Thread: Capitalism isn't working ?

Originally Posted by DarthLord

I must disagree, friend. What you're describing is corporatism; capitalism is a very simple concept: I take capital (either from an investor in return for a share of the profits, or from my own resources) and use it to build or grow my enterprise. Capital is, by its very definition, wealth used to grow or start an enterprise. Capitalism, as an economic concept, has no relationship between companies and stockholders and inflation and dividends; those are governmental structures created in an attempt to provide a framework for capitalism; and I think we can all agree that framework has failed us.

A stock broker, as you said produces nothing; an investor, on the other hand, produces opportunity.

Capital as a noun, is neutral, you are correct - it is a means.

Capitalism - as a practice, a verb, is vastly different that it's root meaning.

One is an thing - capital.

The other is an action - capitalism.

The practice of capitalism (or as you call "corporatism) is what's being discussed, not the actual capital itself. And there is a difference, a profound difference as outlined in two of it's many manifestations, free enterprise vs. current capitalism.

Phrank

Yea, Capitalism has many varied manifestation and people tend to forget that and simply defend Capitalism as the best and only way. There are many ways within the broad term Capitalism and some work better than others. By work better I mean benefit a wide spectrum of the population where it is practiced.

For me I happen to like Capitalism seasoned with a bit of Socialism to try and knock the rough edges off to temper it with a modicum of humanity. It is all in how you use the Capital generated by the practice of Capitalism. For me that balance seems out of whack.

Bob

Originally Posted by BobH

Phrank

Yea, Capitalism has many varied manifestation and people tend to forget that and simply defend Capitalism as the best and only way. There are many ways within the broad term Capitalism and some work better than others. By work better I mean benefit a wide spectrum of the population where it is practiced.

For me I happen to like Capitalism seasoned with a bit of Socialism to try and knock the rough edges off to temper it with a modicum of humanity. It is all in how you use the Capital generated by the practice of Capitalism. For me that balance seems out of whack.

Bob

BobH, how is capitalism mixed with socialism different from corporatism?

Originally Posted by Phrank

Capital as a noun, is neutral, you are correct - it is a means.

Capitalism - as a practice, a verb, is vastly different that it's root meaning.

One is an thing - capital.

The other is an action - capitalism.

The practice of capitalism (or as you call "corporatism) is what's being discussed, not the actual capital itself. And there is a difference, a profound difference as outlined in two of it's many manifestations, free enterprise vs. current capitalism.

Agreed; however, capitalism is being misdefined. Capitalism is an economic system whereby enterprises are started or grown by the injection of capital. That's it. Companies, shares and stock exchanges are part of an unnecessary subset called "corporatism" in which the framework for the injection of capital is the creation of legal entities through the process of incorporation.

Originally Posted by BobH

Snip....

For me I happen to like Capitalism seasoned with a bit of Socialism to try and knock the rough edges off to temper it with a modicum of humanity. It is all in how you use the Capital generated by the practice of Capitalism. For me that balance seems out of whack.

Bob

Agreed.
Capitalism as a concept is all fine and dandy.
The problem is just that we are dealing with humans, and that tends to mess things up considerably.

So yes, a social kind of capitalism seems to be my preferred system too.

The Scandinavian model seems to work decently.
Not perfect by any means, but decent nonetheless.
It is based on that very concept.

Originally Posted by DarthLord

Agreed; however, capitalism is being misdefined. Capitalism is an economic system whereby enterprises are started or grown by the injection of capital. That's it. Companies, shares and stock exchanges are part of an unnecessary subset called "corporatism" in which the framework for the injection of capital is the creation of legal entities through the process of incorporation.

What I'm saying is that you don't need corporatism to have capitalism; you can have capitalism without the companies and central banking.

Originally Posted by DarthLord

BobH, how is capitalism mixed with socialism different from corporatism?

It is, for me, when a democratically elected government regulates to some extent what is done with the capital accrued through the economic practice of Capitalism. There are many different degrees of governmental regulating in different countries and no two are exactly the same. Ours is different than what the USA practices and the again both of those are different from what is practiced in, say, various European countries.

It is hard to counter act huge global corporations as they owe no allegiance to any specific geopolitical entity, country, only to themselves and the generation of huge amounts of capitol. The capitol generated in this manner will normally not benefit to any great extent the countries where it was generated and by extension the citizens of those countries. To me this is Corporatism and what makes some form of regulating what is done with the capital generated this way necessary. OTH what does a high school drop out know.

Bob

I did read the article, and to me a discussion of the content would be a whole lot more attractive than one inspired by the article's sensationalist title.

The article seems like a pretty good summary of the essence of a book. It looks like it is an analysis of the economic data of 200 years of capitalism (not clear where, but it sounds like UK and USA are included). The main result is

Capital, he argues, is blind. Once its returns exceed the real growth of wages and output then inevitably the stock of capital will rise disproportionately faster within the overall pattern of output.

He asserts that the few periods around the wars where the data do not show this are an exception of this pattern rather than a change in the way the system works inherently.

Extreme income inequality is a direct result of this central conclusion. I think that the inevitability of social instabilities from drastic inequalities are pretty much a given.

The rest deals with policies that provide positive or negative feedback to this working, as well as multitude of illustrative examples.

I don't think it really matters all that much what is the definition of 'capitalism'. To me what is interesting is understanding how the economic system we live in works, and hopefully how it can be made to work 'better'.

Originally Posted by gugi

I don't think it really matters all that much what is the definition of 'capitalism'. To me what is interesting is understanding how the economic system we live in works, and hopefully how it can be made to work 'better'.

It's all about Greed. It's never enough: the dwelling isn't big enough, the furnishings aren't fancy enough, the clothing isn't fashionable enough, the vehicle isn't new enough, yada-yada-yada... and don't get me started on the razors, brushes, hones, strops, and all the rest. The truth is that with this attitude, there's simply not enough to go 'round.

Large corporations buy smaller ones, creating vertical monopolies, then sell-off assets, "rightsize" worker resources, hoard profits, and relocate off-shore. The rest of us? We're hosed.

The problem isn't Capitalism. It's Greed.

I agree with JBHoren-You can trace every problem this country has back to greed.