganda tool...which also makes me dismiss their ramblings.

*walks to the store to buy smokes*



I think the issue is that they are opposed to private property as a whole (and no, not personal property) and both corporatism and capitalism require private property.

Actually, what leads to increases in purchasing power are controlled inflation and increasing productivity. Capitalism makes it easier to rein in inflation because companies have to keep prices low enough to keep consumer demand strong. The money flow is much more liquid in a capitalist system, so inflation is again easier to rein in. The faster rate of technological innovation in a capitalist system increases productivity, and these factors combine to raise purchasing power.

Thus, capitalism itself does not reduce poverty, but it puts systems in to place that do.



Not true either. Companies, especially lately, work together to set profit groupings, that is to say they increase prices along with their competitors, causing consumers to need to purchase more expensive goods. No longer do companies seek to destroy their competitors, they search for profit. The way they do that is by manufacturing lower-quality goods and/or raising the prices. Goods have a definite expiration date, by which the consumer (if he likes the product) will return for a newer model.

The dot-com boom was another example of how capitalism doesn't reign in inflation, what it often does is create artificial value based on demand. The hype surrounding dot-com companies raised their stock value beyond what the companies could actually produce, our economy looked as though it was booming, and when people realized that driving to the store is still easier than buying stuff online, the economy collapsed (and no, I don't blame it on Bush, but he's still a prick)

It seems everyone is assuming a government exactly like ours. That is just not the case, and capitalism is ruining some countries. Many countries have a market dominated minority, while everyone else is living in poverty. There's your capitalism. A dynamic, charismatic, yet evil man gets the people in poverty to rise up. Take by force the assets of the minority with the money, and kill them. This has happened in so many countries, it's unbelievable.

The majority of other countries should be left alone to work out their own way of living. Forcing our type of Capitalism on a country NOTHING like ours is just asking for trouble. Let them come up with their own way of living. That's what the U.S. did.

Not true either. Companies, especially lately, work together to set profit groupings, that is to say they increase prices along with their competitors, causing consumers to need to purchase more expensive goods. No longer do companies seek to destroy their competitors, they search for profit. The way they do that is by manufacturing lower-quality goods and/or raising the prices. Goods have a definite expiration date, by which the consumer (if he likes the product) will return for a newer model.

The dot-com boom was another example of how capitalism doesn't reign in inflation, what it often does is create artificial value based on demand. The hype surrounding dot-com companies raised their stock value beyond what the companies could actually produce, our economy looked as though it was booming, and when people realized that driving to the store is still easier than buying stuff online, the economy collapsed (and no, I don't blame it on Bush, but he's still a prick)

The first case is not capitalism because it is an intentional effort to manipulate the market as opposed to actual competition. This seems more like corpratism in the sense that large companies abuse the consumer by dominating the market without external compeition. This is why globalization is important as it brings in external competition as opposed to a closed domestic market.

Speculative bubbles occur whenever new, world altering technology debuts. The economy in general grew during this period, but an increasingly larger amount was based upon the rise in stock prices (the wealth effect) and so when these dreams collapsed, the rest of the economy fell with it.

Interestingly enough, the economy did not begin to really slow down until late 2000 when energy prices rose and consumer spending was crimped. The Federal Reserve made the biggest mistake since the 1920's when it overshot the funds rate, overtightening and making it very difficult to avert the repercussions from the dot com collapse. If they had only raised the rate by 1/4 and began cutting it as the economy slowed in late 2000, or did not raise it and kept it at 6%, the recession may have been softened considerably, and 9/11's effects not as dire.

But that's the point. Can you conceive of a country in which corporations will not offer money to politicians, and if so, what will prevent them from doing so?
It's quite easy to visualize, and quite workable if people would pull their heads out of their asses at least one day a week.

I'm going to G8; to be at the street barricades, I don't give a damn for all of you armchair intellectuals and how the virtues of capitalism are great; all talk and no walk.

We don't need to do much walking, Capitalism is plainly on top. Where's the sense in doing any more than occasionally debating a system which is continuing to prove itself after decades and centuries of predecessors?

Have fun at your little protest. Be glad you live somewhere where you can protest the giving of billions upon billions of dollars of aid to starving people. Those ebil politicians.

But that's the point. Can you conceive of a country in which corporations will not offer money to politicians, and if so, what will prevent them from doing so?

Rather the point of reducing governmental powers is so that it doesn't matter how corrupt they are or could be, because they'll never be able to do a great deal.

Price inflation comes from companies raising prices, usually due to increased labor costs or material/transportation costs. This is why oil is such a threat despite an increasingly tight money supply. This is why data like the Consumer Price Index is so important. Inflation occurs whenever prices go up, regardless of the amount of money available. However, unlike in a state controlled economy, a capitalist economy can control inflation better because competition makes it harder for companies to pass costs on to consumers through price increases.Price inflation does not come from rising prices. It is rising prices, and it's never good. And yes, increasing production costs lead to increases in product prices, but the widespread constant price inflation that has been normal in the US for nearly a century can only occur if there's monetary inflation. Well, I suppose you could imagine some sort of armagedon scenario that would totally screw things up, but that is clearly not what's happened. I guess we're just comming from two different schools. Essentially, I agree with what you're argument if you alter your premises. It's not about controlling inflation, its about the fact that a controlled economy lacks the mechanisms to correctly determine prices.

We don't need to do much walking, Capitalism is plainly on top. Where's the sense in doing any more than occasionally debating a system which is continuing to prove itself after decades and centuries of predecessors?
Take me to your planet. It's clearly far better than this one.

Have fun at your little protest. Be glad you live somewhere where you can protest the giving of billions upon billions of dollars of aid to starving people. Those ebil politicians.
Yes, those billions upon billions of dollars with wee itsy teeny weeny conditionalities that don't render them devoid of value. Great, they are.