David Simon, Co-creator of "The Wire," on America and capitalism

[downzy]

LOL, it's not just milk though, is it? You are aware that dairy is used in a whole lot of other food staples. As noted by the article below, this will eventually have drastic effects on school breakfast programs that help feed million of needy children who wouldn't have a solid breakfast without the program.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/heres-why-you-should-care-about-the-farm-bill-even-if-you-dont-know-a-thing-about-farming

Of course I am aware that milk is used in many things (there you go again). However, if the true price of milk is $6.50 a gallon then that is what it should cost - if that has a knock-on effect for food-stamps and the like then so be it. That may sound harsh, but I don't believe that systems which don't work should continue to be supported artificially.

By that measure many other systems should not exist either. Public transit, according to your worldview, should not function since in almost all cases it receives public support. Here in Toronto, if the government did not subsidize ridership costs a fare would jump to $6 or $7 a ride. That would cripple the system as most would opt for cars. This, in turn, would clog roadways more than they already are and recess living standards and the economics of the city.

[PappyTron]

LOL, it's not just milk though, is it? You are aware that dairy is used in a whole lot of other food staples. As noted by the article below, this will eventually have drastic effects on school breakfast programs that help feed million of needy children who wouldn't have a solid breakfast without the program.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/heres-why-you-should-care-about-the-farm-bill-even-if-you-dont-know-a-thing-about-farming

Of course I am aware that milk is used in many things (there you go again). However, if the true price of milk is $6.50 a gallon then that is what it should cost - if that has a knock-on effect for food-stamps and the like then so be it. That may sound harsh, but I don't believe that systems which don't work should continue to be supported artificially.

By that measure many other systems should not exist either. Public transit, according to your worldview, should not function since in almost all cases it receives public support. Here in Toronto, if the government did not subsidize ridership costs a fare would jump to $6 or $7 a ride. That would cripple the system as most would opt for cars. This, in turn, would clog roadways more than they already are and recess living standards and the economics of the city.

Are they publicly owned, or privately owned?

[downzy]

LOL, it's not just milk though, is it? You are aware that dairy is used in a whole lot of other food staples. As noted by the article below, this will eventually have drastic effects on school breakfast programs that help feed million of needy children who wouldn't have a solid breakfast without the program.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/heres-why-you-should-care-about-the-farm-bill-even-if-you-dont-know-a-thing-about-farming

Of course I am aware that milk is used in many things (there you go again). However, if the true price of milk is $6.50 a gallon then that is what it should cost - if that has a knock-on effect for food-stamps and the like then so be it. That may sound harsh, but I don't believe that systems which don't work should continue to be supported artificially.

By that measure many other systems should not exist either. Public transit, according to your worldview, should not function since in almost all cases it receives public support. Here in Toronto, if the government did not subsidize ridership costs a fare would jump to $6 or $7 a ride. That would cripple the system as most would opt for cars. This, in turn, would clog roadways more than they already are and recess living standards and the economics of the city.

Are they publicly owned, or privately owned?

Right, so this the distinction you're making. In your worldview, so long as something is private, that it should face no involvement with the government. As though private enterprise lives in a vacuum and its operations and outcomes should not be the consideration of the society at large. I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth but this is how I'm interpreting your position.

[PappyTron]

LOL, it's not just milk though, is it? You are aware that dairy is used in a whole lot of other food staples. As noted by the article below, this will eventually have drastic effects on school breakfast programs that help feed million of needy children who wouldn't have a solid breakfast without the program.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/heres-why-you-should-care-about-the-farm-bill-even-if-you-dont-know-a-thing-about-farming

Of course I am aware that milk is used in many things (there you go again). However, if the true price of milk is $6.50 a gallon then that is what it should cost - if that has a knock-on effect for food-stamps and the like then so be it. That may sound harsh, but I don't believe that systems which don't work should continue to be supported artificially.

By that measure many other systems should not exist either. Public transit, according to your worldview, should not function since in almost all cases it receives public support. Here in Toronto, if the government did not subsidize ridership costs a fare would jump to $6 or $7 a ride. That would cripple the system as most would opt for cars. This, in turn, would clog roadways more than they already are and recess living standards and the economics of the city.

Are they publicly owned, or privately owned?

Right, so this the distinction you're making. In your worldview, so long as something is private, that it should face no involvement with the government. As though private enterprise lives in a vacuum and its operations and outcomes should not be the consideration of the society at large. I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth but this is how I'm interpreting your position.

My position is that the government should set the field and then get off of it as much as possible. It should not be bailing out badly run companies such as banks (though it should be setting up tighter laws and pursuing criminal cases with a lot more vim) and things such as transport should be put up for tender - we want a bus company for downtown Toronto and it must be able to carry X passengers per day with X number of busses and the contract is for X years - may the best proposal win. If however, the bus company starts failing to live up to the standards that it agreed to then it should be brought to task. What shouldn't happen is the Toronto government come in and say "oh, here's some public money to fix the issue". What I don't like seeing is the government continually expanding in order to accommodate the needs of the continually expanding government (with apologies to Wilde).

[downzy]

LOL, it's not just milk though, is it? You are aware that dairy is used in a whole lot of other food staples. As noted by the article below, this will eventually have drastic effects on school breakfast programs that help feed million of needy children who wouldn't have a solid breakfast without the program.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/heres-why-you-should-care-about-the-farm-bill-even-if-you-dont-know-a-thing-about-farming

Of course I am aware that milk is used in many things (there you go again). However, if the true price of milk is $6.50 a gallon then that is what it should cost - if that has a knock-on effect for food-stamps and the like then so be it. That may sound harsh, but I don't believe that systems which don't work should continue to be supported artificially.

By that measure many other systems should not exist either. Public transit, according to your worldview, should not function since in almost all cases it receives public support. Here in Toronto, if the government did not subsidize ridership costs a fare would jump to $6 or $7 a ride. That would cripple the system as most would opt for cars. This, in turn, would clog roadways more than they already are and recess living standards and the economics of the city.

Are they publicly owned, or privately owned?

Right, so this the distinction you're making. In your worldview, so long as something is private, that it should face no involvement with the government. As though private enterprise lives in a vacuum and its operations and outcomes should not be the consideration of the society at large. I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth but this is how I'm interpreting your position.

My position is that the government should set the field and then get off of it as much as possible. It should not be bailing out badly run companies such as banks (though it should be setting up tighter laws and pursuing criminal cases with a lot more vim) and things such as transport should be put up for tender - we want a bus company for downtown Toronto and it must be able to carry X passengers per day with X number of busses and the contract is for X years - may the best proposal win. If however, the bus company starts failing to live up to the standards that it agreed to then it should be brought to task. What shouldn't happen is the Toronto government come in and say "oh, here's some public money to fix the issue". What I don't like seeing is the government continually expanding in order to accommodate the needs of the continually expanding government (with apologies to Wilde).

But that goes to the assumption that many basic services can be run with a sound business model. Many can't, or are priced to the point where it does not meet the original intention of the service. A bus company in Toronto would likely go bankrupt or charge $7 a ride if it were forced to operate on a purely private business model. Many public services would run at a loss without public support.

Have you looked at the latest findings regarding the auto bailout? Not sure if you read my snarky response to Shades a few pages back, but even conservative publications like the Wall Street Journal are claiming the auto bailout to be the most effective bailout in government history. I suggest you have a look at some of the reports that outline why bailing out GM and Chrysler proved to be far more effective to the nation's economic health than had the government stayed on the sidelines.

Edited December 12, 2013 by downzy

[PappyTron]

I can't speak for Toronto, but the busses in London, England are private (obviously regulated by the Department For Transport) and the system works; it is overcrowded and "expensive", but it has always been overcrowded and "expensive".

[downzy]

I can't speak for Toronto, but the busses in London, England are private (obviously regulated by the Department For Transport) and the system works; it is overcrowded and "expensive", but it has always been overcrowded and "expensive".

Really, because that's not what I've been reading here and here.

And nothing to say about the auto bailout? Seems like it questions your belief of government interventions into private businesses.

[PappyTron]

I can't speak for Toronto, but the busses in London, England are private (obviously regulated by the Department For Transport) and the system works; it is overcrowded and "expensive", but it has always been overcrowded and "expensive".

Really, because that's not what I've been reading here and here.

And nothing to say about the auto bailout? Seems like it questions your belief of government interventions into private businesses.

You asked about busses so I told you about busses - the links which you provided are not about busses, now are they?

[downzy]

I can't speak for Toronto, but the busses in London, England are private (obviously regulated by the Department For Transport) and the system works; it is overcrowded and "expensive", but it has always been overcrowded and "expensive".

Really, because that's not what I've been reading here and here.

And nothing to say about the auto bailout? Seems like it questions your belief of government interventions into private businesses.

You asked about busses so I told you about busses - the links which you provided are not about busses, now are they?

You're right. Here's what I found on how effective privatization efforts regarding the bus system in London has worked out:

http://www.speakerschair.com/post/a-road-to-nowhere-failures-of-transport-privatisation

A 2006 House of Commons Transport Select Committee report into the state of Britain’s bus industry was highly critical of the role played by Britain’s private bus operators: “We had evidence that, under the current system, operators are abandoning unprofitable routes which are nevertheless used and are necessary links for communities to work, social and leisure facilities. This forces local authorities to take the routes over and to issue a tender for their operation. Often, an operator who cannot make a commercial success of such a route will apply for the subsidised, tendered route. This practice can be particularly frustrating for a local authority when routes are being abandoned when they are simply less profitable, rather than unprofitable. Services are withdrawn in order to maximise profits for the operator by shrinking their network and concentrating on the highest revenue-raising routes, at the expense of the travelling public. On occasion, this can mean that, as a transport authority implements bus priority schemes or introduces a quality bus corridor, it finds the result is shrinkage of the bus network.”

Passengers lost out as fares have consistently risen above inflation, networks have shrunk and frequencies and reliability have deteriorated. Local councils far from saving money are paying out as much as ever. All the infrastructure costs – bus stops, bus stations, bus lanes and other bus priority measures, timetables and other transport information and all-operator ticketing – are entirely provided by the public purse. The private bus operators receive more than one third of their income from the public purse. In 2011/12 Britain’s bus bosses raked in total revenue of £5.425 million of which only £3.005 million came from fares. The rest came from local councils and government; £0.994 million gross public transport support; £0.995 million concessionary fares; and £0.430 million Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG).

London’s buses were privatised some 10 years later under a “controlled competition” model. Unlike in the rest of Britain, Transport for London (TfL) controls the bus network and determines the timetables, frequencies and fares. Private bus companies compete to win individual route franchises. In the initial period, continuous undercutting in rival bids led to a dramatic reduction in terms and conditions for employees. Bus driving became so unattractive that TfL and the bus operators faced acute staff shortages and a crisis in bus reliability. Ken Livingstone’s tenure as London Mayor largely put this right, with a combination of much increased public funding, cooperation with UNITE the bus-workers union, and a strategic expansion in the bus network. Notwithstanding some improvements to bus workers pay and conditions, serious problems remain particularly when routes change hands. Drivers transfer with the mileage under TUPE but pension rights are not protected and drivers can be moved to depots more than 20 miles away.

For passengers, London’s route tendering system has been far more successful than the deregulation model. Passenger numbers have consistently risen year on year but this has come at a huge cost. Out of total operating revenue (2011/12) of £1.956 million only £1.117 million comes from fares with the rest coming from public funds: £519 gross public transport support; £210 million concessionary fares and £111 million BSOG. As London’s subsidy edges towards £1 billion per year, it is clear that London’s buses would be much cheaper to run if brought back under direct public ownership and control.

.................................

All of this goes to the point that privatization isn't the godsend you're making it out to be. Where it has been tried with respect to certain public services it has either driven up costs, decrease service, or proven an utter disaster.

Still waiting for you to acknowledge the success of the U.S. auto bailout.

Edited December 12, 2013 by downzy

[PappyTron]

I never said that privatization was a godsend; I said that the government should have no role in private businesses once the model and tender has been laid out; it is down to the government to get the sums right in the first place, not reply on businesses to do so, as they will always cut to the bone on a tender, even it it comes at the cost of profitability and especially so if they know the government will then bail them straight back out again.

What about the bailout? I've already made my point on it, but you just haven't bothered to acknowledge it - they shouldn't have been bailed out and should instead have gone through the normal bankruptcy proceedings, just like anyone else. They could have used the bankruptcy as a sign to stop paying $70 an hour wages, huge pensions and paying for workers to do anything but. Whether the government made a profit or loss on their stake is, quite frankly, irrelevant. Moreover, maybe you should ask yourself what role the government played in the car industry ending up teetering on the edge in the first place.

Edited December 12, 2013 by PappyTron

[downzy]

I never said that privatization was a godsend; I said that the government should have no role in private businesses once the model and tender has been laid out; it is down to the government to get the sums right in the first place, not reply on businesses to do so, as they will always cut to the bone on a tender, even it it comes at the cost of profitability and especially so if they know the government will then bail them straight back out again.

What about the bailout? I've already made my point on it, but you just haven't bothered to acknowledge it - they shouldn't have been bailed out and should instead have gone through the normal bankruptcy proceedings, just like anyone else. They could have used the bankruptcy as a sign to stop paying $70 an hour wages, huge pensions and paying for workers to do anything but. Whether the government made a profit or loss on their stake is, quite frankly, irrelevant. Moreover, maybe you should ask yourself what role the government played in the car industry ending up teetering on the edge in the first place.

Well, you're the one who suggested that privatization of public services was the way to go. Now, it seems, you're problem isn't that privatization didn't work, but it wasn't instituted properly. But I think you're missing the larger lessons from some of the articles I posted above. You cannot rely on private business in all matters since there are basic needs of any given country that can't be made profitable. When given the chance, privatization has often resulted in a reduction of services and in certain cases (like you're much coveted bus system in London), higher costs. Sure, you could suggest then that the governments is thus held responsible because the bail out the failing companies, but ultimately if the government doesn't intercede on behalf of its constituents it's the people who will ultimately suffer.

I have more than acknowledged your stance on government funded bailouts, but it seems you have a hard time acknowledging how successful the bailout of GM and Chrysler have been. Unless you're fine with 2 million people losing their jobs and the government losing $40 billion in revenue. But fuck it, right? Principle is principle. And I'm not sure you truly remember what was going on when GM and Chrysler took the bailouts. They actually did go through bankruptcy to shed or trim overweight pensions, but without government loans the companies would not have emerged from it. In order to get through a bankruptcy it requires financing to keep the doors open and creditors at bay. Had the U.S. and Canadian governments not financed GM and Chrysler through their managed bankruptcies they would have been picked apart and sold for scraps. Nobody was lending during this time as the credit markets had dried up. Under normal economic conditions the car companies could have gotten financing from private actors, but that just wasn't going to happen during the height of the financial crisis. Without government rescue both companies would have been liquidated and millions of people would have lost their jobs. But like you said, principle is principle. Fuck consequences.

[ITG]

I think the thread should have been titled, "Man who made cancelled TV show talks about economics"

[Roush]

I think the thread should have been titled, "Man who made cancelled TV show talks about economics"

Yup. Only one of the most critically-acclaimed, television shows in history. The Wire laid the blueprints for Breaking Bad.

[downzy]

I think the thread should have been titled, "Man who made cancelled TV show talks about economics"

Yup. Only one of the most critically-acclaimed, television shows in history. The Wire laid the blueprints for Breaking Bad.

Damn straight. If you've read The Corner, which he co-wrote with Edward Burns, you'll know that this guy knows his stuff. His historical knowledge is vast and deep.

[Roush]

I think the thread should have been titled, "Man who made cancelled TV show talks about economics"

Yup. Only one of the most critically-acclaimed, television shows in history. The Wire laid the blueprints for Breaking Bad.

Damn straight. If you've read The Corner, which he co-wrote with Edward Burns, you'll know that this guy knows his stuff. His historical knowledge is vast and deep.

I'm gonna check that out.

[downzy]

I think the thread should have been titled, "Man who made cancelled TV show talks about economics"

Yup. Only one of the most critically-acclaimed, television shows in history. The Wire laid the blueprints for Breaking Bad.

Damn straight. If you've read The Corner, which he co-wrote with Edward Burns, you'll know that this guy knows his stuff. His historical knowledge is vast and deep.

I'm gonna check that out.

Yeah, I highly recommend it. It reads like a fictional account of how inner-city people live (because it's difficult to believe), but it's actually a non-fictional expose. I haven't had time to read the entire book (it's rather long), but chapter 2 provides an amazing account of how ghettoization came to be in cities like Baltimore.

[downzy]

Really great interview of Simon based on the speech that kicked off this thread:

http://billmoyers.com/episode/david-simon-on-america-as-a-horror-show/

"There is no society, there's just you."

Definitely worth your twenty minutes if you're at all interested in American society, capitalism, inequality, drug war, race, racism, the political and prison system, etc.

Edited August 18, 2014 by downzy

[magisme]

The end result of captialism/fractional reserve banking is that all the resources will end up in fewer and fewer hands, that leaves less and less for everyone else.

Until that becomes unsustainable and there's a reversion to the mean, as there always is, by violent means unfortunately.

[downzy]

The end result of captialism/fractional reserve banking is that all the resources will end up in fewer and fewer hands, that leaves less and less for everyone else.

Until that becomes unsustainable and there's a reversion to the mean, as there always is, by violent means unfortunately.

Heres a novel solution, put limits on wealth creation. Once you get a certain ammount then you have to retire. What the ammount might be, I don't know but I think it will be less than a billion maybe less than 100 million maybe less than 10 million.

I find it hilarious that Libertarians and the "anti-Fed" clan oppose the creation of wealth. Wealth, in and of itself, is an amoral property. The issue isn't its creation, but how wealth is divided.

Wealth accumulation and consolidation existed long before central banks. John D. Rockefeller garnered his vast fortune well before the U.S. Fed was created. Inequality isn't a novel concept of the 19th and 20th century. What was different in the 20th and 21st centuries is how wealth was and is treated.

Blaming the concept of wealth (or the government's efforts to create wealth) for the growing disparity between the rich and the poor is akin to blaming food creation for the disparity between the gluttony and obesity exhibited in most developed nations and the deprivation and starvation found in most third world nations.

Edited August 18, 2014 by downzy

[arnold layne]

I don't think an economy based on credit cards and IOUs is a good idea.

[downzy]

The end result of captialism/fractional reserve banking is that all the resources will end up in fewer and fewer hands, that leaves less and less for everyone else.

Until that becomes unsustainable and there's a reversion to the mean, as there always is, by violent means unfortunately.

Heres a novel solution, put limits on wealth creation. Once you get a certain ammount then you have to retire. What the ammount might be, I don't know but I think it will be less than a billion maybe less than 100 million maybe less than 10 million.

I find it hilarious that Libertarians and the "anti-Fed" clan oppose the creation of wealth. Wealth, in and of itself, is an amoral property. The issue isn't its creation, but how wealth is divided.

Wealth accumulation and consolidation existed long before central banks. John D. Rockefeller garnered his vast fortune well before the U.S. Fed was created. Inequality isn't a novel concept of the 19th and 20th century. What was different in the 20th and 21st centuries is how wealth was and is treated.

Blaming the concept of wealth (or the government's efforts to create wealth) for the growing disparity between the rich and the poor is akin to blaming food creation for the disparity between the gluttony and obesity exhibited in most developed nations and the deprivation and starvation found in most third world nations.

The end result of captialism/fractional reserve banking is that all the resources will end up in fewer and fewer hands, that leaves less and less for everyone else.

Until that becomes unsustainable and there's a reversion to the mean, as there always is, by violent means unfortunately.

Heres a novel solution, put limits on wealth creation. Once you get a certain ammount then you have to retire. What the ammount might be, I don't know but I think it will be less than a billion maybe less than 100 million maybe less than 10 million.

I find it hilarious that Libertarians and the "anti-Fed" clan oppose the creation of wealth. Wealth, in and of itself, is an amoral property. The issue isn't its creation, but how wealth is divided.

Wealth accumulation and consolidation existed long before central banks. John D. Rockefeller garnered his vast fortune well before the U.S. Fed was created. Inequality isn't a novel concept of the 19th and 20th century. What was different in the 20th and 21st centuries is how wealth was and is treated.

Blaming the concept of wealth (or the government's efforts to create wealth) for the growing disparity between the rich and the poor is akin to blaming food creation for the disparity between the gluttony and obesity exhibited in most developed nations and the deprivation and starvation found in most third world nations.

Maybe I should of been clearer. Not the creation of wealth but the accumulation of excess wealth.

All the less for the grubermint to confiscate in taxes.

John Galt witheld his contribution to society so can everyone else at an individual level, of course those reliant on the system will need to get real jobs.

Noted, but it doesn't change the issue. The accumulation of excess wealth existed long before central banks and government intervention. Can government policy make things worse? Certainly. But there are many periods in the 20th century where government policy helped counter the excess of wealth accumulation. To suggest that governments do nothing but make the issue of wealth accumulation worse is folly, as there are not only historical examples of government policy alleviating gross inequality but modern day examples as well.

John Galt is/was a fictional character living in a fictional world written by a woman who's ethics are neither logical nor coherent. Galt symbolizes nothing more than selfishness packaged as an empty ideology. He is not a realistic interpretation of the individual, but the fetishization of it. To each their own, but for me, there is nothing redeeming in what Galt represents.

[Ace Nova]

Maybe I should of been clearer. Not the creation of wealth but the accumulation of excess wealth.

All the less for the grubermint to confiscate in taxes.

John Galt witheld his contribution to society so can everyone else at an individual level, of course those reliant on the system will need to get real jobs.

So these people would need to pull out all their invested money once they reach a certain amount? Yeah, that won't cause a complete economic collapse or anything.

[wasted]

In the end maybe it takes something extreme like revolution or John Galt.

It seems capitalism is beating democracy. Or people are just greedy idiots.

Democracy should give us the means to redistribute or guide the economy but maybe in a global economy to remain competitive you have to match the opposition.

With energy crisis on going can we really burn oil like we do?

We got rid of cd cases, what's the next?