What do BP and the Banks Have In Common? The Era of Corporate Anarchy

[girl gone mad]

What do BP and the Banks Have In Common? The Era of Corporate Anarchy
www.nakedcapitalism.com

By Gonzalo Lira, a novelist and filmmaker (and economist) currently living in Chile

On the occasion of the BP oil spill disaster, President Obama’s delivered an Oval Office speech last night—a masterpiece of milquetoast faux-outrage. The speech was all about “clean energy” and “ending our dependence on fossil fuels”. Faced with the BP oil spill—likely the most severe environmental disaster ever—this was President Obama’s response: Polite outrage, and vague plans to “get tough”, “set aside just compensation” and “do something”.

President Obama missed what the BP oil spill disaster is really about. Though unquestionably an environmental disaster, the BP oil spill is much much more.

The BP oil spill is part of the same problem as the financial crisis: The BP oil spill and the banking crisis are two examples of the era we are living in, the era of corporate anarchy.

In a nutshell, in this era of corporate anarchy, corporations do not have to abide by any rules—none at all. Legal, moral, ethical, even financial rules are irrelevant. They have all been rescinded in the pursuit of profit—literally nothing else matters.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/06/gonzalo-lira-what-do-bp-and-the-banks-have-in-common-the-era-of-corporate-anarchy.html">more. . .

[jody]

1. They control our government so they can play "Heads we make obscene profits, Tails We the People pay

our losses". :puke:

[socialist_n_TN]

2. It's just capitalism............

This is what capitalism turns into left to it's own devices. Any time and every time.

[jody]

3. Is it "capitalism" that's bad or "crony capitalism" and a "corporate state"? n/t

[inna]

6. "Is it "capitalism" that's bad"? In a word, yes.

Fuck capitalism.

[jody]

8. Do you want government to manage our economy and all production? n/t

[Odin2005]

11. Socialism does not mean Economic planning.

Co-ops are socialist, for example. Don't fall for the old lie that Capitalism and Free Enterprise are the same thing.

[jody]

13. Please define socialism as you use it. n/t

[Odin2005]

17. The workers controling the means of production.

[jody]

18. Thanks, by "controling the means of production" do you mean a group selected by workers to

determine what products and services to produce, in what quantities, with what qualities, at what cost, and sell for what prices to be produced by what workers?

[Odin2005]

19. No, I mean workers owning the businesses.

[jody]

20. Thanks. How will workers obtain capital to purchase businesses or do you intend to seize them

from current owners, i.e. nationalize businesses without reimbursement?

Once workers take control of all businesses, will they pay each worker the same wage or will they pay those with superior abilities a higher wage?

[jtuck004]

21. Perhaps they could get this new invention called a "loan" to buy the business?

And pay it back with the proceeds of their labor. And these profits could pay these people for what they contribute to the bottom line.

It has been working for Springfield Remanufacturing since International Harvester tried to sell their jobs out from under them a couple decades ago. They train employees in more than just their job, but also in the economics of the business. They have spun a number of employees off into their own business as well.

It's capitalism, but without the greed and corruption. It involves much more personal reponsibility on the part of workers than they have historically been used to or required to commit. It doesn't do things by committee in the way German companies are structured - most of the workers are real owners. They can choose not to be, but those workers usually don't make as much.

It works, but it's hard. But perhaps not as hard as a double-dip recession and massive unemployment.

[jody]

22. Nothing prevents workers today from obtaining those loans & buying those businesses. Why

do you think that isn't happening?

[jtuck004]

23. Maybe prior education, lack of infrastructure that teaches them that

it is possible? Intertia is a powerful force, and change scares the hell out of a population.

Most kids don't see their parents owning the assets. They go to schools which prepare them for "jobs" owned by others, to do what they are taught. I think most of the schools are based on philosophies which lead them to create students that are "schooled" rather than educated. They don't teach them to be independent learners, and they certainly don't prepare them to ask questions of the people running the world.

I don't blame this just on the schools, because schools reflect the wishes of the community, and of the larger nation.

When people enter the workforce they are employed (well, not so much today) by business owners and stockholders who own the assets and who seem to be focused only on short-term profit. To work towards an employee-owned business would likely be seen by them as counterproductive, and would reduce their ability to grab that profit for themselves.

The government could play a role, funding R&D and business incubators as well as educational offerings that teach such methods, but I don't think whoever is in power at any given moment sees this as in their own best interests either. They would have to represent the people's best interests over their own, and I haven't seen much evidence of enough business acumen and wish to be of real service in any of the several Federal administrations, state governments, or even muni or county governments I have lived through and with, at the levels where it would make a real difference.

[jody]

24. Interesting examples but what about lack of ability? That is unless you buy into the canard "all men

are created equal".

Not all people have the athletic ability of Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, Usain Bolt, et al, but that's just my personal opinion so feel free to disagree.

[jtuck004]

25. Oh, no, I agree with you in that regard. But the "all men are created

equal" was referring to their standing under the law, not their physical or mental abilities.

But millions of people have the ability to learn not only their jobs but ownership. And owners can work to compete, and won't let their jobs be shipped away for short-term profits.

[jody]

26. OK, "millions of people have the ability to learn . . . ownership" but are

there any government restrictions that prevent them from doing that today?

Perhaps it's not only ability but courage to take the risk of an entrepreneur and attempt to start a business when history shows 33% of new businesses fail the first two years and 66% fail in four years.

Bottom line is only one third of new businesses survive past four years and many of those owners are working extra long hours for near minimum-wage earnings.

The wonderful thing in my mind is some people are still willing to take the risk of an entrepreneur and a few will survive.

Those survivors provide jobs for others, jobs that produce products and services that are valuable to society.

[jtuck004]

27. Well, starting at the bottom, some entrepreneur started BP, and they

provide jobs for others and services that are valuable. 'Course, not all their employees survive to enjoy the proceeds, and they appear to be largely responsible for perhaps the largest environmental disaster the world has ever seen. Hundreds of people started mortgage broker businesses when they realized the lack of regulation would let them make loans that on any other world would have been seen as bad investments, if not criminal - and that goes for the lack of guv regulation as well as the people who took advantage of it. That didn't work out so well either. And most of them probably thought they were just doing a business, not bringing the country to its economic knees.

And most businesses die because of a lack of capital. Many times that is because new owners don't know how to create and work a business plan - and when they have one, the ones that fail have ignored what it could teach them. I don't say that is bad, sometimes it is just a part of the learning process.

Millions of others in the world of business have done well. My point is that just because someone has the courage and there is a lack of government restriciton doesn't mean that it will be all that and a bag of chips. Or even good or moral.

I do think, however, a lot of this could be dispensed with if ownership was more widely shared. But there is not enough effort put forth to teach people what they need to know to motivate them to act. People are primarily taught to be employees, and taught that their learning has to come from someone else. Rarely are they taught good labor history, encouraged to really educate themselves about business, encouraged with the ideas that they have all the need to start to learn how to own the assets and that there are better ways to spend your life than giving it up for someone else's wealth. I think it's a miracle that so many people actually go try to run their own business.

[jody]

28. You've strayed considerably from the narrow issue Odin2005 and I were discussing in #19 & 20. Please

reply to that topic which derived from #11 "Socialism does not mean Economic planning."

[jtuck004]

29. Yeah, I do that sometimes.

But I was really replying to your question about how people would gain the means of production.

They can then make collective decisions within a larger capitalist system, based on the labor people supply.

But it really doesn't interest me that much to get so theoretical, except when someone makes me think about how the system might be improved. This is a capitalist country, and it has done some great things, yet uncontrolled and unregulated capitalism by selfish, short-sighted, and perhaps amoral people has not served a significant portion of the people all that well, IMHO. So perhaps a combination of both could be helpful.

I have to go work on my garden...cya

[inna]

15. I want a worker-run social democracy that works for social justice and public good;

not the government and the economy representing the interests of the wealthy.

[jody]

16. Interesting, you want government to manage our economy and production. Please elaborate on your plan

to use government organizations that would dictate what products and services to produce, in what quantities, with what qualities, at what cost, and sell for what prices.

[girl gone mad]

30. Government currently manages our economy and production..

to a significant extent. Inna is saying she doesn't want that.

[jody]

31. That means a "worker-run social democracy" or government that "manages our economy and production".

Apparently you claim Inna just wants a "different group of people, the workers, to elect a new government" to "replace our current government elected by the workers". :shrug:

Perhaps one would have more success with changing governments if the workers aka voters did a better job of voting. Just my personal view.

[girl gone mad]

32. Politicians are too easily bought.

I think this is why so many wish for a true currency crisis. The hope is that without the means to spend willy-nilly on wars, pet projects and crony corporate interests, our oligarchical collectivists will have to actually work for a living, for a change.

People really believed they were voting for a more populist progressive with Obama, but he's just another milquetoast corporatist. Voting only gets us so far. I think Americans are making positive changes in consumption and in their values, and I do think a paradigm shift is occurring. Our politicians are well behind the curve, as usual.

[jody]

33. Does labor union history suggest elected union leaders are easily bought by those who commit crimes

against humanity, some illegally and others under the cover of laws?

[Hydra]

7. This is capitialism in all its glory

BP had enough money to buy their way out of trouble, and now they've done something so unbelievably devastating that it may threaten all of our oceans...in the pursuit of cutting costs.

The beauty of it for them is that they STILL have the government on their side.

[jody]

9. But the BP oil disaster is consistent with "crony capitalism" and a "corporate state", not

"capitalism" where those who undertake a business venture assume all the risks.

[Hydra]

12. No, this is the dark side of capitalism

Where everything is for sale. BP and other major corporations(Exxon, Lockhead, Haliburton, etc.) have already bought the government. It's theirs, lock, stock and barrel.

Is it any wonder that the gov't responds so well to their needs, while ignoring everyone else's?

If you bought something, wouldn't you expect the same treatment from said organization?

[applegrove]

4. Anarchy is bad no matter who proposes it. As hunter gatherers we spent

80% of our time following cultural norms so as not to be murdered. These norms were the at the wims of the powerful. Think Taliban. The corporate desire for lack of regulations is unending because it always results in more money (in the pockets of the CEOs who get bonuses)for the corporations. Wingnut Americans need to finally learn the actual cost of who they vote for and who they have been voting for for the past 30 years.

[jody]

10. Agree re "corporate desire for lack of regulations" but add "limited liability" and it allows

high-risk business ventures where "Heads corporations make obscene profits, Tails We the People pay all losses".

[inna]

5. Anarchy is too neutral of a term. It's more of a war... class warfare.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8569370#8570420

[snot]

14. Great article. E.g.,

"Obama is a corporatist—he’s one of Them. So there’ll be more bullshit talk about “clean energy” and “energy independence”, while the root cause -- corporate anarchy -- is left undisturbed."

[jakeXT]

34. OTC Derivatives

As horrific as the gulf environmental catastrophe is, an even more intractable and cataclysmic disaster may be looming. The yet unknowable costs associated with clean-up, litigation and compensation damages due to arguably the world’s worst environmental tragedy, may be in the process of triggering a credit event by British Petroleum (BP) that will be equally devastating to global over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. The potential contagion may eventually show that Lehman Bros. and Bear Stearns were simply early warning signals of the devastation lurking and continuing to grow unchecked in the $615T OTC Derivatives market.


...

To again quote Jim Sinclair at jsmineset.com: “BP is the primary player on the long-end of the energy curve. How exposed are Goldman sub J. Aron, Morgan Stanley and JPM? Probably hugely. Now credit has been cut to BP. Counter-parties will not accept their name beyond one year in duration. This is unheard of. A giant is on the ropes. If he falls, the very earth may shake as he hits the ground. As we are beginning to see, the Western pension structure, financial trading and global credit are all inter-twined. BP is central to this, as a massive supplier of what many believe(d) to be AAA credit. So while we see banks roll over and die, and sovereign entities begin to falter… we now have a major oil company on the verge of going under. Another leg of the global economic "chair" is being viciously kicked out from under us.”

http://home.comcast.net/~lcmgroupe/2010/Article-Sultans_of_Swap-British_Petroleum.htm