I disagree with this wholly Libertarian and divorced from reality characterization of economic cannibalism. I believe the real cannibals are the non-productive rich and over-compensated rich–who make their vast fortunes by virtue of ownership and inheritance and NOT productivity. The wealth they amass is at the expense of the productive member that are paid not by their ability to produce but at a rate determined by the labor market; a labor market that has been consistently “gamed” to pay the least wage, with the least benefit to as many individuals as possible through monopolistic practices of the wealthy.

A more pertinent question is not to label these disadvantaged as “cannibals”, when in fact their consumption and production is responsible for much of the economic activity and wealth, but to question a system that pays its people so little that so many Americans don’t have to pay taxes. What you should be thinking about is how to elevate these individuals to be able to contribute more to the collective whole of society through education and opportunity.

It is obvious you are shilling for capitalism in your article. I think you are evading the major premise of a film and novel such as “The Road”, where through an unexplained catastrophe the Earth is dying due to devastation of its ecosphere. When you look out into the real world, our world of greed and industry, you’ll notice right off that capitalism has no concern for environment, nor morality, nor humanity–it is only concerned with the ceaseless rationalization and specialization of labor, the harnessing of raw materials to turn into disposable goods, and the commodification and marketing of the same. Left unchecked, it is a death cycle. It is clear that selfishness is personified by the cannibal gangs, those willing to surrender their humanity to serve their own solipsistic existence, whereas the man and the boy and their quest for “the good guys” are symbolic of retaining one’s humanity, even at the cost of one’s life. Their willingness to self-sacrifice their lives on principle is what sets them apart from the dog-eat-dog… or more fittingly man-eat-man, morality of the cannibals.

How one can walk away from a story like “The Road” and not despise capitalism is staggering to me.

Well, actually, that’s funny because i saw the opposite in this movie.

Only the strongest (those with weapons) – the cannibalist tribes, would feed and exploit others humans to their own purpose, using “humans” as “capital”, taking “freely” what they want (women, children, etc…) – (no regulations rules!)

It is really hard to read that anything related to socialism and solidarity is some form of cannibalism economics. When your father or your son is having health issues and is not productive and cannot work, do you treat them as “cannibals”, because it takes some money away from you? Do you expect you to pay you back for all the costs?

Otherwise, better live alone by yourself and not rely on others to help you.

The movie is interesting in this sense because it oppose selfishness (the father which dont trust anyone at all) versus sharing (the child in the movie is that kind of hope)

In this movie, we would see a sacrifice from a father to his son, without expecting any returns from his son. That is love.

The author needs to examine her use of “economic cannibalism”. Here she defines the cannibals as the end-users of a system which was developed far before they were (perhaps) born, participants in a system of which they had no control.

Economic cannibals, the way I’ve used it and have seen it used, refers to the corporate banks, the insurance companies, the large food producers, and well, hell, throw in large pharmaceutical companies because they truly cannibalize the health AND wealth, while the others only cannibalize the WEALTH of the citizens presumably the system was set up to protect…and who has had greater influence in setting up the system? The corporate interests whose business rely on legislation determined by senators and representatives who, largely by lies and illusion, convince that they work for their voters.

Economic cannibals are those corporations who use AND eventually destroy the system they themselves have set up, destroying those who should be called “systemic victims” but are inaccurately called their “clients” and, (perhaps) even themselves in the process.
———-

A follow-up: Here’s a perfect example for economic capitalism found in the comments section of this article:
http://www.alternet.org/story/149316/cutesy_geico_geckos_ad_fight_is_a_deeply_disturbing_symbol_of_our_economic_decline/comments/

RickW [Moderator] 5 minutes ago – The author says:
“I say it because they are peddling the kind of commodity that offers little tangible worth, waging a fight that promises no valuable innovation, and representing a larger insurance and finance sector that’s hollowing out our economy.”
——–
“…hollowing out our economy.” The metaphor is equivalent to “cannibalism” and is the work, not of the end-user, the insurance companies so-called clients and customers, but of the insurance companies themselves.

Mostly excellent questions, except the author does not consider, who owns government now? Who actually dictates the really big decisions? The long term decisions? The lobbyists. And who owns the lobbyists. Somebody, anonymous with lots and lots… o f m o n e y. They are the owners of government today. And they are the cannibals. Feasting on the average american