Capitalism To the Rescue (Again!)

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
<!--StartFragment --> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Welcome to Capitalism, North Korean Comrades[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
by Andrei Lankov
The Asia Times Online

<!--StartFragment --> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]SEOUL - A creeping revolution, both social and economic, is under way in North Korea and it seems there's no turning back. For decades, the country served as the closest possible approximation of an ideal Stalinist state. But the changes in its economy that have taken place after 1990 have transformed the country completely and, perhaps, irreversibly.

For decades, Pyongyang propaganda presented North Korea as an embodiment of economic self-sufficiency, completely independent from any other country. This image sold well, especially in the more credulous part of the Third World and among the ever-credulous leftist academics. The secret of its supposed self-sufficiency was simple: the country received large amounts of direct and indirect aid from the Soviet Union and China, but never admitted this in public. Though frequently annoyed by such "ingratitude", neither Moscow nor Beijing made much noise since both communist giants wanted to maintain, at least superficially, friendly relations with their small, capricious ally.

But collapse of the Soviet Union made clear that claims of self-sufficiency were unfounded. From 1991, the North Korean economy went into free fall. Throughout 1991-99, the gross national product (GNP) of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) nearly halved. The situation became unbearable in 1996, when the country was struck by a famine that took, by the best available estimates, about 600,000 lives. The famine could have been prevented by a Chinese-style agricultural reform, but this option was politically impossible: such a reform would undermine the government's ability to control the populace.

The control on daily lives was lost anyway. What we have seen in North Korea over the past 10 years can be best described as collapse of what used to be rigid Stalinism from below. In the Soviet Union of the late 1950s and in China of the late 1970s, Stalinism-Maoism was dismantled from above, through a chain of deliberate reforms planned and implemented by the government. In North Korea the same thing happened, but the system disintegrated from below, despite weak and ineffectual attempts to keep it intact.

In the 1960s, North Korea was unique in being <!--StartFragment --> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the only nation in the world where markets were outlawed. The retail trade in a strict sense almost ceased to exist since virtually everything, from socks to apples, was distributed through an elaborate public distribution system with money payments being rather symbolic. The rations depended on a person's position in the intricate social hierarchy, which eventually became semi-hereditary. In Kim Il-sung's North Korea, there was almost nothing that could be sold on market since production outside the state economy was almost non-existent.[/font]
[/font]

<!--StartFragment --> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Unlike governments of other communist countries, until the late 1980s the North Korean government did not even allow its farmers to cultivate kitchen gardens - the individual plot was limited to merely 20-30 square meters, hardly enough to grow enough chili pepper. This was done on purpose. In many other communist countries, farmers had bigger plots and made their living from them, ignoring their work obligations to the state-run cooperative farms. Without their own plots, farmers would work more for the state - or so believed the North Korean government. In the utopia constructed by Kim Il-sung, every single man or woman was supposed to work for the state, and was rewarded for his and her efforts with officially approved rations and salaries.

In 1969, Kim himself admitted that the anti-market policy had been a failure. Thus private markets were gradually legalized, but remained small and strictly controlled. However, as late as late 1980s, markets were still considered inappropriate for a "socialist paradise". They were something to be ashamed of, so they were pushed to the margins of the city. Until the early 1990s, most markets were in places more or less hidden from view, inside residential blocks and behind high concrete walls. In Pyongyang, the main city market was set up under a huge viaduct at the easternmost part of the North Korean capital, as far from the city center as possible.

However, the economic disaster of 1991-95, and especially the subsequent famine, changed the situation. Markets began to spread across the country with amazing speed. From 1995-97, nearly all plants and factories ceased to operate. The rations were not issued anymore: in most areas people still received ration coupons but these could not be exchanged for food or other rationed goods. Only in Pyongyang and some other politically important areas did food continue to be distributed. But even there, the norms were dramatically watered down. In such a situation, the ability and willingness to engage in some private business became the major guarantee of physical survival.

The government also relaxed the restrictions on domestic travel. Since around 1960, every North Korean who ventured outside his native county was required to have a special "travel permit" (an exception was made for one-day travel to neighboring counties). However, in the mid-1990s, the authorities began to turn a blind eye to unauthorized travel. It is not clear whether it was a deliberate relaxation or just inability to enforce regulations when the state bureaucracy was demoralized. After all, a bribe of some US$5 would buy such a permit from a police officer.

The tidal wave of small trade flooded the country, which once came very close to creating a non-money-based economy. People left their native places in huge numbers. Many sought places where food was more available while others enthusiastically took up the barter trade, including smuggling of goods to and from China. Women were especially prominent in the new small businesses. Many North Korean women were housewives or held less-demanding jobs than men. Their husbands continued to go to their factories, which had come to a standstill. The males received rationing coupons that were hardly worth the paper on which they were printed. But North Korean men still saw the situation as temporary and were afraid to lose the trappings of a proper state-sponsored job that for decades had been a condition for survival in their society. While men were waiting for resumption of "normal life", whiling away their time in idle plants, the women embarked on frenetic business activity. Soon some of these women began to make sums that far exceeded their husbands' wages.
[/font]

<!--StartFragment --> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The booming markets are not the only place for retail trade. A new service industry has risen from the ashes: private canteens, food stalls and inns operate near the markets. Even prostitution, completely eradicated around 1950, made a powerful comeback as desperate women were eager to sell sexual services to the newly rich merchants. Since no banking institution would serve private commercial operations, illegal money lenders appeared. In the late 1990s they would charge their borrowers monthly interests of 30-40%. This reflected very high risks: these lenders had virtually no protection against the state, criminals and, above all, bad debtors.

In North Korea, which for decades was so different, this meant a revolution. The new situation undermined the government's ability to control the populace. People involved in the new market activities are independent from (or inured to) subtle government pressures that had ensured compliance for decades. One cannot promote or demote a vendor, transfer him or her to a better or worse job, nor determine his or her type of residence (though admittedly, most people still live in the houses they received when the old system was still operating).

The growth of new markets also undermined some pillars of old North Korean hierarchy. Of course, many people who became affluent in the new system came from the old hierarchy - as was the case in most post-communist countries. Officials or managers of state-run enterprises found manifold ways to make an extra won. These managers often sold their factories' products on the market. But many hitherto discriminated-against groups managed to rise to prominence during this decade. The access to foreign currency was very important, and in North Korea there were three major groups who had access to some investment capital: the Japanese-Koreans, Chinese-Koreans and Korean-Chinese.

The Japanese-Koreans moved into the country in the 1960s (there were some 95,000 of them - with family members, children and grandchildren, their current number can be estimated at 200,000-250,000). These people have relatives in Japan who are willing to send them money. Traditionally, the authorities looked at Japanese-Koreans with suspicion. At the same time, since money transfers from Japan have been a major source of hard currency for Pyongyang, their activities were often tolerated. This particular group even enjoyed some special rights, being privileged and discriminated against at the same time. When the old system of state control and distribution collapsed, Japanese-Koreans began to invest their money into a multitude of trade adventures. It did not hurt that many of them still had the first-hand experience of living in a capitalist society.

Another group were people with relatives in China. The economic growth of China meant that the relatives could also help their poor relatives in North Korea. In most cases, this was not in the form of money transfers, but assistance in business and trade. The local ethnic Chinese were in an even better position to exploit the new opportunities. For decades, they have constituted the only group of the country's inhabitants who could travel overseas as private citizens more or less at their will. Even in earlier times, the ethnic Chinese used this unique position to earn extra money by small-scale and part-time smuggling. In the 1990s, they switched to large operations. There is an irony in the sudden economic advance of these groups. For decades, their overseas connections have made them suspect and led to systematic discrimination against them. In the 1990s, however, the same connections became the source of their prosperity.
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]<!--StartFragment --> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Until recently, the government did not try to lead, but simply followed the events. The much-trumpeted reforms of 2002 by and large were hardly anything more than the admission of the situation that had been existing for a few years by then. The official abolition (or near-abolition) of the public distribution system did not count for much, since this system ceased to operate outside Pyongyang around 1995.

But the North Korean economy has indeed come a long way from its Stalinist ways. Now the government has neither money nor support nor the political will to revive the Stalinist-style central economy. There is no way back, only forward. Stalinism is dead. Welcome to capitalism, comrades!
[/font]
[/font]
[/font]
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
No it isn't. It is absolutely empirical. Wherever it has been allowed to proceed unmolested to any degree, voluntary association and trade have made human life better. Wherever statism has been allowed to proceed unmolested to any degree, thousands and even millions have died while the survivors live in fear, squalor or in the grips of hatred.

Phaedrus
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Phaedrus said:
No it isn't. It is absolutely empirical. Wherever it has been allowed to proceed unmolested to any degree, voluntary association and trade have made human life better. Wherever statism has been allowed to proceed unmolested to any degree, thousands and even millions have died while the survivors live in fear, squalor or in the grips of hatred.

Phaedrus

What say you of the inevitable decline of the nation-state and the inevitable rise of the corporation to take its place? Do you truly believe this phenomenon will prove to empower people or will humans' appetite for power just shift the hierarchy? Will we see true capitalism or simply a new form of corporatism, where big business adopts the powers that the states currenly enjoy?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
3,742
Tokens
Phaedrus said:
No it isn't. It is absolutely empirical. Wherever it has been allowed to proceed unmolested to any degree, voluntary association and trade have made human life better. Wherever statism has been allowed to proceed unmolested to any degree, thousands and even millions have died while the survivors live in fear, squalor or in the grips of hatred.

Phaedrus
Very true.
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
N Korea is rotten to the core, especially at the upper levels, just like Enron or Somalia or Haiti.

It is inevitable that they will implode.

If the eejits that run N Korea were capitalist sympathisers it would still collapse, although US handouts would probaly keep them going for a while longer.

Oops...US handouts are already keeping them going for a while longer...
smile.gif


The system is totally irrelevant if a bunch of total muppets are in charge.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,391
Tokens
Will we see true capitalism or simply a new form of corporatism, where big business adopts the powers that the states currenly enjoy?

Negative on the corporatism. I can't think of any instances in history where what you're pondering has actually taken place. The closest example you could probably give would be under communism...where if a private business prospered well enough, the ruling government would step in and take it over. Not really the same though, is it?

Sorry, XP...more and more people around the globe are wising up to capitalism and seeing it as the best and most prosperous method of doing business.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
JDeuce said:
Will we see true capitalism or simply a new form of corporatism, where big business adopts the powers that the states currenly enjoy?

Negative on the corporatism. I can't think of any instances in history where what you're pondering has actually taken place. The closest example you could probably give would be under communism...where if a private business prospered well enough, the ruling government would step in and take it over. Not really the same though, is it?


You're new around here, so I'll be nice this go-around.

I don't oppose capitalism, I have reservations about it. The reason is simple: in recent decades, we have seen a remarkable shift in power from the public to the private sector, most of which has been positive ... however this shift is often enabled by the state cherry-picking corporations to give said power to (via the rewriting of laws, or simply wedding themselves to the CEOs via campaign donations for lobbying interests, etc.) This is corporatism. Halliburton is great example. You can't tell me that Halliburton's success is a strictly capitalist venture. It's not. Without the US gov't's corrupt cooperation (most likely via Cheney), Halliburton would have had to bid openly for its contracts in Iraq, and might even have to enter into some kind of transparency agreement rather than this unbelievable 'buyer beware after the fact' rule of thumb they all currently operate under.

Capitalism allows for free competition, corporatism does not.

What I was asking was not would the state take power away from corporations, but would the state simply transfer its powers to corporations. So long as elected officials are the same people running/have been running/will be running the major corporations, I believe we can expect more of the same. It is widely believed that the nation-state is losing its prominence in the world ... how will leaders cope with this? Will they just find a way to protect their personal interests (power, namely; money, secondly) by shifting their control to the 'private' sector?

Do you see what I'm asking?

Phaedrus once told me that many capitalists consider corporatism to be the real enemy of capitalism, not socialism. I think I agree with that sentiment.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
No it just dosen't seem "fair".That someone like Bill Gates can create enormous wealth and spawn thousands of other other millionaires that are allowed to to create and think freely.We should have a more "fair" minded goverment that knows whats best, and can distribute that wealth evenly so evryone can have cheese and generic asprin and midnight basketball..This would also deter selfish people like Bill Gates,Henry Ford,Thomas Edison from being "unfair", selfish and out of control thought.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
xpanda said:
What say you of the inevitable decline of the nation-state and the inevitable rise of the corporation to take its place? Do you truly believe this phenomenon will prove to empower people or will humans' appetite for power just shift the hierarchy? Will we see true capitalism or simply a new form of corporatism, where big business adopts the powers that the states currenly enjoy?
Actually, I do think that many state-like corporate entities will come to increasing power over the course of this century, wielding the same sort of relative power that the Morgans, Rockefellers et al. wielded in their time, but with far less beneficience. Maybe even the sort of "corporate warfare" that Gibson envisions in his work. And it will probably suck really badly for pretty much everyone on earth.

Never said it was going to be fun; just said I thought it was coming.


Phaedrus
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Phaedrus said:
Actually, I do think that many state-like corporate entities will come to increasing power over the course of this century, wielding the same sort of relative power that the Morgans, Rockefellers et al. wielded in their time, but with far less beneficience. Maybe even the sort of "corporate warfare" that Gibson envisions in his work. And it will probably suck really badly for pretty much everyone on earth.

Never said it was going to be fun; just said I thought it was coming.


Phaedrus
Then why champion capitalism to the nth degree and denounce the state? If, one way or another, the majority of us will just be reduced to peons (is that how you spell 'peons'?!) why not at least maintain a structure that has some semblence of citizen involvement? Yes, I know democracy is hardly perfect and that both of our versions of democracy leave much to be desired, but if power is just going to shift from the state to the corporation, won't we have even less input and less say than we do now?

Marx is going to be proven right. (Here come the misinformed, to label me a commie.) The state will collapse, capitalism will stretch until it can't and then collapses, and an anarcho-socialism will take its place. Too bad I won't be around to see it happen. Will probably prove very interesting and somewhat utopian.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Well, for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that it is probably inevitable, and will only get worse the longer it is prolonged. Basically post-Soviet Russia on a global scale, oligarchial interests clashing with one another and the remains of the state, some out of genuine "social interest" but most simply out of greed and nihilistic short-sightedness. Like terrorists and hurricanes, the only real solution is to work around them until they blow themselves out.

The reason why I would favour such an obviously chaotic and probably destructive scenario is that unlike yourself I do not believe for a second that the citizens of a given country have any control over their country's government. You have far less input than you imagine, because democracy is a hideous joke on those who believe in it -- if everything could be settled by a vote we'd have a much less stressful world. The portion of the human race naïve enough to believe that the will of the majority is a meaningful and binding covenant is vanishingly slim; everyone else only celebrates the "triumph of democracy" when their side wins, and all other outcomes are the result of election tampering, activist judges, the media, the corporations, the Illuminati, or what have you.

A wide-scale collapse into oligarchy, while unpleasant, eliminates this conceit and forces people to acknowledge the simple truth of the matter: that you have no representative (to say nothing of a "friend") in the powers that be, for those who actually believe that sort of nonsense; and for the other 99.9% of the population, that you can no longer have your wants imposed on others at the end of a gun. This goes for everyone from religious fruitbats who want a "divinely inspired" government, to welfare mothers who have been falsely taught that there is nothing wrong with flooding the world with children that no one wants, and that further there is no consequence to such an action; from the socipathically arrogant warmongering of the United States to the endless, weak-willed and amoral pandering of the United Nations. All such bets are off when AOL-Time Warner buys their first shipment of rocket launchers at a bazaar in Kazakhstan (using hyperbole of course; "corporate warfare," should such a thing ever come to pass at all, is far more likely to be a clandestine, cloak-and-dagger affair. But you get my drift, I'm sure.)


Phaedrus
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
I finished reading The Road to Sefdom a while back, and I recall that Hayek doesn't depart entirely from the state. He still calls for a national defense and an internal justice system.

In the West, where the state and the corporations already compete for power, it's not difficult to imagine the corporations winning the battle. Imagine what Bill Gates, Stephen Forbes, Donald Trump, George Soros, etc. could do with their wealth? Isn't the statistic something like the top 2% of the world's population own over 80% of the wealth, or something way out of whack like that? Would the state realistically be able to challenge a coalition of them? National defense becomes irrelevant and the citizens' recourse, the courts, no longer have the might to enforce laws against the corporate rulers.

Now we have no representation as individuals. Militias? Tribes? Gangs? How do we defend our individual and group interests? Or do you favour absolute survival of the fittest?
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
X.

If things get too biased the population revolts, at this point Government intervenes, or loses credibility and goodwill.

Corporations are virtually defenceless without Government and its influence over the general population.

The army and the police have families too, and when it gets really really bad the military even step back from following the government and do nothing more than prevent total anarchy.

Now we have no representation as individuals. Militias? Tribes? Gangs? How do we defend our individual and group interests? Or do you favour absolute survival of the fittest?
thats right, he's an anarchist.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
posted by xpanda:

I finished reading The Road to Sefdom a while back, and I recall that Hayek doesn't depart entirely from the state. He still calls for a national defense and an internal justice system.

In the West, where the state and the corporations already compete for power, it's not difficult to imagine the corporations winning the battle. Imagine what Bill Gates, Stephen Forbes, Donald Trump, George Soros, etc. could do with their wealth? Isn't the statistic something like the top 2% of the world's population own over 80% of the wealth, or something way out of whack like that? Would the state realistically be able to challenge a coalition of them?
Yes, but it would be ugly. The state would not be able to counter a simple withdrawal of power a la Atlas Shrugged but Rand was typically naïve in her characterisation of all wealthy, productive people as the shining lights of morality as portrayed by her characters. Hence, oligarchy.

But what is the net result of an "us against them" battle between the state and the private sector? See also: Germany, 1936.

National defense becomes irrelevant and the citizens' recourse, the courts, no longer have the might to enforce laws against the corporate rulers.
Now we have no representation as individuals.
You have no representation as an individual now. The only voices heard in politics are those of the collective, and as I said above it's only a 'triumph of democracy" if your particular collective gets its way. Do you think that if all eleven anti gay marriage amendments had been struck down last month, that all of the homophobic dolts would be saying, "Well, the people have spoken. I guess we really got that one wrong." Of course not. But as is, they're saying, "The people have spoken!" and the gays are the ones calling foul. Democracy is a shell game. "Representation as individuals" is a seriously deranged fantasy.

Militias? Tribes? Gangs? How do we defend our individual and group interests? Or do you favour absolute survival of the fittest?
Absolute survival of the fittest is the rule in all situations, although the "fitness" in question is a highly subjective concept. In Soviet Russia, the fittest were those with political power and those with the ability to curry the favour of those with power. Everyone else lived in squalor and/or apathy, except for the criminals (criminals as defined by the state, not neccesarily "people who do bad things.")


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
x


Something else about Hayek. Hayek was, obviously, a major influence on my thinking; however to simply agree with him blindly on all issues would be for me to pass from having my thinking influenced to the actual abdication of thought. But I daresay that you misunderstand Hayek's position, with all due respect.

Hayek's apparent self-contradiction in favouring privatisation and decentralisation of nearly everything, yet preserving legal systems, military (or perhaps militia) operations and so forth can be best explained by his own writings. Hayek was one of the best analysts of the division between what might be called the "British" and "French" school of liberal thought ("liberal" as in "having to do with liberty," not "liberal" as in "watered down Nazis that run most of the world these days.") The "British" school in this context was Hume, Smith and Ferguson, to a lesser extent Burke. The "French" school was basically the Cartesian raionalists, Rousseau, Condorcet, etc. The chief delineation between the two schools of thought is that the British tradition held that man's greatest advances in social order were the result of thousands of years of trial and error, a sort of "social evolution;" the French tradition held that man's reason enabled him to simply make vast and immediate changes to society by virtue of his faculty of thought, combined with the power of the legislative fiat.

Though these two groups are now commonly lumped together as the ancestors of modern liberalism, there is hardly a greater contrast imaginable than that between their respective conceptions of the evolution and functioning of a social order and the role played by it in liberty. The difference is directly traceable to the predominance of an essentially empiricist view of the world in England and a rationalist approach in France. The main contrast in the practical conclusions to which these approaches led has recently been well put, as follows: "One finds the essence of freedom in spontaneity and the absence of coercion, the other believes it to be realised only in the pursuit and attainment of absolute collective purpose"; and "one stands for organic, slow, half-conscious growth, the other for doctrinaire deliberateness; one for trial and error procedure, the other for an enforced solely valid pattern."
(The Constitution of Liberty, Chapter IV, p.2)

Of course, the "French school" view has taken the lion's share of the world's attention these days, since it allows for "freedom" within the confines of state control and direction.

Hayek considered the "French school" to be seriously in error, and preferred the "British school's" theory of social evolution, that some traditions and practices that had been hammered out over the course of aeons and that worked perfectly well, really should just be left alone. This would include Common Law, national defence etc. That is not to say that these concepts can't or won't get better in time, but that the idea of "radically revolutionising" the policy of whether or not collective national defence is superior to "every man for himself" as a national defence strategy is pointless and idiotic.

Although I disagree with Hayek on this point (my contention should be obvious: Which traditions get left alone? Who decides?) I hope that that explains the apparent paradox.


Phaedrus
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Phaedrus said:
You have no representation as an individual now. The only voices heard in politics are those of the collective, and as I said above it's only a 'triumph of democracy" if your particular collective gets its way.

That's not what I meant. I'm talking about judicial and civil recourse via the courts, not the body politic. Because the state still has clout, we, as individuals, can use the courts to manage certain degrees of 'fair play' (so to speak) and protect our right to not need health care services, to borrow your example from another thread. If GE dumps toxins in my backyard, presently I can sue them if I get sick. The courts in turn have clout because we have police forces and a prison system to back them up. But if the state is literally overthrown by the corporation or a coalition of corporate interests, who/what will fill this vacuum?

Or do you believe that the bottom line interests as determined by customer relations will override tendencies to cut corners, or what have you, that endanger people?

I'm all for the idea of truly free trade (not this bogus state-sanctioned theft version we engage in now) and for free market competition, but without some degree of accountability, über-capitalism strikes me as an invitation to get bent over by the big guys.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Phaedrus
You have no representation as an individual now. The only voices heard in politics are those of the collective, and as I said above it's only a 'triumph of democracy" if your particular collective gets its way.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


That's not what I meant. I'm talking about judicial and civil recourse via the courts, not the body politic. Because the state still has clout, we, as individuals, can use the courts to manage certain degrees of 'fair play' (so to speak) and protect our right to not need health care services, to borrow your example from another thread.
I see what you mean here. Why can't private companies provide this service? Binding arbitration and similar businesses thrive in the modern world.

The courts in turn have clout because we have police forces and a prison system to back them up. But if the state is literally overthrown by the corporation or a coalition of corporate interests, who/what will fill this vacuum?
Private companies can often have even greater influence. The Global Digital Currencies Association is a good example of this phenomenon. The GDCA acts as a quasi-regulatory body in the digital currency economy, focusing on reputation-building, arbitration and escrow services. Even non-members of the GDCA generally are quick to respond to interdiction, because the company has so much influence in that little subsect of the world economy that it can cause serious damage to a given merchant's reputation and user base.

Because the GDCA operates in a transparent manner (e.g. all members have access to the proceedings, except in cases where trade secrets or other proprietary information is at risk) it is not possible for the GDCA dispute resoultion council to act in an irrational or arbitrary manner without it being immediately obvious, which would drive members away from the organisation and probably cause it to go out of business, to be replaced with a more competent competitor (like all good things in life, the GDCA is a for-profit venture.)

The GDCA has capabilities that a government organisation would dream of, since it operates cost efficiently 24/7/365, across national borders and language barriers seamlessly. And yet it has an Achilles' Heel that no government would dare suffer inasmuch as it would be easy for the GDCA to be toppled from its position of relative power by inefficiency, illogicality or dishonesty.

Or do you believe that the bottom line interests as determined by customer relations will override tendencies to cut corners, or what have you, that endanger people?
Overall, yes, although of course history is replete with examples of short-sighted businesses that did not care in the least about endangering anyone for a buck.

I'm all for the idea of truly free trade (not this bogus state-sanctioned theft version we engage in now) and for free market competition, but without some degree of accountability, über-capitalism strikes me as an invitation to get bent over by the big guys.
I understand. But what makes you think they can't bend you over now?


Phaedrus
<!-- / message -->
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,134,022
Messages
13,809,396
Members
104,042
Latest member
roseshalia68
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com