Thread: Capitalism isn't working ?

Originally Posted by JBHoren

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.

No question that greed is a problem, but recall too, that many of us own chunks of those we deem greedy in our retirement portfolios... and the majority of us give up our rights to vote when we buy them. We expect/demand the majority shareholders to be greedy and make us more.

Now I guess that's fine when we can all afford RRSPs and 401k plans... Maybe. But it falls apart when you are underemployed or unemployed and aren't part of the problem.

Well, greed is easy to blame, but that's not something that can be fixed. At best you could fix your own, but how much is 'enough' and where does the line to 'greed' gets crossed?

The desire for consumption is a major driving force in our societies - if all of us, or even a small fraction of us start leading 'monk' lives there wouldn't be a lot of things, including most of our straight razors, soaps, brushes, fragrances..., this site...

I think swinging in one extreme or another is inevitably bad. At the end of the day everything is self-correcting, but the bigger the fluctuations the more painful the self-correcting process is. If we can't figure out a reasonable way that is sustainable we may even exterminate ourselves as species.

So what would happen if everyone in the U.S decided to live like a monk? The economy would collapse. We say greed and call it a negative quality however for those at the top of the pyramid the term greed doesn't exist. It's the way the system is and it's good.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

So what would happen if everyone in the U.S decided to live like a monk? The economy would collapse. We say greed and call it a negative quality however for those at the top of the pyramid the term greed doesn't exist. It's the way the system is and it's good.

Live like a monk...interesting. Of course there's a very controversial, yet compelling read, about what may happen if those at the top of the pyramid, the "producers", the "investors", were to remove their services, to go, "on strike" as it were.

I mean of course, Ayn Rand's, "Atlas Shrugged". Call it what you will, but it is a fascinating look, and in her own right, it spawned a whole philosophy, movement, that still exists today. She refer's to stock brokers, and those that feed off the system yet produce nothing, as, "looters", where as JBHoren states, greed is their motive rather than producing something others are willing to pay for in a fair exchange.

Worth the read...

Here's a link to an article on today's World Socialist Web Site, regarding the current economic situation.

I remember the 1999-2000 "Tech Wreck" -- I believe it was engineered. Those same corporations that made up the high-tech mutual funds in which my $60,000 was invested remain eminently profitable and continue to control market-share in their domains.

The thing about Capitalism is that corporations use other people's money (and workers' labor) to grow, but keep the lion's share of profits for themselves. "Heads, I win; tails, you lose."

Here's a link to another article on the same site, about low-wage labor in America.

The problem of greed is obvious but the less obvious problem is selfishness, on the part of the population as a whole. Most people could care less about
what's going on in the world unless it's directly affecting them. I've known people over the years who could give two sh*ts that someone loses their job and
has to go on unemployment. When it happened to them, WHOLE different story. Until people in the US and across the world can put their petty differences
aside and realize that we'll all benefit from a major change, I'm afraid we'll only continue down this road until maybe it's way too late.

Again and again I come back to the writing of Martin Miemoller "First they came..." Check it out. It applies just as much today as it did back then, just different
circumstances.

John

Originally Posted by Phrank

Live like a monk...interesting. Of course there's a very controversial, yet compelling read, about what may happen if those at the top of the pyramid, the "producers", the "investors", were to remove their services, to go, "on strike" as it were.

I mean of course, Ayn Rand's, "Atlas Shrugged". Call it what you will, but it is a fascinating look, and in her own right, it spawned a whole philosophy, movement, that still exists today. She refer's to stock brokers, and those that feed off the system yet produce nothing, as, "looters", where as JBHoren states, greed is their motive rather than producing something others are willing to pay for in a fair exchange.

Worth the read...

I think we saw that happen only few years ago with the bailouts. Those with enough wealth to matter said that unless the full economic power and authority of US is put to their service in the form of guaranteeing the funds necessary to fully cover their losses the world economy would be a disaster. I think they were right, and apparently so did the politicians and didn't dare call them on that. The money was paid back, of course, but the point is that the regular people who went underwater on their housing didn't get such temporary low-interest loans to carry them over - instead they had to take the loss.

The super wealthy, of course suffered most from the recession in terms of percentage of wealth losses, but they also recovered quick and made up for all the losses. The difference is that if you suffer a 30% loss on your 100Million, you still get to live very comfortably. If you lose 10% on your 30K income your whole life may start to unravel.

If it were up to me, I'd like to test a system where almost all wealth is erased at death and redistributed among the living. That would level the playing field a lot - everybody gets a lot more equal chances at life.
The capital would still be there, just distributed differently. It may be harder to fund projects but that is not a given - is it easier to convince one person with 100M to invest 1M, or convince 100 people with 1M each to put in 10K into that project. The way venture capital has evolved the answer isn't obvious.

But that isn't going to happen, because we are hardwired to propagate our own genes. It is, however, what some of the most successful and rich people have done and are doing individually (philanthropy). They tend to be self-made men though (Carnegie, Buffet, Gates) and it seems to me that they've made the calculation that their legacy would be better if they take care of it personally rather than leaving it to their offspring.

Originally Posted by gugi

I think we saw that happen only few years ago with the bailouts. Those with enough wealth to matter said that unless the full economic power and authority of US is put to their service in the form of guaranteeing the funds necessary to fully cover their losses the world economy would be a disaster. I think they were right, and apparently so did the politicians and didn't dare call them on that. The money was paid back, of course, but the point is that the regular people who went underwater on their housing didn't get such temporary low-interest loans to carry them over - instead they had to take the loss.

The super wealthy, of course suffered most from the recession in terms of percentage of wealth losses, but they also recovered quick and made up for all the losses. The difference is that if you suffer a 30% loss on your 100Million, you still get to live very comfortably. If you lose 10% on your 30K income your whole life may start to unravel.

If it were up to me, I'd like to test a system where almost all wealth is erased at death and redistributed among the living. That would level the playing field a lot - everybody gets a lot more equal chances at life.
The capital would still be there, just distributed differently. It may be harder to fund projects but that is not a given - is it easier to convince one person with 100M to invest 1M, or convince 100 people with 1M each to put in 10K into that project. The way venture capital has evolved the answer isn't obvious.

But that isn't going to happen, because we are hardwired to propagate our own genes. It is, however, what some of the most successful and rich people have done and are doing individually (philanthropy). They tend to be self-made men though (Carnegie, Buffet, Gates) and it seems to me that they've made the calculation that their legacy would be better if they take care of it personally rather than leaving it to their offspring.

That sounds interesting, but where would incentive be to expand with that in place? Which is the basis of enterprise... and isn't amassing wealth the cornerstone of capitalist success?

More importantly, it would have no effect on the corporation short of changing up the shareholders.

It a fun thought, I just don't know how it would work even if implemented.

Go deeper for me .

I am not convinced people's primary motivation for amassing wealth is to leave it to their children after they're dead. The ones with such interests are dynasties (family name trumps the individual) and they tend to be not the most productive members of the class.

It seems to me that those who are most productive do the things they do because they find fulfillment in that and that isn't going to change.

I am not sure I understand the issue with corporations. From what I understand the whole idea of them is to have the capital/ownership/decisionmaking be a lot more distributed.

It's a toy model I've thought of, that addresses directly one particular issue. I don't think it's practical and haven't really thought about many details because the chances of it happening are negligible. Plus I'm not an economist or politician or have any formal knowledge of governance, sociology, economics, etc.. I'm just a hack who tends to find a lot of problems interesting enough to put some thinking into them

Originally Posted by gugi

I think we saw that happen only few years ago with the bailouts. Those with enough wealth to matter said that unless the full economic power and authority of US is put to their service in the form of guaranteeing the funds necessary to fully cover their losses the world economy would be a disaster. I think they were right, and apparently so did the politicians and didn't dare call them on that. The money was paid back, of course, but the point is that the regular people who went underwater on their housing didn't get such temporary low-interest loans to carry them over - instead they had to take the loss.

The super wealthy, of course suffered most from the recession in terms of percentage of wealth losses, but they also recovered quick and made up for all the losses. The difference is that if you suffer a 30% loss on your 100Million, you still get to live very comfortably. If you lose 10% on your 30K income your whole life may start to unravel.

Ivan, you're correct that the lower classes did not recover as quickly, but in terms of wealth, they were also the ones living further outside their means.

My wife and I combined, at the time, made around $50-60k. We, very thankfully, had gotten ourselves mostly out of debt by the time the recession went into full swing. We lived pretty modestly, not like paupers, mind you, but we didn't spend money like it was going out of style. During this time I was also laid off, roughly 6 months after buying our first house and 9 months after having our son. Being opportunistic, resourceful and responsible, I was only out of work for about two weeks.

Our biggest loss was on the house, which we had to sort sell. Really, that was the largest effect that the recession had on us. Not too bad for a few late Gen X/early Gen Y'ers...

The point is, most of the folks we know were in similar situations and weathered the recession just fine. There may not have been as much opportunity to increase their wealth or assets, but they didn't really suffer.

This is not to say that no one suffered in the lower classes, but I'd bet a wooden nickel that those in the lower classes who did suffer greatly were probably near to maxed on their debt to income.

Just my own experiences and opinions/observations.