[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0&feature=player_embedded#at=19[/video]

You may agree or disagree or not understand, but it’s a brilliant piece of animation with a persuasive argument behind it.

I, for one, am not taken in by this “oh, but we must give even more money to the bankers” bullshit, unless we concede the point that society has gone beyond the point of redemption.

Discuss.

Excellent. Thank you very much for that. I’ve already forwarded it to several people and would implore others to do the same.

Very nice animation.

For me the most fundamental flaw is that there is always more debt than there is money. The reason is that money is debt, and debt is debt plus interest, so there is never enough money (debt) to pay off that debt (debt plus interest).

Capitalism therefore by its very nature can only survive by unlimited and exponential growth, but our poor planet only has finite resources, and we are at a very sad and dangerous point in time whereby many natural systems are about to give way.

But hey ho, the ipod and iphone fanboys have their nice shiny things ay! 😀

Simon, I agree. Capitalism only works if you ignore the fact that there are limited resorces.

Some are now waking up to the fact that what they took for granted is either running out, or becoming very expensive to get.

Sadly this view wont win votes so the politics wont change. It wont pay shareholder dividends so business wont change.

Enjoy the planet while it lasts, things will only get worse.

Cheers for that. Really enjoyed.

I’m sure the Free Market boys will be along soon though…

I’m sure the Free Market boys will be along soon though…

too busy capitalising. will watch it tonight.

too busy capitalising.

It was a useful distraction from this month’s invoices 😉

I watched it hoping for some great insight and enlightenment but just got to the usual problem at 10:13 :-

“I don’t have the solution”. 😕

I’m sure the Free Market boys will be along soon though…

too busy capitalising. will watch it tonight.

Free market boys only do capitalism, not the social consequences of such a system.

There are limited NATURAL resources, yes. What about things like intellectual property? Is that limited?

Excellent video – he’s right, what we need is a proper debate. I’ve always said that the only real bottom line in society is education. We all need to take part in the debate about what we want, and in order to do that we need to be educated in a) the subject matter and b) the reasons why it’s important to take part.

The longer we (as the electorate) know on average fk all about politics, the longer the politicians will be able to bullsht us at election time and go on to achieve naff all.

EDIT typed this at the same time as molgrips was posting, and finding myself strangely, and pleasantly, surprised that our opinions are so strikingly similar.

I watched it hoping for some great insight and enlightenment but just got to the usual problem at 10:13

The start of the solution is that more people understand, or are at least aware of, the problem(s). Current mainstream politics is all about focusing on the symptoms, or, as El-bent calls them, social consequences, and finding (or pretending to find) quick fixes to keep an ignorant electorate quiet/happy/ignorant/busy. It’s like trying to deal with an overflowing bath by constantly and perpetually finding ways to deal with a wet floor rather than just turning off the tap.

Bizarre that he qhould quote Switzerland which actually has about a 34% home ownership rate as it is capitalism that excludes so many would-be owners from the market. Limited supply and high demand from rich buy-to-let investors has led to highly inflated prices well beyond the reach even the average well-paid Swiss. High rents too which reward investment.

Far from demonstrating the ills of the desire to own ones home Switzerland demonstrates that a tax system that does nothing to limit wealth accumulation results in a small number of rich people ultimately owning most everything. Property is traded between the super rich at prices beyond what most can afford.

Far from demonstrating the ills of the desire to own ones home Switzerland demonstrates that a tax system that does nothing to limit wealth accumulation results in a small number of rich people ultimately owning most everything.

He was pointing out the misnomer that home ownership is a “cultural thing” like the US and UK.

He was giving “cultural origins” as one of the “genres” of explantions for the crisis in capitalism he sees. Blaming the “US fascination with home ownership” and the mortgage debt pile it led to. Going on to blame morgage subsidies (a form of lefty Keynsian stimulus) for the crsis in capitalism. Quite apart from the fact his 22% for Switzerland is wrong and misleading, the Swiss lack of home ownership is a direct result of extreme capitalism in Switzerland. The Swiss want ot own their home as much as anyone else but most are excluded from the market by super rich capitalist property magnets.

Excellent, thanks. I almost stopped it when I saw it was 11 minutes long (time is money!) but am very glad I didn’t. He puts across some very good points.

I also agree with you Simon in that capitalism needs endless and seemingly exponential growth to survive. I fear we’re at a tipping point which may result in sovereign debt crisis or worse.

What’s required IMO is systemic collapse and the strength to build something a little more sustainable. Unfortunately there is neither the political will nor the courage to take the medicine and so the can will be kicked down the road until we find out it’s actually a cul-de-sac and we’re out of road.

Agree too that more people need to be educated about these issues but that doesn’t sit well with the powers that be or we might go the way of Libya.

<generalisation>
I’d also add that the nation as a whole is so dumbed down by X-Factor etc that we’d rather stick our heads in the sand and hope it all goes away.
</generalisation>

I was in danger of having a good day there. Now I’m suitably depressed I might go and get a nice cup of tea, that’ll make it all better!

same story.. different author

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuGaqLT-gO4[/video]

I love the way that people talk about an ‘obsession’ with home ownership, like it’s all about vanity.

I have a choice between paying 700 a month into an appreciating asset that will give me what, a few hundred percent return at worst in 30 years time AND result in zero accomodation costs, or I could hand it over to a complete stranger to line his pockets and end up with f all and have to pay rent til I die.

Now let me see.. hmm…

“unless we concede the point that society has gone beyond the point of redemption.”

Conceded. Nice cartoon.

molgrips: so what’s your view on the bit in that video that says “a labour force in debt with a mortgage is less likely to strike”?

Now let me see.. hmm…

I agree with your point here molgrips, but is there not perhaps a way to foster sustainable home-ownership and not vilify individuals for wanting to work hard and provide for their own future. My perception (based on nothing like a profound understanding of economics) is that our society (UK, Europe, Western World) has crossed the Rubicon in that respect and created an economic climate which rewards the greediest and most rapacious with incomprehensible wealth. The Masters of the Universe are not necessarily the heads of the big banks who are awarding themselves 100% pay rises because they feel it would be impolitic to take bonuses, but the stratospherically wealthy hedge-fund managers who make a killing from speculation on the rise and fall of entire states (eg – the Greek bail-out).

There will be things in the video which we may find unpalatable, but the central message for me is the way the pendulum has swung from labour power to finance capital power since the 1970s. In principle, there must be some kind of middle ground where economies can grow in a realistic way rather than one growing at the expense of another, or, in extreme cases, whole financial systems being brought to their knees by a handful of individuals. This is just wrong.

I don’t have any answers because I don’t have much knowledge of economics, but I’m **** mad about it and I want to do something. Even if that is just trying to get people to think about what has gone wrong and to look into alternatives so that we drag ourselves out of this abyss of ignorance.

Robin-Hood Tax?
Re-separate investment and retail banking?

I don’t know… Intelligent debate is good though.

It’s nonsense Gary. You’ll get thrown out even faster if you stop paying the rent so are less likely to strike if you are renting. A home can be remortgaged giving you some extra flexibility or even sold if you’re really determined to remain on strike.

The main problem you have in the UK is that there is no longer any alternative to rampant capitalism to vote for. Labour used to be financed by the unions to act in the interests of the workers, now Labour is finanaced in the same way as the Conservative party by business and rich benefactors to act in the interest of… .

I could still vote for a socialist party with real socialist values lead by a bunch of bourgeois technocrats here in France, but don’t.

He was giving “cultural origins” as one of the “genres” of explantions for the crisis in capitalism he sees. Blaming the “US fascination with home ownership” and the mortgage debt pile it led to. Going on to blame morgage subsidies (a form of lefty Keynsian stimulus) for the crsis in capitalism. Quite apart from the fact his 22% for Switzerland is wrong and misleading, the Swiss lack of home ownership is a direct result of extreme capitalism in Switzerland. The Swiss want ot own their home as much as anyone else but most are excluded from the market by super rich capitalist property magnets.

Its the worst of both worlds. On the one hand you had banks etc, handing out mortgages like confetti, wages have continued to stagnate or in some cases drop, meaning the likes of the banks offer credit to make up for the loss, then bigger mortgages to cope with the high demand for over inflated housing stock. In Switzerland their tax regime as you have noted has encouraged more and more wealthy people and businesses to re-located there which has made hard for ordinary swiss to buy a home. But buying a home would still be the problem, as you are indebting yourself to a system thats currently unsustainable.

It’s nonsense Gary. You’ll get thrown out even faster if you stop paying the rent so are less likely to strike if you are renting. A home can be remortgaged giving you some extra flexibility or even sold if you’re really determined to remain on strike.

You may get thrown out, but you won’t have the financial implications if your house gets re-possessed. Your not going to sell your house if you strike. It’s not going to get re-mortgaged by the bank if you stay out on strike. Essentially you are tied to the system and you will behave accordingly. Consumerism is a beautiful sweetener.

The current system is set up to have you indebted to it. Molgrips is just another victim of it. We all are. A lot of people buy property to finance their retirement fund because pensions are sh*t.

What you say about politicians is true, all cut from similar cloth all have similar backers and all will paper over the cracks of the current form of capitalism until the next crisis. And then start papering over again.

excellent stuff, thanks for posting.

It’s a bit of a stretch to call the system we have now plain ‘Capitalism’

In what way does private corporations/institutions (e.g. banks) being bailed out by taxpayers resemble pure capitalism?

Crony capitalism maybe.

I agree that the disgustingly rich should be made to contribute more to society. How is another matter. Very hard to do.

Anyway – how are hedge fund managers paid? Don’t they just take a cut of the money their fund makes? If so, most of the fruits of their labours go back into the economy, don’t they? In the form of pensions and investments made by other people.

loving yunki’s link too.

outstanding.

Free market boys only do capitalism, not the social consequences of such a system.

One of the social consequences is that it has pulled millions out of poverty.

On another issue raised, does it matter if a few at the very top are making incomprehensible amounts of money if average living standards are rising?

One of the social consequences is that it has pulled millions out of poverty

and kept billions more in poverty due to its inequitous ditribution of the “wealth” it has created.
It is hard [impossible??]to generate wealth without exploiting people – charging more than it costs to make or deliver things, paying people less than you get for making it etc. Whatever you want to claim capitalism is altruistic is patently not one of its attributes ..where /if it occurs it is an accident not a specfifc design of the system. Why do you think we need a minimum wage and then tax credits to subssidise people who work for Mc Donalds for example. They pay the mimimum wage generally for their staff but make 30 profit in the UK from this. They could drag many more people out of poverty if they wished as could the capitalist system generally by simply redistributing the wealth much fairer.

does it matter if a few at the very top are making incomprehensible amounts of money if average living standards are rising?

If we ever stop people starving to death under capitalism I will have that discussion with you.
here is income

wealth is less failry distributed. wher ethe top 1 % own 40 % of the wealth, top 10%, 85% and the bottom 50% 1 %
Do you still want to claim it is great at dragging people out of poverty? i would hate to see a bad system if this is good.

If we ever stop people starving to death

just have less people, capitalism isn’t the problem, overpopulation is (especially if it’s pinko lefty scumbags) 🙄

he makes a lot of interesting points and is right about the need for informed debate IMO. Very few people understand the system or have a wider perspective that their own personal experience. I’ve worked in financial services for 15 years and hardly anyone in that industry understands basic economics. We need to educate ourselves and think a little more. Problem is, herd behaviour is basic human nature.

herd behaviour is basic human nature.

no it isn’t, if it was there would be no recognition of self. Humans work and live most efficiently in small highly mobile hunter gatherer groups.

Humans work and live most efficiently in small highly mobile hunter gatherer groups.

Herd refers to a social grouping of certain animals of the same species, either wild or domestic, and also to the form of collective animal behavior associated with this (referred to as herding)

we would generally call a highly mobile hunter gatherer group a tribe rather than herd but you seem to agree with his point. We are not solitary therefore we herd.

You may find that animals that herd are prey species and do so for protection from predators. If you are a ruminant with eyes on the side of your head who is terrified that something faster, meaner and with big sharp teeth is going to eat you then YOU may be part of herd. It would explain your bleating 😉

just got to the usual problem at 10:13 :-“I don’t have the solution”.

Acknowledging that the system is broken is quite a big step, that most people don’t see. But those who can affect a change, benefit from the status quo.

The richer rich people get, the more the economy shrinks. If the same money was spread over a larger number of people, it would get spent, driving the economy.

Now there is a balance – you need large-sum capital investors to fund large or high risk projects – so I’m not saying all capital accumulation is bad. I’m saying that excessive capital accumulation happens because greed and fear have no limits.

The presentation was great. I think its key message is that financiers have done too well in recent decades, at the expense of the rest of the economy. They have changed from essential organs of the economy into tumours that suck the life out of it.

So how do you have a “managed” element that can bring greater stability to all organs of the economy?

Do you still want to claim it is great at dragging people out of poverty? i would hate to see a bad system if this is good.

While horribly flawed, I’m not aware of any examples of a system that has worked better.

To bring a slightly more optimistic tone, I love this video:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo[/video]

I vote for whichever party comes closest to my idea of “caring capitalism”. A capitalism that recognises it’s in the interests of capitalists to have a well-paid, healthy, well-educated, peaceful population living in a meritocratie where a positive contribution to society is rewarded. Not much point being rich if you have to live in a compound and need an armoured limo with half a dozen thugs to go anywhere and if you are brave enough to get out you are surrounded with misery. People like Gates and Buffet don’t share that view though.

Nice edit tazzy and yes it is really hard to think of predators who herd or group collectively other than ourselves or in familial units ..well for you obviously. I am happy you like your punchline but given ot took two goes it is nowhere near your usual high standard

While horribly flawed, I’m not aware of any examples of a system that has worked better.

hard to think of one tha would be worse apart from feudalism/slavery for distribution of wealth tbh. It can make it but it cant share it. is it really impossible to do both?
What Edukator said is basically my view why can we not just be fiarer.if some folk are highly motivate dby monet let them have abit mor ethan people liek myself who dont really want it or care that much. We could have the world with clean water, education, helathcare etc or we can have some Belusconnis and just think it is better than any alternative

While horribly flawed, I’m not aware of any examples of a system that has worked better.

hard to think of one tha would be worse apart from feudalism/slavery for distribution of wealth

Really? That doesn’t ring true to me at all… what systems have been shown to work better?

Why not explain why you think it has pulled millions out of poverty as you asserted earlier or explain why no other conceivable system could be fairer or better than capitalism at this. The figures are there given how impressive they are you should have little problem.

While horribly flawed, I’m not aware of any examples of a system that has worked better.

Better at what? Better for whom?