I read the news today (oh boy!). Well, not the news per se. Rather, I read an opinion piece—not unlike the one you are currently reading, except that my column (I like to thank) makes at least a little sense. The piece that I read does not.
It appears at the website fredericksburg.com. The author, one Kenneth P. Vogel, writes somewhat gleefully about Glenn Beck’s production company having tax problems.
As Beck evolved from a medium-market local radio personality to a one-man media empire with top-rated radio and television shows, best-selling books, a monthly magazine and a traveling one-man comedy tour, his production company, Mercury Radio Arts, has at times struggled to keep up with the heightened tax and filing demands accompanying his success.
Mercury, a private corporation that lists Beck as chief executive officer and his wife, Tania Beck, alternately as vice president or secretary, since 2007 has fallen behind on its New York City business income taxes and has been cited for filing errors related to its obligations under Texas franchise tax and New York state workers’ compensation insurance rules.
Okay, let’s stop and review so far, shall we? Beck’s company has grown rapidly and, by Ken’s own lights, “at times struggled to keep up with the heightened tax and filing demands accompanying his success.” The company, moreover, “has fallen behind on its New York City business income taxes.” All right. I think I understand the situation. But what of it?
To understand why author Vogel finds delicious irony in this turn of events, you have to read the rest of the column. Actually, the first paragraph will suffice to give you the flavor and general tenor of the rest of the article:
No one has been less forgiving than Glenn Beck when it comes to Democrats with tax problems. Not just the well-known ones like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner but also less serious ones such as Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, whose husband only recently paid off $6,400 in tax liens on his auto repair business, and Nancy Killefer, who withdrew her nomination to be White House chief performance officer, citing a $946.69 tax lien on her Washington home.
So Vogel’s point is that Beck has made fun of employees of the federal government with greater or lesser tax problems. Obviously, any fair-minded observer will concede that Nancy Killefer’s tax lien problem is a fairly minor one. And Beck’s (“In October 2007, New York City issued a tax warrant against Mercury Radio Arts, indicating that the company had been penalized $10,927.49 for overdue 2006 general corporation taxes. . .”)—well, it’s impossible to say without knowing the company’s adjusted gross, which information Vogel does not provide.
But again, what of it? Let’s suppose Glenn Beck’s company owed $80 million. I still ask, “What of it?” Glenn Beck is not an employee of the federal government. He is a television personality. In contrast, the people he holds up to ridicule, such as Timothy Geithner, are employees of the federal government. Because they are charged with the responsibility of running some aspect of the nation’s government, they are expected to live according to a higher standard of behavior. Which part of this do liberals have trouble grasping?
Cross-posted at Manhattan Conservative Examiner
Comments 71
I think that it’s the part where moralizers and public scolds needn’t be expected to act according to the standards that they advocate.
January 9th, 2010 at 9:13 am
He’s a slug for Politico, who just had another piece casting doubt on the decision to address the Tea Party convention, but for the likes of Geithner, hosanna in the highest, for the head of the IRS, being a tax cheat while working for a government agency, that punishes whole countries for the tax avoidance of individuals
January 9th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Didn’t Rush move his bidness from NY to Fl. where there is no state income tax? Maybe Glenn doesn’t want to uproot his kids.
Anyway, remember Hildabeast’s tax filings in Arkansas, Fuster? Remember Bubba’s used underwear charitable donations?
Glenn Beck rocks. Because of his success, you’ve got even Romney and McCain attempting to sound angry at the incredible waste and arrogance emanating form Congress and The White House. Glenn is one of many excellent commentators shining a light on DC these days.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:01 am
@ Zoltan Newberry:
He’s just wonderful and people such as he shouldn’t be expected to always have to avoid lies or to be honest or to be fair.
Karl Marx was smart and influential and, because of his analytical work, many people adopted his tone and style.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:10 am
No, Marx, had a Michael Moore level understanding of political economy, supported by his rich sponsor Engels and tens of millions have died because of it
January 9th, 2010 at 10:24 am
@ narciso:
Unlike the transcendent brilliance and analytic sophistication served up by Beck?
Marx was a nice guy and would never have pretended to the murder of a defenseless frog.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:34 am
@ fuster:
Oh, crystal ball of mine–who shall be first to comment on this piece, especially since it mentions one of his favorite personalities, Glenn Beck? fuster, you say? Wait, I’ll go and check…
You’re wrong, of course. It has nothing to do with advocating moral standards. It has everything to do with holding to the fire the feet of people in government, without which fire the more devious and dishonest of them–i.e., those raised in the uber-corrupt Chicago political machine–would get away with murder.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:36 am
fuster wrote:
Where is the implication that Beck has failed to “avoid lies”? I believe you’ve had an absolutely fabulously fascinating discussion with JED regarding a misstatement of Beck’s, that Beck owned up to. So I guess maybe he’s not perfect. Please point out someone who is – who satisfies the fusterian fule of always avoiding lies (even a higher bar than never actually lying) so that I can genuflect.
Beck strikes me as honest, which isn’t the same as right. “Fair” is in the eye of the beholder.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:37 am
@ fuster:
OMG – the frog has suggested that Beck may not be of the same world-historical significance as Karl Marx! Poor Glenn.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:39 am
@ CK MacLeod:
When I think that America’s blogs have fallen into the hands of folks who hate traditional whitebread
I am overcome and must weep
January 9th, 2010 at 10:47 am
@ CK MacLeod:
Of course, you’ve failed to address my most impassioned criticism of Glenn Beck, because that’s the way appeasing apologist sympathizers and associate members are. You have no right..
Oh, I weep hot tears for thinking of the way our children will be used because Beckiana came to be accepted.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Glenn Beck is fast becoming the Will Rogers of our time, a happy warrior. My favorite is the red telephone routine with a guy in a Mao hat sitting there next to it ready to answer it whenever the White House calls.
Also his voiceover routine of former Obami Czar, Van Jones, screaming, “GIVE THEM THE WEALTH, GIVE THEM THE WEALTH!” is another moment to remember in the Obami’s attempt to take over America.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:55 am
I have to confess to taking a certain perverse delight in watching fuster go off like a badly timed fireworks display. Sorry, little buddy. No offense, I hope.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Well Glenn is sometimes a little too Howard Beale, specially the part of when he has visited with Ruddy the chairman of CCA, who’s told him of the new corporate order, Rush is more upbeat, and some time less emotional, but compared to the other media, who have abrogated their role, I would take them in a heartbeat.
January 9th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Howard Portnoy wrote:
Absolutely none taken, Howard.
I smile to realize that it’s simply more of your failure a pattern recognition.
Too many people, left and right, don’t seem to understand the lack of seriousness that Beck offersto his overly-simple critics and devotees.
January 9th, 2010 at 11:22 am
@ narciso:
Beale didn’t always remember that he was a clown, Beck does.
January 9th, 2010 at 11:24 am
narciso wrote:
No, Marx, had a Michael Moore level understanding of political economy, supported by his rich sponsor Engels and tens of millions have died because of it
WRONG,People that thought they understand Marx without reading Capital(All Three Volumes)created systems based on a faulty understanding of Marx that destroyed the lives of tens of millions. There is a similiar process to blame Nietzsche for Hitler. In fact,if you compare Von Mises,Smith,or Schumpeter,for example, to Marx,the only difference is that the others warn capitalism about certain dangers that could harm the capitalistic process, Marx felt that those dangers,such as the degradation of the currency, were inevitable,based on the many conflicts of interest that exist between a government that “oversees” the Capitalistic process,and the Free Market itself,hence the instability Marx continuously referred to. The Free Market Economists knew what Marx knew about those “dangers”. Some were more optimisic than Marx,others like Von Mises,Schumpeter,and Hayek,were equally pessimistic.
January 9th, 2010 at 11:26 am
As Howard pointed out, there’s a lot of slack in that article. What did Beck know and when did he know it are fair questions; but judged utterly strictly every small business in the country has probably broken a state or city tax law in the course of doing its accounting.
Geithner’s clear tax evasion offense was in a different category than “has fallen behind on its New York City business income taxes and has been cited for filing errors related to its obligations under Texas franchise tax and New York state workers’ compensation insurance rules.” And, as Howard pointed out, Geithner is Treasury Secretary. His appointment to that position of all positions, after that revelation, gives us all full moral license to evade any and all Federal taxes we can, using whatever means we can muster.
January 9th, 2010 at 11:27 am
@ Sully:
So if I kill Beck and steal all his money, I won’t be morally obliged to report the income?
January 9th, 2010 at 11:30 am
@ fuster:
fuster, this will have to be my last word on this. I have other fish to fry (so to speak), but I ask you to take your comment
and reword it with the following substitutions, then take a couple of Tylenol and get some rest:
January 9th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Howard, Don’t blame the liberals for Beck’s tax problems,if he has a problem,which it doesn’t sound very serious. It’s only serious if there’s an indictment. Anyway,here’s the truth,any high earning individual knows what to do about his taxes. He hires a “Big Four CPA” and allows the CPA firm to do its job,simple but expensive. If he wants to try to beat the system,(and who would blame him) then you take risks like high write off tax shelters that may run into the displeasure of the IRS,Risk/Reward. If you go for Risk,you may get burned,old old reality.
January 9th, 2010 at 11:35 am
As usual, you miss the point Frogman, Chayevfky saw the future very clearly, Howard Beale was a respected news anchor who had a crisis of faith, in the profession, because of the sheer absurdity of it. That has moved to a quantum level, thirty years on.
Are you going to defend Marxism, now, Rex, he took a very common and incomplete view of industrial economy, that Dickens and other writers share. He compiled this utopian vision, which really was unlikely to work out. Lenin, being a lawyer, decided to hurry the process along, and anoint the elite that would run this society, and tried it in the most unlikely place possible, Soviet Russia, Mao followed suit, Orwell tried to fit his beloved Albion into that vision, although he more clearly saw the terrible human cost
January 9th, 2010 at 11:39 am
PS. BTW, I have never heard one thought about Economics from Mr. Beck that showed any special understanding. If you all would read the recent interview with Mr. Paul by Steve Forbes,you run into a sensibility that is in tune with the Core issues of our economic decline. I’ve never heard Beck talk about any of these issues with any intelligence,including the need for a flat tax reform of our current elephantine system.
January 9th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Are you going to defend Marxism, now, Rex, he took a very common and incomplete view of industrial economy, that Dickens and other writers share. He compiled this utopian vision, which really was unlikely to work out. Lenin, being a lawyer, decided to hurry the process along, and anoint the elite that would run this society, and tried it in the most unlikely place possible, Soviet Russia, Mao followed suit, Orwell tried to fit his beloved Albion into that vision, although he more clearly saw the terrible human cost
Don’t blame Marx for those that didn’t read him or understand him. I’m talking about Marx the Economist,not Marx the Utopian Visionary,two different guys.
January 9th, 2010 at 11:44 am
@ narciso:
And my point, narc, is that Beale was capable of a crisis of faith.
Beck has no faith to lose, and he knows it.
January 9th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Actually, Frogman, I know you really don’t care, but he probably sees this whole lecture series as analogous to his own journey to recovery, He never lets it be forgotten, that he is a flawed, man who sinned in the past, that he did injury to those he cared for. He has found considerable success, but his previous experience allows him not to take it for granted
January 9th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
fuster wrote:
@ narciso:
And my point, narc, is that Beale was capable of a crisis of faith.
Beck has no faith to lose, and he knows it.
Let’s be fair,I see Glen as a Joe Mccarthy of the Media,but Mccarthy was right some of the time. He was always obnoxious,as is Beck. I find Beck fascinating,as a person with a direct pipeline into the American”Heart of Darkness.”
January 9th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Beck is the best of the energizer bunnies who include Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Krauthammer, Mark Levin, Rush, O’Reilly, Michael Savage & Marc Steyn.
The big question in my mind is what the ‘folks’ do with all the energy.
Continued mobilizations such as Apr 15 are important. They will hopefully provoke sufficient thought and discussion to develop a program to revive our economy and protect our freedoms. Such a program could include:
-Mandatory government downsizing of all departments (except for law enforcement, public safety & military) starting with halving of Congressional & WH staffs.
-Reductions in all taxes & eliminations of some.
-Moratoriums on all energy exploration and production, grid & infrastructure related restrictions and taxes.
-Creation of a North and South American free trade zone, coupled with efforts to encourage democracy and root out corruption (including our own) throughout both hemispheres.
-A declaration of International Human Rights, including women’s rights, free press, independent judiciary, freedom of speech, and an organization of world democracies replacing the UN, devoted to free trade and mutual assistance.
January 9th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
@ Zoltan Newberry:
Great, Zolt. let’s make these non-negotiable demands that must be in place by midnight May 1. (EST)
Oh, and let’s demand an end to gun registration and the repeal of the restriction on private ownership of automatic rifles by people under the age of 16.
And no more birth certificates for non-Americans and immoral aliens.
January 9th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
hopefully provoke sufficient thought and discussion to develop a program to revive our economy
I would love to see the Beckian economic revival program: of particular interest would be his ideas to pay off our indebtedness at all levels, how to make our currency worth something,and how to manage the Federal Reserve. Tell me when he has a show highlighting those issues.
January 9th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
@ fuster:
Just so.
January 9th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
@ fuster:
From your mouth to Godzilla’s ear.
January 9th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
@ Rex Caruthers:
How about a sweater instead?
January 9th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Sully wrote:
I remember back in the good old days when January meant something in America.
I still can hear the voices of our ancestors on the television calling out across the land,
“January is alien registration month”
and all them slithy critters had to take their gyrations on down to the US Post Office.
And they had to wait in the slow line! No real American Postal Clerk was going to be busting a gut for no hurry-up neither.
January 9th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
@ fuster:
Just goes to show that even back in the good old days they were soft.
Initial visa one month with cost of return ticket home escrowed at point of entry. Visa renewable monthly under exceptional humanitarian circumstances at INS office in the major city centers with fresh photo, and fingerprint taken, plus a full written and signed report describing all travel, encounters with police, demonstration of financial responsibility and signature demonstrating that American citizen sponsor accepts full legal liability for any debts, damages, etc. incurred. – plus of course proof that the American citizen sponsor has means to pay the full cost of any police time and resources and court costs required for apprehension and deportation in event of visa overstay.
January 9th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Beck will flame out because he goes for the outrageous. Rush has had staying power because why he can go over the top he can also get very seriously into policy discussions – of course he has 3 hours a day. Still, Rush has interviewed presidents – I cannot see Beck doing that.
As to his tax problems, sounds like he is trying to comply but getting tripped up by the complexity of our tax codes, which is a great suggestion for a flat tax. I guess Beck has gotten big enough that he needs a bigger CPA. WElcome to the joy of being successful.
January 9th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
@ JEM:
The flat tax is one of those great ideas that’s impossible to get to from here in one step. The current congress would lard any tax bill with so much garbage that it would be a tax increase no matter what they call it.
No new taxes is something that voters can understand. Cut spending is something voters can understand. Stay out of my business is something voters can understand.
Anything more complicated devolves into last year’s “stimulus package” or this years Health Care “Reform” bill in this environment
January 9th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
So one actually reads the article, and one finds he satified the New York tax debt in 2007, and the Texas one more than a year ago, but that’s near the end of the article. Unlike Geithner, who paid it when it came up, or Solis, Killefer, Mr. Sibelius, et al. So what exactly is the story here,
January 9th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
@ narciso:
“pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” Saul Alinsky
More of us conservatives need to read that book and apply its principles. Fire with fire.
January 9th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Howard,
For some reason the links in your restaurant review email notifications are no longer working.
January 9th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
@Sully:I suspect you’re right, but seeing as the facts in the story, contradict the assertions, one has to wonder. Much as some of the statements in the new “Game Change” seem either exaggerated, distorted, or out right false, I’m sure the AP will get right on it
January 9th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
@ narciso:
You’re hung up on facts. The writer of the story is twisting half “facts” to weaken an ideological opponent.
January 10th, 2010 at 7:47 am
“pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”
Tactics not limited to the likes of Alinsky,see the Karl Rove playbook.
January 10th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Marx thought the roots of the inevitable capitalist crisis lay in exploitation of labor, over-production, and the declining rate of profit–were does he ever mention the “degradation of the currency”?
Beck, meanwhile, often speaks of our massive indebtedness and the degradation of the dollar–I don’t know how deep his economic understanding goes, but he knows enough to know those things are wrong and harmful.
January 10th, 2010 at 11:36 am
@ adam:
I doubt Beck is very sophisticated in an analytical sense; but I suspect we would all be a lot better off if our economists, policy makers and congresscritters would recognize that their economic understanding doesn’t go very deep even though they may have studied long.
January 10th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Marx thought the roots of the inevitable capitalist crisis lay in exploitation of labor, over-production, and the declining rate of profit–were does he ever mention the “degradation of the currency”?
In Capital,Volume One.Book One.Chapter One,through Chapter Six is an analysis of the conditions that strengthen and ruin a nation’s currency. If you didn’t know it was Marx,you’d think it was A Smith.
Beck has no idea of the historical context that created the conditions that devalued our currency.
January 10th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
@ Sully:
Any thorough study of how “economic policy” is and has been made in Washington DC will leave you with the impression that they’re all dancing in the dark, knocking over the furniture and landing on their face – and the best thing they could do is a lot less in every way. Which thought has a lot to do, of course, with how some of us ended up being conservatives. And not just on economics.
January 10th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
And BTW,the Entire Volume 2 is an analysis of the factors that effect Capital Evaluation.
Contents of Volume 3:(The CORE of Classical Economics)
Capital Volume III
The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole
——————————————————————————–
Written: Karl Marx, 1863-1883, edited by Friedrick Engels and completed by him 11 years after Marx’s death;
Source: Institute of Marxism-Leninism, USSR, 1959;
Publisher: International Publishers, NY, [n.d.]
First Published: 1894;
On-Line Version: Marx.org 1996, Marxists.org 1999;
Transcribed: in 1996 by Hinrich Kuhls, Dave Walters and Zodiac, and by Tim Delaney and M. Griffin in 1999;
HTML Markup: Zodiac 1996, Tim Delaney and M. Griffin in 1999;
Proofed and Corrected: by Chris Clayton 2006-7.
——————————————————————————–
Contents
Preface
Part I
The Conversion of Surplus-Value into Profit and of
the Rate of Surplus-Value into the Rate of Profit
Ch. 1: Cost-Price and Profit
Ch. 2: The Rate of Profit
Ch. 3: The Relation of the Rate of Profit to the Rate of Surplus-Value
Ch. 4: The Effect of the Turnover on the Rate of Profit
Ch. 5: Economy in the Employment of Constant Capital
Ch. 6: The Effect of Price Fluctuations
Ch. 7: Supplementary Remarks
Part II
Conversion of Profit into Average Profit
Ch. 8: Different Compositions of Capitals in Different Branches of Production and Resulting Differences in Rates of Profit
Ch. 9: Formation of a General Rate of Profit (Average Rate of Profit) and Transformation of the Values of Commodities into Prices of Production
Ch. 10: Equalisation of the General Rate of Profit Through Competition. Market-Prices and Market-Values. Surplus-Profit.
Ch. 11: Effects of General Wage Fluctuations on Prices of Production
Ch. 12: Supplementary Remarks
Part III
The Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall
Ch. 13: The Law as Such
Ch. 14: Counteracting Influences
Ch. 15: Exposition of the Internal Contradictions of the Law
Part IV
Conversion of Commodity-Capital and Money-Capital into Commercial
Capital and Money-Dealing Capital (Merchant’s Capital)
Ch. 16: Commercial Capital
Ch. 17: Commercial Profit
Ch. 18: The Turnover of Merchant’s Capital
Ch. 19: Money-Dealing Capital
Ch. 20: Historical Facts about Merchant’s Capital
Part V
Division of Profit into Interest and Profit of Enterprise.
Interest-Bearing Capital.
Ch. 21: Interest-Bearing Capital
Ch. 22: Division of Profit. Rate of Interest. Natural Rate of Interest.
Ch. 23: Interest and Profit of Enterprise
Ch. 24: Externalisation of the Relations of Capital in the Form of Interest-Bearing Capital
Ch. 25: Credit and Fictitious Capital
Ch. 26: Accumulation of Money-Capital. Its Influence on the Interest Rate.
Ch. 27: The Role of Credit in Capitalist Production
Ch. 28: Medium of Circulation and Capital; Views of Tooke and Fullarton
Ch. 29: Component Parts of Bank Capital
Ch. 30: Money-Capital and Real Capital. I
Ch. 31: Money-Capital and Real Capital. II
Ch. 32: Money-Capital and Real Capital. III
Ch. 33: The Medium of Circulation in the Credit System
Ch. 34: The Currency Principle and the English Bank Legislation of 1844
Ch. 35: Precious Metal and Rate of Exchange
Ch. 36: Pre-Capitalist Relationships
Part VI
Transformation of Surplus-Profit into Ground-Rent
Ch. 37: Introduction
Ch. 38: Differential Rent: General Remarks
Ch. 39: First Form of Differential Rent (Differential Rent I)
Ch. 40: Second Form of Differential Rent (Differential Rent II)
Ch. 41: Differential Rent II — First Case: Constant Price of Production
Ch. 42: Differential Rent II — Second Case: Falling Price of Production
Ch. 43: Differential Rent II — Third Case: Rising Price of Production
Ch. 44: Differential Rent Also on the Worst Cultivated Soil
Ch. 45: Absolute Ground-Rent
Ch. 46: Building Site Rent. Rent in Mining. Price of Land.
Ch. 47: Genesis of Capitalist Ground-Rent
Part VII
Revenues and their Sources
Ch. 48: The Trinity Formula
Ch. 49: Concerning the Analysis of the Process of Production
Ch. 50: Illusions Created by Competition
Ch. 51: Distribution Relations and Production Relations
Ch. 52: Classes
January 10th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
adam wrote:
The hard part for anti-Marxists to understand, and for very good historical reasons, is that much of the Marxist analysis can still be made to work very well and usefully. The big problem is that the instrumentalization of that analysis is based on a naive and simplistic fallacy: that a critique can be mapped directly on to reality as praxis. Instead, as the objects of the Marxist critique know and intuit directly from their own experience, the opposite is almost always the case in human life on Earth, and any effort to impose an abstraction by force on social reality does violence to both. As we’ve seen from hard experience, eventually that violence may become indistinguishable to the ideologue from his own ideology: Every failure and contradiction is absorbed as proof; he knows he’s right because he’s wrong.
January 10th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
CK,you are mixing up the Utopian Political part of Marx with his Economic analysis. His Analysis of Capitalism is totally sound. However,Lenin took that analysis and did what you just said was done. That has nothing to do with the Validity of his treatise on Capital. In fact,what has happened to World Capitalism since 1971,is 100% consistent with Marx’s analysis,and equally of Hayek,Von Mises,and Schumpeter,and,Burnham.
January 10th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
@ fuster:
I am so sick of the twisting of the truth or the telling of half the story. I noticed that no where did it say that Beck’s company did not pay. It said that they had errors or got behind. I for one have had a error, which meant that I got behind and paid it when I found out. By the way, I make less than 100K.That is different than all of the public servants that only pay once the public finds out or do not pay at all. If Beck was not paying he would be in court. I could not imagine the taxs he has to deal with being a company owner, having multible states he has to pay taxes in, and on top of that having to pay to the fedreal gov. If it comes out that he was trying to cheat I will be the first to step up and bash him. But I believe he (which means his accountants) most likely just screwed up on a few of the rules from the 68,000 pages of them. And that is just the federal tax code.
January 10th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
@ Memphis Merlin:
I can not fault you for fatigue from fact-twisting. FOX’s fame for same is fairly-won and Beck’s fair game.
January 10th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
@ Memphis Merlin:
Good points, bt not actually far enough. There have been multiple incidents of reporters calling the IRS itself, for advice on complex tax issues, and getting different answers on different occasions. Even the IRS itself doesn’t reliably interpret its regulations.
January 10th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
@ Rex Caruthers:
No, Rex, actually you’re saying pretty much what I was saying: Critique interesting and useful; praxis, and even the notion of a direct translation from critique to praxis, dreadful – so dreadful in fact that it leads people to make the same mistake in reverse, that is, to presume that the abject failures of nominal Marxists in the real world must or can prove anything about the abstract critique.
There have been some interesting philosophical-critical attempts to tie the failures of Marxist politics to misconceptions at the basis of Marxist critique. Baudrillard’s THE MIRROR OF PRODUCTION was one influential work along these lines. ANTI-OEDIPUS took on both Marxism and Freudian psychology in an anarchic to the point of being kind of crazed style. Much of what was interesting and revolutionary about Deconstruction was its parallel attack on the Marxist assumptions then dominant in academia. It took a long time for supposedly “reactionary” deconstructionists to be turned on their head – or converted into the nihilistic blocking backs for institutional academic Marxism running roughshod over our colleges and universities.
Less broadly known but interesting for its ambitions – and its unique and for its day very forward-looking approach toward ecology and cybernetics – was MARXISM AND DOMINATION by Isaac Balbus.
I’m going to put links these books at the end of this comment, even though I suspect that most commenters here would find them almost ludicrously uninteresting. For people struggling to liberate themselves from Marxism, or interested in how we got intellectually to where we are today, they can be very interesting and useful.
The Mirror of Production
Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Penguin Classics)
Marxism and Domination: A Neo-Hegelian, Feminist, Psychoanalytic Theory of Sexual, Political, and Technological Liberation
January 10th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Rational expectations and human ingenuity defeated Marxism in practice and they will defeat any economic program imposed from the top.
“We pretend to work” became the way of life in the USSR once the workers realized that “they pretend to pay us.”
‘We pretend to have the income to pay a bigger mortgage’ became the way of home ownership upgrade or the taking out of “equity” for consumption spending once the people here in the US realized that nobody actually cared about repayment and that the laws affecting default were toothless. Once it’s clear everyone else is eating, drinking and making merry while the ship sinks it’s only the fool who stays sober.
January 10th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
In Capital,Volume One.Book One.Chapter One,through Chapter Six is an analysis of the conditions that strengthen and ruin a nation’s currency. If you didn’t know it was Marx,you’d think it was A Smith.
Sorry, I don’t see it. I see the use value vs. exchange value of the commodity (the “ultimate” source of the “alienation” that will doom the system), the relative and expanded form of value, the “fetishism” of commodites, then into money, capital, and finally wage labor. The goal of the analysis is to show that value can only enter the system through the surplus value created by labor. Can you point to a single paragraph, and single sentence, concerned with the “conditions that strengthen and ruin a nation’s currency”? Or that Marx could care less about “nations” and the soundness of their currency?
Marx’s analysis is only sound if you think labor is the only source of value and surplus labor the only source of profit. All the rest concerns variations around a mean–capitalists gaining the surplus value created by laborers employed by other capitalists and trying to outrun the fact that increases in technology leave less and less value for the workers to produce.
January 10th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
“We pretend to work” became the way of life in the USSR once the workers realized that “they pretend to pay us.”
‘We pretend to have the income to pay a bigger mortgage’
Very well put Sully,Capitalism is a “game” that like all games produces winners and losers,and although the rules evolve over time,you still need referees who are fluent in the current rules. The same is true of Socialism,different game,different rules,still produces winner and losers,just different kinds. Both games have dropped the ball in terms of referees,as you pointed out above. And pretence is currently a huge aspect of both games,in fact,both games have become very similiar in some ways. Check out Chris Hedges new book,Empire of Illusion,and you’ll see clearly how the discomforts of a Core Liberal have become the agenda of the Neo-Cons,and the Paliniskies. It’s fascinating.
And,Adam,the idea that Marx wasn’t totally aware of Governments incentive to degrade their currencies so that they can pay their debts is just laughable,Everyone knows that one. You shouldn’t try to summarize 3000 pages of mechanistic fiscal analysis into a couple of slogans. I underwent 12 hours of Marxian analysis in GraD SCHOOL;I’ve paid my dues.
People who prefer Capitalism to Socialism,people who prefer Bridge to Chess, whatever,part of the Free market is the ability to play the game that one is most suited to play,to win.
January 10th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
“And,Adam,the idea that Marx wasn’t totally aware of Governments incentive to degrade their currencies so that they can pay their debts is just laughable,Everyone knows that one. You shouldn’t try to summarize 3000 pages of mechanistic fiscal analysis into a couple of slogans. I underwent 12 hours of Marxian analysis in GraD SCHOOL;I’ve paid my dues.”
I didn’t say he was unaware of it; just that it plays no role in his theoretical analysis of capital. Strategies of governments to stave off working class opposition or to compete with other governments were completely secondary–strategic and tactical–issues to Marx. And many of us have had their Marxist periods, including intense reading of all of Capital (don’t forget Volume IV, Theories of Surplus Value!), plus later commentaries, Ernest Mandel, etc., etc.
January 10th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Adam,
Leaving aside the day to day fluctuations of price caused by market fluctuations of supply and demand and the fact that some commodities normally exchange above or below their value, Marx postulated that the basic element in the exchange of all commodities in capitalist society is value, measured by the amount of socially necessary labour in all the operations required in the production of a given commodity. From which it follows, firstly, that if one commodity requires twice as much socially necessary labour as another, its value will be twice as great, and secondly, that in gold all other commodities find their “universal equivalent”, again related to value. This explains what is behind the value of gold coinage; the coin is a weight of gold representing the value of gold. In concrete terms the Pound or sovereign which circulated in Britain in the nineteenth and into the present century was, by law, a fixed weight (about one quarter of an ounce) of gold.
The next proposition is that in order to carry on the sales and purchases of commodities and other payments a certain amount of gold coin (and subsidiary silver, copper etc., coinage) would be needed. A number of factors enter into the determination of what volume of currency will actually be needed; the volume of transactions, the prices of commodities and the rapidity of circulation etc., for a description of which the reader is referred to Marx’s Capital Vol. 1. Chapter 3. “Money, or the Circulation of Commodities”.
The next stage in Marx’s explanation is that a circulating gold coinage can, without any alteration of the proposition, be replaced by a convertible paper currency, that is freely convertible into a legally fixed and unchanging weight of gold. In 19th century Britain, Bank of England notes, which circulated alongside the gold coins, were by law convertible on demand into gold.
Then comes a completely different situation, the replacement of gold coin and convertible bank notes by an inconvertible paper currency—the situation in Britain today. The Marxian proposition, still based firmly on the concept of value, is that if the inconvertible paper currency exceeds in amount the amount of gold coinage that would be needed, the general price level will correspondingly rise.
If the quantity of paper money issued is, for example, double what it ought to be, then, in actual fact, the pound, has become the money name of one-eighth of an ounce of gold instead of about one-quarter of an ounce. The effect is the same as if an alteration had taken place in the function of gold as a standard of price. The values previously expressed by the price of £1 will then be expressed by the price £2. (Capital Vol. 1 page 144 Kerr edition).
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article286
January 10th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Isn’t crony capitalism the problem? Isn’t capital perverted by the corruption of big companies, big law firms and big Wall Street houses getting goodies from the government in the form of contracts and rules and charters and opportunities which enhance and protect their wealth?
When I think of Rex’s it’s all a big game theory, I think of Warren Buffet, George Soros and Bill Gates who have become successful billionaires in a big government kind of friendly way. At least Gates was largely responsible for breakthroughs which arguably make our lives better, and at least Buffet represents the wealth potential of being a smart and diligent businessman.
I think of all the millionaire small businessmen who have worked their butts off. I think of all the geniuses who have accumulated great wealth through their innovations IN SPITE OF BIG GOVERNMENT, and I must conclude that free market capitalism is vastly superior to any top down system like socialism or marxism.
The secret is to keep the top down control freaks at bay. They never seen to give up, do they? Their obsession with power and control can ruin everything unless there are enough of us willing to stand up for our freedoms in a world we know we cannot entirely predict and control.
Socialism appeals to and depends on the worst elements of human nature such as the need for routine and certainty and the pettiness of spite and envy. It is a dead end. Capitalism can and should work well in a society where educated people are free to distinguish themselves through their work, training, preparation, mobility, and diligence, and where they are free to speak, vote and bear arms.
So, Rex seems left with an overriding cynicism.
January 10th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
So, Rex seems left with an overriding cynicism
Is Phillips or GE the better company? Phillips is the product of a Socialist Society,GE,Tooth and Claw Capitalism. You say tomato etc etc. Which is greater Boeing or Airbus? Is America greater than the EEC? It’s still all about competition?
BTW,why do we have the worst currency among all the “advanced” nations?
January 10th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
and I must conclude that free market capitalism is vastly superior to any top down system like socialism or marxism
But because we are free to choose,we might choose what you consider an inferior program, because as a cAPITALIIST,I will chose what best for me and my family,not necessarily what is best,in someone’s opinion,for the greater good of society.
On another level,”When there is no God,Everything is an opinion. Dostoyevsky,Brothers Karamazov, Ivan talking to his brother,Alyosha.
January 10th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
GE is a poster boy for crony capitalism, a black box, kinda like AIG.
Phillips seems unfocused but is probably the better company which is not saying much. I’d rather own neither.
You’ve spent too much time in China and Greenwich Village, Rex. I know so many self made men and know of thousands of others including Steve Jobs. I think that in this country people are free to screw up once great companies like GE and Motorola, just as others are free to screw up UBS and Siemens abroad. People are also free to select the best new companies like Apple here and LAN Chile elsewhere, my friend. Capital will be naturally drawn to innovative enterprises all over the world, especially where, unlike France & Russia, governments can stay out of the way. This is why a cautious man like Buffet chose Israel for some of his most recent investments.
January 10th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
So, if the amount of money in circulation doubles artificially, everything halves in value; and Marx knew this. The question is, does he attrbute to this development, in the slightest, the emergence of the crisis of capitalism?
Governments wish to do things for their constituencies which they can’t afford, and for which those constituencies don’t wish to be taxed. So, they borrow and print money; their commitments to these constituencies grow exponentially, so they must keep borrowing and printing. Isn’t that the whole of the problem? Of course, I don’t deny that it’s an enormous problem, perhaps fatal in the end–but Marx doesn’t help us understand or address it. To be honest, I’m not sure who does.
January 10th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Glenn Beck shouldn’t have to pay taxes anyway. He’s an American hero and should be permanently exempt.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
@ J.E. Dyer:
be probably lost the right to pay taxes while he was being radicalized.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
@ Rex Caruthers:
You missed my point. Once the participants realize the “referees” are enforcing any rules beyond very simple and universally agreed ones that affect all parties equally (like anti-fraud measures) they work to circumvent the referees. And, being more agile and collectively more knowledgeable than the referees, they always win the day by day game, which causes everyone except the politically wired rule-setters (who are always the biggest and most successful thieves in every economic system) to lose the long term game as a result.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
@ Rex Caruthers:
Are you confused, Rex? Lots of people doing what is best for them and their families adds up to a society in which rational choices are made far more than in top down command economies, such as the one the Obami are trying to foist on us.
It’s called the invisable hand, and, even with its many faults, it is far better than the visible one. The visible hands of the annointed central planners all are carrying sledge hammers.
January 11th, 2010 at 11:00 am
It’s called the invisable hand
Like the Concept of God,I don’t Believe in the Invisible hand,in fact isn’t the Invisible Hand an economic projection of God.
Adam,You got it right,currency expansion is the biggest problem we have. Marx felt that the tendancy to corrupt the currency by the government was fatal to Capitalism;it certainly may be fatal to us.
January 12th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Mister Rex: For all the horrors of capitalism, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. When it comes to horrors, the redistributors got it all over the greedy capitalists, who are so busy being greedy they got no time to round us up into reeducation facilities otherwise known as gulags.
Wait till you see the lengths they will go to in a few short years when they will try to keep Mister Peanut in power acorn style.
January 12th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Currency expansion, yes, from a narrowly economic point of view–but the real problem is why we do it, keep doing it, do more and more of it, etc.–and the answer to those questions like in the state of our democracy, in our collective relation to the state. The more state intervention becomes the default option for solving social and economic problems, the more we will expand the money supply. Conservatives like to talk a good game (I include myself in this) but the truth is that a substantial majority of Americans would be gripped with terror at the idea that from now on it will be up to us (and only us) to plan for our retirement, pay for our own health care, save for emergencies, etc., much less (ultimately) find new ways to control pollution, build infrastructure, see to the education of our children, etc. I believe that the state is utterly unreliable in all these areas (not equally so, of course), is becoming more so and more wastefully and expensively so–but a candidate for any office, anywhere in the country, who was to say what I just said, would be booed or laughed out of public life.
January 12th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Post a Comment