Thread: Capitalism isn't working ?

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 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.

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 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.