@@BiggusDiggusableShe does not understand the difference between Cooperatism and Capitalism. Cooperatism is what she is talking about. This is the fusion of big companies with the state. A state by the way which is democratically elected. (BTW I agree with most of her points when she criticizes Cooperatism) She criticizes the tendency for profit making. But if you do not make profit then you make loss. In a free market then you disappear unless to can force other people to carry the costs of your incompetence. She puts competition vs cooperation. She does not understand that we do both all the time. We can not cooperate with the hole world since there are always more needs than resources. So we compete. And we compete , most of the time by cooperating with others. The example of the small village she made, has very little to do with capitalism even if she claims that. It is local decision making vs. centralized decision making. Here I a agree but it has nothing to do with capitalism. ...
vulture capitalism? I dare anyone including the author to explain how that grandiloquent description adds anything intelligible to the basic Marxist definition of capitalism as surplus value production
The thing that scares me is that it used to be a few of us nutjobs that believed everything was going to hell........and now it's the commonly held analysis/observation on live and unfolding events. It's a living demonstration of 'first they laugh at you....'
@@TheTransitmtl The problem with Capitalism is that it just slammed on the gas for indice growth with no regard for anything else. That's all that capitalism can do. It can't do anything else.
Lets recall, rights as usual negotiable when clicking in, one way or another, learn, turn, churn, burn, retire, replace/automate. Machines obey, dont strike, etc Less human than humanity™ Commerce. Total IT Arian Wild WILD WEST
Reminds me of Rousseau’s insight that when the wealth in the private realm exceeds the wealth in the public realm, it will inevitably corrupt the public realm.
Boeing is a public company. All companies listed on stock exchanges are publicity owned, in theory though. There is no free market anymore. Even in the USA the economy is controlled and manipulated by the state and oligarchs.
This is just pedantic because you can have socialist aspects and it's still a form of socialism. Social Security and Medicare are concepts of socialism.
Great conversation. Let’s hope Leaseholders can get justice and accountability. Many are trapped in their unsalable homes due to deregulation by Government and allowing Housing Developers to build shoddy and dangerous buildings. Agonising Fleeceholds.
Incredibly clear and thought-provoking. May I asky why the problem is not framed as "corruption"? I come from a third-world country, where typically what is blamed for scenarios like these are corrupt government officials, rather than the private institutions/economic model.
@@jimbaxter8488 Of course govt corruption is part of the problem, and it's because capitalists literally bought the government. The solution isn't eliminating government, and hoping capitalists behave better. It's democratizing government, and business, and putting both under the control of the people. No gods, no kings, and no executives.
It is because there is no difference between government and corporations in capitalism. At a fundamental level, the government forces you to participate in corporate hierarchy through tax and uses that tax first to ensure the growth of the economic model it serves by facilitating fiat currency and military dominance over potentially competitive models in other states. To call a government corrupt assumes that its function is in service to the majority. In reality, at every level, power is garnered and leveraged to grow monetary prosperity through concentration of production methods. In simple terms: when the goal of a system is a market (free or otherwise), the state apparatus made to ensure the goals of that system will be first and foremost concerned with the sovereignty of that market-often and especially at the cost of those laborers that work in it, because they are the greatest threat to its continuation, by virtue of being the majority population.
Anger is a good place to start out of apathy, but it takes reflection and to be able to think and understand that much of the suffering and problems are systematic and are a result of capitalism. Like you say working as a community and through protest and acton is the best place to go.
Absolutely. It is only when workers cultivate class-solidarity, and act on our shared interests in defense of each other, that we'll actually have a chance to turn this situation around.
We had the biggest protest in history of the usa for the Floyd killing, and it changed absolutely NOTHING regarding the police. Their funding INCREASED. I will say a couple states did eliminate qualified immunity, but otherwise, nothing. So protests are not the answer. In the UK, they are taking real action, and some have been put in prison for it. THIS
Great interview, but just a point of clarification - the Boeing 737-Max problems weren't caused by Boeing making "really big planes". The problem was that they put newer, more efficient, but much larger engines, onto very old planes. This changed the centre of gravity which made the planes very unstable, and liable to go nose down, which is not good news on an airplane. Rather than make proper engineering design changes to the wings and airframe, which they would have done in the past, they simply put in software as you said, which corrected this tendency by modifying the pilot input to create a higher angle of attack, effectively raising the nose. It was this software which went wrong, and which caused the crashes. This is an important point, as it actually amplifies how you say modern day capitalism works, creating problems through shortcuts and greed, aided by the state. Just saying!
@@Joe-ij6of It was a engineering problem because they should not have put them engines on those planes. They tried to correct it with software which was incorrect solutions. Do you not think the engineers was trying to tell them not to do it and the manger told them to do it anyway?
@@MrKongatthegates not necessarily, and not always for high value manufacturing, something of the sort Germany tends to specialize in. But there's no doubt it's a MAJOR uphill battle to keep a high per capita income country in the running.
I have a homestead in DC where I grow fruit trees, harvest honey and duck eggs. I feed myself and both neighbors. The community also has a planned urban orchard being built across the neighborhood. Everyone with a suburban home watching this, you are sitting on a community goldmine with your small piece of land.
Planting only pretty flowers or effin grass lawns is a telltale sign of being shortsighted. If you have land, grow your own damn fruit/veggies. Everything else is suicidal at this point
@@phoebeel Yep. Also, it's more fun to grow productive things and support native insects with native flowers and trees. All the corporate jobs are going away in a decade with AC so not sure why people are not preparing for the end times. Lol
Almost all problems could be solved simply by making it financially worthwhile for people to share the jobs we would agree we NEED people to do and to work much less. We have to get into a system where we aren't working and doing anything we can think of FOR money but sharing in doing the work we NEED to have done. Where every job is doing something we need.
And who’s going to determine what we ‘need’? There will never be consensus on that…and, an economy that pays people more for doing less is what is known as a ‘third world nation’ …no one wants to live in that wide spread poverty. Why? Because when you establish high pay for ‘low output’ you instantly devalue your currency into sky high inflation…your currency becomes worthless.
Of course it is doomed as an economic model, it has been since its birth. Every city council that does not have wealthy property, home owners in the majority are surviving on credit, are forever in debt. Capitalism feeds on debt, every capitalist nation survives on debt; this is how capitalism functions. It is a dead economic model that feeds on and creates chronic ill health, homelessness, poverty, and inequality; it makes most of its profits for the elites off these problems. Most profits are generated out of making weapons and vehicles of war. Of course it is doomed, especially if and when it's populated body politik wakes up and smells the shit they are inherently in, just keeping their heads up above water!
The Mondragon Democratic / Corporate model needs to be known by more people. A worker self-directed enterprise out of Mondragon, Spain, founded 1956. Its owner / employees number around 120,000. Precisley, the model Lennin was going to implement prior to his strokes and demise. Incidentally, the Soviets maintained many private for-profit industries alongside the state managed operations. Capitalism as we know it, cannot combat the climate crisis. I'm waiting for run away global warming...the point of no return...the exponential function. Thank you for having Ms. Blakely on the program.
Yes, it is. Resources are limited. They must be shared equally. How do we fight back? Firstly we need to shut down facebook, instagram, tiktok to begin with.
I’ve already ordered her book! A central tenet of neoliberalism as interpreted since the 1980s when introduced by Thatcher-Reagan is monopolies encouraged by the state. For example in UK we have monopolies on buses, trains, energy and water. It is a characteristic of late capitalism that we get less and less competition and larger ownership units. I don’t think this is what the Chicago School and Friedman originally envisaged because their founding father Hayek would, I think, have assumed a state of pure competition in a perfectly well-informed market. In UK we have anything but this situation to our complete detriment 45 years later. We now have a dreadfully distorted sort of ‘capitalism’ from which it is going to be dreadfully hard to free ourselves.
Only when you say that we can stop psychopaths from running everything will I believe we will see a difference. And they do pull the strings, want to or not.
I don’t disagree in principle, but Marx wrote about how Christian societies actually came to permit usury in money after it was acknowledged that rent was usury in land. History proceeds in stages and the feudal model was insuperable at that time, so capitalism justified itself in that analogy
@@BiggusDiggusableby sharing value added capital gain, or loss. The breach of the usury rules, once a crime punishable with death, has a source, the so-called “ chosen people “
Yeah, have noticed all these people dumping on capitalism are really talking about government created problems. Capitalism is one of the only functioning systems left.
Bless your souls...for recognizing this is all fundamentally based on patriarchy taking control of human communities. The Origin of the Family, Private property and the State - Engels, is a real eye opener on these problems. So viewing this discussion within the broader context of anarchy - dismantling the mechanism of the oppressive state is definitely the way to go.
I nit pick over the rigidity of the definitions of socialism and capitalism we brandish in our everyday parlance. You have in this presentation done good work to point out that there can be differences arising from the governance and the application of each model to specific circumstance. Thank you. as always, brilliant thinking and communication!
What hurt Boeing was instead of airline industry people running the company as it had in the past , they put business people in charge to maximize profits .
The world was quick to adopt smart phones and adapt to Work from Home. The only thing slowing a transition to earth responsible systems are private/government interest groups
Three things needed to restore a Constitutional Economy **Break up the concentration of economic and political power (Anti-Oligarchy) **Build a Strong Middle-Class **Inclusive: Open to every American. We the people in order to form a More Perfect Union, Establish Justice, Insure Domestic Tranquility Provide for the Common Defense, Promote the General Welfare, and Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I don't know if capitalism is doomed but it's a really bad system at this point in time. It will doom our society if we can't get past it or at least regulate it heavily.
Great descussion and a very good first step.. but if we are serious abut this, we need to be on the same page. Do research on The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement.
My gripe against capitalism which has now morphed into disaster capitalism is that it doesn't cover all segments of society . This breeds poverty and homelessness which we can clearly see , it's also freedom and democracy for the richest in society . I'm just asking for a form of capitalism that is socially aware of everyone including the poor and the needy .
Socialism in the UK used to be able to rebalance the real economy by allowing capitalism and socialism to co-exist to some extent. Since Thatcherism, capitalism has only eroded the postwar social contract step by step, up until the present time. Thatcher stated that ‘there is no such thing as society’, and proceeded to destroy any semblance of social justice. The UK needs a new social justice programme, but it’s not going to happen whilst the red tories are in power.
@@AndrewWoods-sm9vx You really need to get a better grasp on the subject here. Start with realizing that there are more than 2 options and try to list them for yourself and work them out.
@@AndrewWoods-sm9vx "problem is socialism just drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator" USSR kept everyone equally poor, as they were in the Tsarist Russia, right? But how did they reach the space first, while keeping everyone in poverty is still a mystery, that Liberals like you gotta solve.
It's not capitalism causing this. It's non stop immigration. Lowers wages and drives up housing costs to the point people don't have any money left over at the end of the month.
What she describes and criticises is not capitalism, which is the process by which businesses find and reward investors to support their ideas and business models. Where it goes wrong is where there is weak regulation or a lack of competition, as businesses will naturally try to gain a defensible position in their markets, which, unfettered, will lead to monopolies. What Grace is supplying is an unhealthy close relationship between government and business where businesses and politicians feed off each other in an unhealthy way. There are plenty of examples in the UK of crony capitalism, including firms supplying PPE during COVID to monopolistic firms supplying public services like the water companies. Sometimes, the government links to industry are positive, like the links between public sector universities and companies that bring their ideas to market, or, indeed, research for military use being adapted for civilian use but these have to take place within a framework of openness. The example of Boeing she uses is interesting because what it demonstrates is the importance of reputation. Boeing is in real trouble not because it operates within a capitalist system, but because it has had poor management motivated for short term gain over the long term success of the business. If Grace can come up with a better way of generating wealth and reducing poverty than free market capitalism, with appropriate regulation and competition, I would love to hear it.
I dont like the Boeing example being use first because it is a very low stakes (350 people dead) as compared to Purdue for example (more than 500,000 dead). There are more radical and apalling examples of corporatism that can be used to ilustrate the point.
@@higgleopss you can buy bits of land in UK from 5-10k upwards, just has to be somewhere where you can get planning permission to live, or if it's hidden enough There's loopholes. There's TH-camrs documenting living off grid with small solar/wind setups with budgets of 3k, with rainwater storage etc just minus the livestock. You don't have to be a millionaire to do this stuff
The system now is actually Corporate, whatever serves international giant Corporations. We've always exchanged goods for services. Always will. Call it what you want, it won't ever change.
When the number of people can be supported by all that is LOCAL and nothing needs to be shipped 🚢 🚂🚛🛫. We will construct society in a way of dominant and controlled. There are too many people in the world using up all the resources.
capitalism will consistently devolve into oligarchy. society shifts and old oligarchs get shifted out or reduced in number and some of the funds dispersed... I thought that you were perhaps discussing the coming societal crush of climate change.
Capitalism is not a system. Capitalism, rather, is a behavior; the goal oriented activity of trying to make more money out of a business or investment activity than is put into it, to make a profit. A socioeconomic system, on the other hand, is the government organized structure of society that determines the extent and limitations of various activities, including capitalist and non capitalist activities.
I don't disagree in principle, but unfortunately capitalism has bought our government. Its instinctual behavior appears to be intent on destroying society, and killing most of humanity.
In the real world, our behavior model should be "profit equals protecting and enriching our environment, and sharing the sustenance that it provides for all of us". Can this still be considered a form of capitalism? This new behavior model is much better for our environment, ergo much better for all of us. There are two problems with our present behavior model, that is, 'profit = income - expenses'. 1) income is not really profit. It is merely a permission slip that allows us to purchase some of our actual gains. 2) Our present profit model requires us to maximize our so-called profit by minimizing expenses; thus, we ignore the damages that we cause to our environment, and we keep labor expenses to a minimum. This explains why the earth is on fire and why there is so much homelessness. One of the best things about this new behavior model I'm proposing is that it changes the meaning of "expenses". In fact, our only major expense is ignoring our obligation to protect and enrich the environment. The new profit model requires us to create millions of new jobs that will come under the heading "Caretakers of the Environment". Caretakers will have many specialized categories: 1. Collecting pollution that is already in the environment 2. Collecting pollution before it gets into the environment 3. Dealing with all of the waste in such ways that are good for the environment, and or good for the production of products. 4. Economically incentivizing families with two or fewer children 5. Designing new ways of producing products so that those products last for a long time and don't have to be replaced every two years. There will be many more types of Caretaker jobs. Every company and government will have Caretaker jobs, and everybody will be schooled, from elementary school through university about how to be caretakers of the environment. So, we can correct our behavior! Responses will be greatly appreciated. I'm particularly concerned about how we would make the transition from our present economy to this entirely new economy. It may already be too late to save our environment, but it is never too late to try. p.s. If we stick with 'profit = income - expenses', then every step we take to repair the damages we've done will only worsen the problem. Adding solar power and wind energy infrastructures will probably double the damages we've already done. Our first step must be, correct our behavior by correcting our behavior model.
I think what you're possibly missing is that shareholders believe they can only afford to care about the short term when assessing "expenses" (if, profit = income - expenses). That is because in "ideal" capitalism where every firm is in competition with others, they will have to be cutthroat with expenses, to take more market share (and profit) than competitors. These people are out for money! Plus shares are traded so rapidly and asset managers etc. only care about today, or at best what the next quarterly report will say. That is where in social democracies government regulation is supposed to intervene and say: "you corporations must pay your part for the environment". But alas, government officials are easily corrupted, and have donations paid to their political parties by wealthy businesspeople, and are also in bed with corporate lobbyists. We have many "sham democracies" all over the world. Sham democracies and the unworkable nature of the capitalist system, means you actually need a different, non-hierarchical system, where communities organise production democratically. And where the corrupt officials, rich people, and their lobbyists are somehow marginalised, so they cannot cause damage. This is leftwing politics in a nutshell!
@@edcole6634 It sounds to me like you think my idea might have merit in terms of correcting how we conduct business and how we treat our environment. I've been tweaking this idea for many years and the most recent adjustment is to define profit in this way: "Profit = protecting and enriching the environment". I added 'sharing the sustenance that it provides for all of us' into the list of 'caretaker operations'. It's listed here in category 5. Caretakers will have many specialized categories: 1. Collecting pollution that is already in the environment 2. Collecting pollution before it gets into the environment 3. Dealing with all of the waste in such ways that are good for the environment, and or good for the production of products 4. Designing new ways of producing products so that those products last for a long time and don't have to be replaced every two years 5. Thoughtful distribution of wealth 6. Economically incentivizing families with two or fewer children I know I haven't addressed the Investment sector of our present economy. I'm not sure if the new economy I'm proposing should have an investment sector. I guess I'm thinking of it as a 'one for all and all for the environment' kind of logic. Have I missed anything else?
@@edcole6634 It sounds to me like you think my idea might have merit in terms of correcting how we conduct business and how we treat our environment. I've been tweaking this idea for many years and the most recent adjustment is to define profit in this way: "Profit = protecting and enriching the environment". I added 'sharing the sustenance that it provides for all of us' into the list of 'caretaker operations'. It's listed here in category 5. Caretakers will have many specialized categories: 1. Collecting pollution that is already in the environment 2. Collecting pollution before it gets into the environment 3. Dealing with all of the waste in such ways that are good for the environment, and or good for the production of products 4. Designing new ways of producing products so that those products last for a long time and don't have to be replaced every two years 5. Thoughtful distribution of wealth 6. Economically incentivizing families with two or fewer children I know I haven't addressed the Investment sector of our present economy. I'm not sure if the new economy I'm proposing should have an investment sector. I guess I'm thinking of it as a 'one for all and all for the environment' kind of logic. Have I missed anything else?
The problem with these ideas, is they focus on the positive aspects, of which there are many. But, ignore the negative aspects of human nature. In the UK, we have had extremes of decentralization before.. back in our history. And the USA has an element of decentralization in it's State / federal model ... But, case in point, abortion rights, it can lead to huge disparity, among many other issues... localized democracy has posatives. But, also think what you would also be losing.
The simple answer is to eliminate the stock market. Can't work for shareholders, when there are none. Can't have billionaires either without a stock market. Business funding is via bonds, bond holders have a fixed return.
Capitalism moves there to where it can make most profit. People in power get corrupted and make bad decisions for mid and long term for themselves as others. Capitalism is moving.
w/ Boeing and etc. The death figure, the increase in fatalities in miles flown, is just another risk factor in the bottom line anyway, bolt by bolt, hand by hand to decimal point. I imagine caring for the ratio is no small part of the deadly fascination of capital.... I'd rather fly an A Bus at this time.
the free market is how we hold them accountable.they need our money for their profit. everyone needs too not buy from most of these businesses remove their profits !
Her definition of capitalism seems a little incoherent: "Capitalism is not a free market system... Capitalism is actually a highly centralised system that rests not just on markets but also on centralised planning, an authoritarian, oligarchical system". This could easily be applied to the former soviet union for example, that shows that the definition is incoherent since I don't think anyone is going to argue that nations like the Soviet Union were capitalistic. I believe the reason for thinking the systems we live under are capitalist is because too many politicians/pundits have no idea what capitalism is. Its a system of free markets as fleshed out by Mises, Rothbard etc. Yet, these politicians and pundits have zero clue what they are talking about and just think they have to rhetorically defend this "capitalist" system we have against socialism when the current system we have is more fascistic than capitalist.
The Soviet union had commodity production, waged labour, wealth accumulation, internal market, class division, money these are the features of a capitalist society, hence Lenin termed it state capitalism.
Vote with your dollar. The Montgomery bus boycott (Rosa Parks). Gandhi’s salt march (Ending British Rule). Examples of people coming together to use their buying power to leverage change.
In the 1930s, there was a widespread belief that capitalism had failed, and people were looking to alternatives like fascism and communism. This is end stage liberalism. Before the new liberal order (neoliberalism) there was an old liberal order. We stepped onto an old path that still leads to the same place. 1920s/2000s - neoclassical economics, high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase 1929/2008 - Wall Street crash 1930s/2010s - Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, austerity, rising nationalism and extremism 1940s - World war. We forgot we had been down that path before. Everything is progressing nicely and we are approaching the final destination. This is what it's supposed to be like. Right wing populist leaders are what we should be expecting at this stage and it keeps on getting worse. I remember now, it was Keynesian capitalism that won the battle of ideas against Russian Communism. These liberal phases never end well. It sounds so good, but ends so badly. WWIII next stop. The newly developed mythology about liberalism wasn’t based on past experience. This is what it’s like. Everything is falling apart at the seams and we are descending into chaos. This is end stage liberalism.
Funny things is, Amoorika can't afford to go back to Keynesian Capitalism, because going back to Keynesianism would mean, leaving out the world market completely to China. Because, China is in a much better position economically, than USSR at its peak. And China has a better system that could handle both Keynesianism and Liberalism. You do Liberalism, you would lose, and you do Keynesianism, you would still lose. Thing is Amoorika is losing, and it won't be pretty.
2028 US and 2029 UK will see the right wing populist leader bit. It's already happening in other places. It'll take around 2-3 years following that for large swathes of the populations to realise they've been mugged off by those populists and in an effort to prevent civil unrest aimed at them, the establishment and their populist front men will kick off World War 3.
The world has been trampled too deeply by colonialism in Europe and America. It will take a lot of time to explain to them the community of shared future for mankind
She complains about bigger planes which mean the airlines can make more more by transporting more people at a lower cost. Well let's make smaller trains to cut costs
While I applaud and agree with the substance of this discussion, I'm not sure the title of the book is great. I'm gong to age myself here but I remember the term "Vulture Capitalism" from the 1980's. My understanding is that It refers to a large corporation buying a smaller one (or a distressed corp on the verge of bankruptcy) laying off its employees and stripping it for parts. The purpose is to acquire a brand name and/or eliminate the competition. It went hand-in-hand with Reagan's "voodoo economics" ... 🤣. But whatever, as I said, I agree with the substance.
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [TEASER MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VC689EgdSIw/mqdefault.jpg)
absolutely love grace, so clear in her analysis, and easy to digest, even if you're not a economist
It really helps if you have no clue a out economics. Otherwise you notice the obvious bullshit.
@@-HaHeHo- Have you got some examples of BS?
@@-HaHeHo- Russian troll says what?
@@-HaHeHo- obvious troll is obvious.
@@BiggusDiggusableShe does not understand the difference between Cooperatism and Capitalism. Cooperatism is what she is talking about. This is the fusion of big companies with the state. A state by the way which is democratically elected. (BTW I agree with most of her points when she criticizes Cooperatism)
She criticizes the tendency for profit making. But if you do not make profit then you make loss. In a free market then you disappear unless to can force other people to carry the costs of your incompetence.
She puts competition vs cooperation. She does not understand that we do both all the time. We can not cooperate with the hole world since there are always more needs than resources. So we compete. And we compete , most of the time by cooperating with others.
The example of the small village she made, has very little to do with capitalism even if she claims that. It is local decision making vs. centralized decision making. Here I a agree but it has nothing to do with capitalism.
...
states and markets cannot be separate whilst lobbying is allowed
Correct
Bought and paid for. Legalised bribery = Citizen's United.
And unregulated lending practices for mortgages.
States and markets have never been separate so its kind of a moot issue.
@@PolarExpress_11-10 It's not a moot issue because believers in capitalism think they are separate
I listened to Grace read her book vulture capitalism on Audio book, its brilliant and i recomend everyone read/listen to it.
That sounds good. I’ll check it out.
vulture capitalism? I dare anyone including the author to explain how that grandiloquent description adds anything intelligible to the basic Marxist definition of capitalism as surplus value production
Me to. It's great.
Also just listened to "Less is More" which is excellent.
And "Consequences of Capitalism" is great.
@@ThisIsNotaUniversityit doesn't. She explained she just had to add something to the title for the publisher
Shermone
The thing that scares me is that it used to be a few of us nutjobs that believed everything was going to hell........and now it's the commonly held analysis/observation on live and unfolding events.
It's a living demonstration of 'first they laugh at you....'
The non viability of capitalism has been talked about my whole life. Its not new. I doubt many people believe it's actually free market
Nothing at all new about it - you weren’t part of some tiny club bud 🤣🤣🤣
@@TheTransitmtl The problem with Capitalism is that it just slammed on the gas for indice growth with no regard for anything else. That's all that capitalism can do. It can't do anything else.
Lets recall, rights as usual negotiable when clicking in, one way or another, learn, turn, churn, burn, retire, replace/automate.
Machines obey, dont strike, etc
Less human than humanity™
Commerce.
Total IT Arian
Wild WILD WEST
Reminds me of Rousseau’s insight that when the wealth in the private realm exceeds the wealth in the public realm, it will inevitably corrupt the public realm.
socialism is not purely democratisation, it is public ownership of the economy
It realise on a bureaucracy to administer it .. this invites corruption , all systems of control have problems
Boeing is a public company. All companies listed on stock exchanges are publicity owned, in theory though. There is no free market anymore. Even in the USA the economy is controlled and manipulated by the state and oligarchs.
@@malanalan1A free market is when just the oligarchs own everything
It can be tricky to define public ownership, because that can mean 'state ownership', which isn't necessarily public or democratic.
This is just pedantic because you can have socialist aspects and it's still a form of socialism. Social Security and Medicare are concepts of socialism.
Great conversation. Let’s hope Leaseholders can get justice and accountability. Many are trapped in their unsalable homes due to deregulation by Government and allowing Housing Developers to build shoddy and dangerous buildings. Agonising Fleeceholds.
Incredibly clear and thought-provoking. May I asky why the problem is not framed as "corruption"? I come from a third-world country, where typically what is blamed for scenarios like these are corrupt government officials, rather than the private institutions/economic model.
So true.
Because then they would have to admit that the colonialist project is still ongoing and the source of the corruption in the developing world.
Exactly right- government corruption is the problem
@@jimbaxter8488 Of course govt corruption is part of the problem, and it's because capitalists literally bought the government. The solution isn't eliminating government, and hoping capitalists behave better. It's democratizing government, and business, and putting both under the control of the people. No gods, no kings, and no executives.
It is because there is no difference between government and corporations in capitalism. At a fundamental level, the government forces you to participate in corporate hierarchy through tax and uses that tax first to ensure the growth of the economic model it serves by facilitating fiat currency and military dominance over potentially competitive models in other states. To call a government corrupt assumes that its function is in service to the majority. In reality, at every level, power is garnered and leveraged to grow monetary prosperity through concentration of production methods.
In simple terms: when the goal of a system is a market (free or otherwise), the state apparatus made to ensure the goals of that system will be first and foremost concerned with the sovereignty of that market-often and especially at the cost of those laborers that work in it, because they are the greatest threat to its continuation, by virtue of being the majority population.
Anger is a good place to start out of apathy, but it takes reflection and to be able to think and understand that much of the suffering and problems are systematic and are a result of capitalism. Like you say working as a community and through protest and acton is the best place to go.
Absolutely. It is only when workers cultivate class-solidarity, and act on our shared interests in defense of each other, that we'll actually have a chance to turn this situation around.
We had the biggest protest in history of the usa for the Floyd killing, and it changed absolutely NOTHING regarding the police. Their funding INCREASED. I will say a couple states did eliminate qualified immunity, but otherwise, nothing.
So protests are not the answer. In the UK, they are taking real action, and some have been put in prison for it. THIS
Always great listening to Grace. Makes excellent points with stories told exceptionally well!
Great interview, but just a point of clarification - the Boeing 737-Max problems weren't caused by Boeing making "really big planes". The problem was that they put newer, more efficient, but much larger engines, onto very old planes. This changed the centre of gravity which made the planes very unstable, and liable to go nose down, which is not good news on an airplane. Rather than make proper engineering design changes to the wings and airframe, which they would have done in the past, they simply put in software as you said, which corrected this tendency by modifying the pilot input to create a higher angle of attack, effectively raising the nose. It was this software which went wrong, and which caused the crashes. This is an important point, as it actually amplifies how you say modern day capitalism works, creating problems through shortcuts and greed, aided by the state. Just saying!
Yeah, I noticed her example was off too
@@Joe-ij6of It was a engineering problem because they should not have put them engines on those planes. They tried to correct it with software which was incorrect solutions. Do you not think the engineers was trying to tell them not to do it and the manger told them to do it anyway?
@@karls4948 I'm not sure why you have an argumentative tone. That is exactly what we are saying.
Manufacturing will alwys move to cheaper countries
@@MrKongatthegates not necessarily, and not always for high value manufacturing, something of the sort Germany tends to specialize in. But there's no doubt it's a MAJOR uphill battle to keep a high per capita income country in the running.
I have a homestead in DC where I grow fruit trees, harvest honey and duck eggs. I feed myself and both neighbors. The community also has a planned urban orchard being built across the neighborhood. Everyone with a suburban home watching this, you are sitting on a community goldmine with your small piece of land.
Planting only pretty flowers or effin grass lawns is a telltale sign of being shortsighted. If you have land, grow your own damn fruit/veggies. Everything else is suicidal at this point
@@phoebeel Yep. Also, it's more fun to grow productive things and support native insects with native flowers and trees. All the corporate jobs are going away in a decade with AC so not sure why people are not preparing for the end times. Lol
What is DC? - direct current?
@@malanalan1 District of Columbia but you know that. Move along troll.
As far as I understand HOAs are unlikely to allow you to do that.
Almost all problems could be solved simply by making it financially worthwhile for people to share the jobs we would agree we NEED people to do and to work much less. We have to get into a system where we aren't working and doing anything we can think of FOR money but sharing in doing the work we NEED to have done. Where every job is doing something we need.
And who’s going to determine what we ‘need’? There will never be consensus on that…and, an economy that pays people more for doing less is what is known as a ‘third world nation’ …no one wants to live in that wide spread poverty. Why? Because when you establish high pay for ‘low output’ you instantly devalue your currency into sky high inflation…your currency becomes worthless.
Absolutely right
Of course it is doomed as an economic model, it has been since its birth. Every city council that does not have wealthy property, home owners in the majority are surviving on credit, are forever in debt. Capitalism feeds on debt, every capitalist nation survives on debt; this is how capitalism functions. It is a dead economic model that feeds on and creates chronic ill health, homelessness, poverty, and inequality; it makes most of its profits for the elites off these problems.
Most profits are generated out of making weapons and vehicles of war. Of course it is doomed, especially if and when it's populated body politik wakes up and smells the shit they are inherently in, just keeping their heads up above water!
That's not what capitalism is that's the fiat money system you are describing
Great to see Moya and Grace chatting x
Grace is just awesome
Really well put. Said so much in a short amount of time.
The Mondragon Democratic / Corporate model needs to be known by more people. A worker self-directed enterprise out of Mondragon, Spain, founded 1956. Its owner / employees number around 120,000. Precisley, the model Lennin was going to implement prior to his strokes and demise. Incidentally, the Soviets maintained many private for-profit industries alongside the state managed operations. Capitalism as we know it, cannot combat the climate crisis. I'm waiting for run away global warming...the point of no return...the exponential function. Thank you for having Ms. Blakely on the program.
Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon told you all of this in the 19th century. What a pity no one has the guts to say it.
Exactly
Yes, it is. Resources are limited. They must be shared equally. How do we fight back? Firstly we need to shut down facebook, instagram, tiktok to begin with.
Galbraith addresses the obscure lines between state and industry in his book "The Affluent Society". Great video.
Now I want to read this book so bad
You absolutely should, I read it last month and still find myself thinking about it almost every day
What an intelligent person. Love your talk
I’ve already ordered her book!
A central tenet of neoliberalism as interpreted since the 1980s when introduced by Thatcher-Reagan is monopolies encouraged by the state. For example in UK we have monopolies on buses, trains, energy and water. It is a characteristic of late capitalism that we get less and less competition and larger ownership units.
I don’t think this is what the Chicago School and Friedman originally envisaged because their founding father Hayek would, I think, have assumed a state of pure competition in a perfectly well-informed market. In UK we have anything but this situation to our complete detriment 45 years later. We now have a dreadfully distorted sort of ‘capitalism’ from which it is going to be dreadfully hard to free ourselves.
Universal basic income. Now. Also, keeps inflation in check.
Only when you say that we can stop psychopaths from running everything will I believe we will see a difference. And they do pull the strings, want to or not.
It’s very simple. Stop buying stuff. You won’t, though.
@@StrangeAttractor Facts.
Brilliant! I unfortunately missed the talk at Glastonbury, so good to see it here.
Gosh she’s so smart.
Vulture Capitalism is a fantastic book!
Great role model to young women out there.
Usury/interest should be banned in all of society
That just silly. How would you get the money to pay for Investment and or large scale developments?
I don’t disagree in principle, but Marx wrote about how Christian societies actually came to permit usury in money after it was acknowledged that rent was usury in land. History proceeds in stages and the feudal model was insuperable at that time, so capitalism justified itself in that analogy
Def
Funny you say that. Islam bans it.
@@BiggusDiggusableby sharing value added capital gain, or loss.
The breach of the usury rules, once a crime punishable with death, has a source, the so-called “ chosen people “
Debt load, asset strip & off to the Caymans just went from company scale to national economic scale...
Most labels like capitalism or marxism, etc.. Are not accurate to what actually happens in any society. Power structures are what really get created.
True. Analysis in the anarchist tradition rings much truer to actual reality.
Yeah, have noticed all these people dumping on capitalism are really talking about government created problems. Capitalism is one of the only functioning systems left.
Bless your souls...for recognizing this is all fundamentally based on patriarchy taking control of human communities. The Origin of the Family, Private property and the State - Engels, is a real eye opener on these problems. So viewing this discussion within the broader context of anarchy - dismantling the mechanism of the oppressive state is definitely the way to go.
@@JJPwfelli Spot on
Vulture capitalism will exist for the masses in perpetuity, as will corporate socialism, on our current trajectory
What is corporate socialism?
❤ Such a gentle soul...
I nit pick over the rigidity of the definitions of socialism and capitalism we brandish in our everyday parlance. You have in this presentation done good work to point out that there can be differences arising from the governance and the application of each model to specific circumstance. Thank you. as always, brilliant thinking and communication!
What hurt Boeing was instead of airline industry people running the company as it had in the past , they put business people in charge to maximize profits .
Grace ❤❤❤
The world was quick to adopt smart phones and adapt to Work from Home. The only thing slowing a transition to earth responsible systems are private/government interest groups
Thank you for that fantastic interview!
Three things needed to restore a Constitutional Economy
**Break up the concentration of economic and political power (Anti-Oligarchy)
**Build a Strong Middle-Class
**Inclusive: Open to every American.
We the people in order to form a More Perfect Union,
Establish Justice,
Insure Domestic Tranquility
Provide for the Common Defense,
Promote the General Welfare, and
Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Capitalism had damn well BETTER BE doomed, or the human species IS DOOMED.
wow, she's bloody terrific, buying the book today, right on!
Thank you Novara Media for this Upload 👍
Why it was cack
Agitate, educate, organise 😊
I don't know if capitalism is doomed but it's a really bad system at this point in time. It will doom our society if we can't get past it or at least regulate it heavily.
Good work, well said
Moya glowing as always
I agree with every point that she makes
Great descussion and a very good first step.. but if we are serious abut this, we need to be on the same page. Do research on The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement.
Good video.
Absolutely epic
I'd love to hear more ideas about how the average person can organize local coops in housing, healthcare, education, business, etc?
She is cool
Doom is Capitalised
My gripe against capitalism which has now morphed into disaster capitalism is that it doesn't cover all segments of society .
This breeds poverty and homelessness which we can clearly see , it's also freedom and democracy for the richest in society .
I'm just asking for a form of capitalism that is socially aware of everyone including the poor and the needy .
Socialism in the UK used to be able to rebalance the real economy by allowing capitalism and socialism to co-exist to some extent. Since Thatcherism, capitalism has only eroded the postwar social contract step by step, up until the present time. Thatcher stated that ‘there is no such thing as society’, and proceeded to destroy any semblance of social justice. The UK needs a new social justice programme, but it’s not going to happen whilst the red tories are in power.
problem is socialism just drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator
@@AndrewWoods-sm9vx You really need to get a better grasp on the subject here. Start with realizing that there are more than 2 options and try to list them for yourself and work them out.
@@AndrewWoods-sm9vx
"problem is socialism just drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator"
USSR kept everyone equally poor, as they were in the Tsarist Russia, right? But how did they reach the space first, while keeping everyone in poverty is still a mystery, that Liberals like you gotta solve.
It's not capitalism causing this. It's non stop immigration. Lowers wages and drives up housing costs to the point people don't have any money left over at the end of the month.
Gold and silver is the only real money. Everyone in the developing world knows this. Keep your wealth there.
Invisible Doctrine by Monbiot says the same but imo in a better and simpler way
Her case studies are good though
okayyy.??
Love the exclusive America's Cup look.
What she describes and criticises is not capitalism, which is the process by which businesses find and reward investors to support their ideas and business models. Where it goes wrong is where there is weak regulation or a lack of competition, as businesses will naturally try to gain a defensible position in their markets, which, unfettered, will lead to monopolies. What Grace is supplying is an unhealthy close relationship between government and business where businesses and politicians feed off each other in an unhealthy way. There are plenty of examples in the UK of crony capitalism, including firms supplying PPE during COVID to monopolistic firms supplying public services like the water companies. Sometimes, the government links to industry are positive, like the links between public sector universities and companies that bring their ideas to market, or, indeed, research for military use being adapted for civilian use but these have to take place within a framework of openness. The example of Boeing she uses is interesting because what it demonstrates is the importance of reputation. Boeing is in real trouble not because it operates within a capitalist system, but because it has had poor management motivated for short term gain over the long term success of the business. If Grace can come up with a better way of generating wealth and reducing poverty than free market capitalism, with appropriate regulation and competition, I would love to hear it.
Capitalism will never die unfortunately. Too many of us sucked in to it now.
I dont like the Boeing example being use first because it is a very low stakes (350 people dead) as compared to Purdue for example (more than 500,000 dead). There are more radical and apalling examples of corporatism that can be used to ilustrate the point.
Aim to get land, livestock, renewable energy & grow food
short term solution tht won’t save you if the system’s problems aren’t resolved. but definitely better than nothing
That takes millions of dollars. If you are rich enough to afford land to sustain yourself you're already going to be fine.
@@higgleopss you can buy bits of land in UK from 5-10k upwards, just has to be somewhere where you can get planning permission to live, or if it's hidden enough There's loopholes.
There's TH-camrs documenting living off grid with small solar/wind setups with budgets of 3k, with rainwater storage etc just minus the livestock.
You don't have to be a millionaire to do this stuff
The system now is actually Corporate, whatever serves international giant Corporations.
We've always exchanged goods for services. Always will.
Call it what you want, it won't ever change.
Where is my comment?
So the proposed "solution" is Anarchism?
When the number of people can be supported by all that is LOCAL and nothing needs to be shipped 🚢 🚂🚛🛫. We will construct society in a way of dominant and controlled.
There are too many people in the world using up all the resources.
capitalism will consistently devolve into oligarchy. society shifts and old oligarchs get shifted out or reduced in number and some of the funds dispersed... I thought that you were perhaps discussing the coming societal crush of climate change.
Capitalism is not a system. Capitalism, rather, is a behavior; the goal oriented activity of trying to make more money out of a business or investment activity than is put into it, to make a profit. A socioeconomic system, on the other hand, is the government organized structure of society that determines the extent and limitations of various activities, including capitalist and non capitalist activities.
I don't disagree in principle, but unfortunately capitalism has bought our government. Its instinctual behavior appears to be intent on destroying society, and killing most of humanity.
nope, it's a tool. A tool to have control over something.
Yeah its over. We're done.
just bought your book, Grace
Oh I do hope so 😄
The law of the jungle, in some form, will always prevail. Mother nature will not be denied.
The jungle has no laws.
@@ThomasVWorm and yet, there is still a king
This Grace Barclay..what a babe!
In the real world, our behavior model should be "profit equals protecting and enriching our environment, and sharing the sustenance that it provides for all of us".
Can this still be considered a form of capitalism? This new behavior model is much better for our environment, ergo much better for all of us.
There are two problems with our present behavior model, that is, 'profit = income - expenses'. 1) income is not really profit. It is merely a permission slip that allows us to
purchase some of our actual gains. 2) Our present profit model requires us to maximize our so-called profit by minimizing expenses; thus, we ignore the damages that
we cause to our environment, and we keep labor expenses to a minimum. This explains why the earth is on fire and why there is so much homelessness.
One of the best things about this new behavior model I'm proposing is that it changes the meaning of "expenses". In fact, our only major expense is ignoring our obligation
to protect and enrich the environment.
The new profit model requires us to create millions of new jobs that will come under the heading "Caretakers of the Environment".
Caretakers will have many specialized categories:
1. Collecting pollution that is already in the environment
2. Collecting pollution before it gets into the environment
3. Dealing with all of the waste in such ways that are good for the environment, and or good for the production of products.
4. Economically incentivizing families with two or fewer children
5. Designing new ways of producing products so that those products last for a long time and don't have to be replaced every two years.
There will be many more types of Caretaker jobs.
Every company and government will have Caretaker jobs, and everybody will be schooled, from elementary school through university about how to be caretakers of the environment.
So, we can correct our behavior!
Responses will be greatly appreciated. I'm particularly concerned about how we would make the transition from our present economy to this entirely new economy.
It may already be too late to save our environment, but it is never too late to try.
p.s. If we stick with 'profit = income - expenses', then every step we take to repair the damages we've done will only worsen the problem. Adding solar power and wind energy
infrastructures will probably double the damages we've already done. Our first step must be, correct our behavior by correcting our behavior model.
I think what you're possibly missing is that shareholders believe they can only afford to care about the short term when assessing "expenses" (if, profit = income - expenses). That is because in "ideal" capitalism where every firm is in competition with others, they will have to be cutthroat with expenses, to take more market share (and profit) than competitors. These people are out for money! Plus shares are traded so rapidly and asset managers etc. only care about today, or at best what the next quarterly report will say.
That is where in social democracies government regulation is supposed to intervene and say: "you corporations must pay your part for the environment". But alas, government officials are easily corrupted, and have donations paid to their political parties by wealthy businesspeople, and are also in bed with corporate lobbyists. We have many "sham democracies" all over the world.
Sham democracies and the unworkable nature of the capitalist system, means you actually need a different, non-hierarchical system, where communities organise production democratically. And where the corrupt officials, rich people, and their lobbyists are somehow marginalised, so they cannot cause damage. This is leftwing politics in a nutshell!
@@edcole6634 It sounds to me like you think my idea might have merit in terms of correcting how we conduct business and how we treat our environment. I've been tweaking
this idea for many years and the most recent adjustment is to define profit in this way: "Profit = protecting and enriching the environment".
I added 'sharing the sustenance that it provides for all of us' into the list of 'caretaker operations'. It's listed here in category 5.
Caretakers will have many specialized categories:
1. Collecting pollution that is already in the environment
2. Collecting pollution before it gets into the environment
3. Dealing with all of the waste in such ways that are good for the environment, and or good for the production of products
4. Designing new ways of producing products so that those products last for a long time and don't have to be replaced every two years
5. Thoughtful distribution of wealth
6. Economically incentivizing families with two or fewer children
I know I haven't addressed the Investment sector of our present economy. I'm not sure if the new economy I'm proposing should have an investment sector.
I guess I'm thinking of it as a 'one for all and all for the environment' kind of logic. Have I missed anything else?
@@edcole6634 It sounds to me like you think my idea might have merit in terms of correcting how we conduct business and how we treat our environment. I've been tweaking
this idea for many years and the most recent adjustment is to define profit in this way: "Profit = protecting and enriching the environment".
I added 'sharing the sustenance that it provides for all of us' into the list of 'caretaker operations'. It's listed here in category 5.
Caretakers will have many specialized categories:
1. Collecting pollution that is already in the environment
2. Collecting pollution before it gets into the environment
3. Dealing with all of the waste in such ways that are good for the environment, and or good for the production of products
4. Designing new ways of producing products so that those products last for a long time and don't have to be replaced every two years
5. Thoughtful distribution of wealth
6. Economically incentivizing families with two or fewer children
I know I haven't addressed the Investment sector of our present economy. I'm not sure if the new economy I'm proposing should have an investment sector.
I guess I'm thinking of it as a 'one for all and all for the environment' kind of logic. Have I missed anything else?
Lovely hat Grace
2:02
0:50 Chomsky went with "really existing" 😂
The problem with these ideas, is they focus on the positive aspects, of which there are many. But, ignore the negative aspects of human nature. In the UK, we have had extremes of decentralization before.. back in our history. And the USA has an element of decentralization in it's State / federal model ... But, case in point, abortion rights, it can lead to huge disparity, among many other issues... localized democracy has posatives. But, also think what you would also be losing.
There are ways to counter capitalism, for instance give it no reason to exist, take the competitive element out of the equation
I agree, best comment here. No competing…. Instead complimenting.
The simple answer is to eliminate the stock market. Can't work for shareholders, when there are none. Can't have billionaires either without a stock market. Business funding is via bonds, bond holders have a fixed return.
Moya, please tell us more about these nefarious book stores 😂 I’m intrigued.
Capitalism moves there to where it can make most profit. People in power get corrupted and make bad decisions for mid and long term for themselves as others. Capitalism is moving.
w/ Boeing and etc.
The death figure, the increase in fatalities in miles flown, is just another risk factor in the bottom line anyway, bolt by bolt, hand by hand to decimal point.
I imagine caring for the ratio is no small part of the deadly fascination of capital....
I'd rather fly an A Bus at this time.
The 737 isn't a massive plane. The 737 Max is a slightly longer version of a mid sized airliner.
she's so pretty
the free market is how we hold them accountable.they need our money for their profit. everyone needs too not buy from most of these businesses remove their profits !
Her definition of capitalism seems a little incoherent: "Capitalism is not a free market system... Capitalism is actually a highly centralised system that rests not just on markets but also on centralised planning, an authoritarian, oligarchical system". This could easily be applied to the former soviet union for example, that shows that the definition is incoherent since I don't think anyone is going to argue that nations like the Soviet Union were capitalistic. I believe the reason for thinking the systems we live under are capitalist is because too many politicians/pundits have no idea what capitalism is. Its a system of free markets as fleshed out by Mises, Rothbard etc. Yet, these politicians and pundits have zero clue what they are talking about and just think they have to rhetorically defend this "capitalist" system we have against socialism when the current system we have is more fascistic than capitalist.
The Soviet union had commodity production, waged labour, wealth accumulation, internal market, class division, money these are the features of a capitalist society, hence Lenin termed it state capitalism.
Yes
Vote with your dollar. The Montgomery bus boycott (Rosa Parks). Gandhi’s salt march (Ending British Rule). Examples of people coming together to use their buying power to leverage change.
Perche' Novara,che e' una citta' qua in Italia?
We need a new system!
the problem with "free for all" capitalism is that the more money you make the EASIER it is to make more!
And the less money you make the easier it gets to blame others for what you are lacking.
In the 1930s, there was a widespread belief that capitalism had failed, and people were looking to alternatives like fascism and communism.
This is end stage liberalism.
Before the new liberal order (neoliberalism) there was an old liberal order.
We stepped onto an old path that still leads to the same place.
1920s/2000s - neoclassical economics, high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 - Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s - Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, austerity, rising nationalism and extremism
1940s - World war.
We forgot we had been down that path before.
Everything is progressing nicely and we are approaching the final destination.
This is what it's supposed to be like.
Right wing populist leaders are what we should be expecting at this stage and it keeps on getting worse.
I remember now, it was Keynesian capitalism that won the battle of ideas against Russian Communism.
These liberal phases never end well.
It sounds so good, but ends so badly.
WWIII next stop.
The newly developed mythology about liberalism wasn’t based on past experience.
This is what it’s like.
Everything is falling apart at the seams and we are descending into chaos.
This is end stage liberalism.
What's your solution then?
Funny things is, Amoorika can't afford to go back to Keynesian Capitalism, because going back to Keynesianism would mean, leaving out the world market completely to China. Because, China is in a much better position economically, than USSR at its peak. And China has a better system that could handle both Keynesianism and Liberalism. You do Liberalism, you would lose, and you do Keynesianism, you would still lose. Thing is Amoorika is losing, and it won't be pretty.
2028 US and 2029 UK will see the right wing populist leader bit. It's already happening in other places. It'll take around 2-3 years following that for large swathes of the populations to realise they've been mugged off by those populists and in an effort to prevent civil unrest aimed at them, the establishment and their populist front men will kick off World War 3.
Except we have nuclear weapons this time, meaning no World War; just larger proxy wars.
The world has been trampled too deeply by colonialism in Europe and America. It will take a lot of time to explain to them the community of shared future for mankind
Vultures are actually incredibly important part of an ecosystem- really disappointing to use them in that title
“It’s no coincidence that Boeing had to push back against whistleblowers”
What a nice to say being murdered some of their employees
Well done girls, I really love this❤
Women, not girls.
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
She complains about bigger planes which mean the airlines can make more more by transporting more people at a lower cost. Well let's make smaller trains to cut costs
While I applaud and agree with the substance of this discussion, I'm not sure the title of the book is great. I'm gong to age myself here but I remember the term "Vulture Capitalism" from the 1980's. My understanding is that It refers to a large corporation buying a smaller one (or a distressed corp on the verge of bankruptcy) laying off its employees and stripping it for parts. The purpose is to acquire a brand name and/or eliminate the competition. It went hand-in-hand with Reagan's "voodoo economics" ... 🤣.
But whatever, as I said, I agree with the substance.
if you don'y understand the dynamic what else can I say, problem is I know this comment will only land on the quoir