[Closed] Capitalism in Crisis...

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]"I don't have the solution"[/i]. 😕

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

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 ****ing 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

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

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)

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:

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.

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?

Better at what? Better for whom?

Better for maximising quality of life. For the bulk of the world's population.

I'm not saying that it is fair. Nor am I saying that every single person is better off in a capitalist world than they would be otherwise. I'm saying that in general, on the whole, I suspect it is the best thing anyone has suggested that is realistically implementable.

Seriously, throw me an alternative idea for how you think the world should work and I'll have a go at explaining why I think regulated capitalism beats it.

The big sticking point is that if you want someone to put their assets at risk, you will have to reward them for it.

Seriously, throw me an alternative idea for how you think the world should work and I'll have a go at explaining why I think regulated capitalism beats it.

Key word there is "regulated". The "all hogs to the trough" system we are currently [i]enjoying [/i]appears to be entirely unregulated.

if some folk are highly motivate by money let them have a bit more than people like myself who don't really want it or care that much.

Those people have been running the system already. They accumulate wealth and then they accumulate political power to ensure the status quo. They are a minority who hold power over the majority. Removing them from holding this kind of power would be a start, preventing others from trying to replace them is another issue.

What Edukator said is basically my view why can we not just be fiarer.

Because it will still be unsustainable. Capitalism needs human resources. Populations increase. People need jobs, jobs have to be created, people want a particular lifestyle, more trees get cut down, more oil extracted out of the ground, more fish out of the sea, more water used, more conflict occurs.

Capitalism wants no barriers to growth, but the planet is finite.

Seriously, throw me an alternative idea for how you think the world should work and I'll have a go at explaining why I think regulated capitalism beats it.

Or you could throw in a few suggestions yourself instead of defending a failed system.

As I have repeatedly banged on about on here - an increasingly large gap between rich and poor is a bad thing for society generally - regardless of the absolute level of poverty at the lower end. Countries with very large gaps between rich and poor have been shown to suffer more from crime, corruption, drug addiction, health problems, etc etc - and it's not just the poor that are affected.

Just off to bed so will aim to look at this

Why not explain why you think it has pulled millions out of poverty as you asserted earlier

Or you could throw in a few suggestions yourself instead of defending a failed system.

Better for maximising quality of life. For the bulk of the world's population.

That simply isn't true. The bulk (around 80%) of the global population live in poverty, living on less than $10 a day. Around 50% live on less than $2.50.

Seriously, throw me an alternative idea for how you think the world should work and I'll have a go at explaining why I think regulated capitalism beats it.

Here, we agree; but the regulations required, like, for example, limiting the size of corporate entities/personal wealth, strict rules on foreign ownership and the indexing of workforce and executive salaries, are immensely difficult to impose, especially without global political agreement.

I don't think capitalism has failed

Or you could throw in a few suggestions yourself instead of defending a failed system.

My whole point is that I don't think it has failed.

"Failed" (as I am rashly defining it) would mean that it performs more poorly than another system that we could have used. It would have failed to be the best option we have.

Not managing to make the world a perfect place is not, in my opinion, failure.

As the OP's rather awesome video shows, capitalism leads to huge fluctuations, such as the banking crisis where we all got rogered for the benefit of the few. But we have all been free to pursue our chosen paths, and rewarded in proportion to the value of our work as perceived by a free market. And we have been free to spend our earnings as we choose, subject to taxes providing an incentive to limit our more damaging consumption (smoking, alcohol, petrol etc). I think it is a pretty great way to live, and economies flourish in the long run.

I know, I know, that's not how a starving HIV-positive child in Africa sees it. But the starving child's problems aren't caused by capitalism, they are mostly caused by drought, war, corrupt leaders and not enough condoms.

Wipe the developed western world off the face of the earth, and the problem of extreme poverty would remain exactly as it is now. It would probably be worse, due to the lack of Red Nose Days and Blue Peter Appeals and water-well-drilling-machines. It just wouldn't look like so much of a problem since there would be no rich fat westerners, not doing a thing to help, to compare them to.

So I'll take you up on the idea of throwing in a few suggestions myself:

- Much like we have high and low rate income tax, bring in a tiered scale for mega-businesses. Tax the profits of large corporations proportionally more than small ones within a given sector. Couple this with a decrease in tax if a large proportion of a company's costs are made up of employees wages. Put a ceiling on the level to which it is worthwhile a company growing to (preventing monopolies and other market problems), and provide an incentive to pay workers more. It wont reduce incentives to drive down costs through technological innovation. No end of complications I'm sure to implement that, but a workable principle I think.

- Increase international aid. Not just aid, investment too. It makes sense even if we are only thinking of ourselves. Provide joe public with the ability to invest in African economies more easily.

- Kick the pope in the nuts, over and over again, until he retracts the anti-contraception thing. Some areas just cant cope with that many people just yet.

- Increase duties on fuel and carbon dioxide production. Not to raise money, just to provide greater incentive to cut down. The world is getting messed up. Anyone moaning about how much the cost of their massive commute will go up can learn to ride a motorbike.

- (this is probably much, much too simplistic to be much use). Replace bankers bonuses with long term stocks and warrants in the bank.

- Back home in the UK, refuse to pay any type of unemployment benefits to anyone who owns a TV larger than 28inches. I'm mildly serious here.

- Sort out the EU fishing quota thing. Monumentally wasteful.

I'm sure those are massively flawed in one way or another that I wont understand, but it is an attempt to give positive, tangible suggestions rather than moaning aimlessly and offering nothing.

Bedtime.

That simply isn't true. The bulk (around 80%) of the global population live in poverty, living on less than $10 a day. Around 50% live on less than $2.50.

Yes. I know. But what makes you think that they would be any richer in a non capitalistic world?

I very explicitly conceded that capitalism isn't fair, so I'm not sure what that statistic is supposed to prove.

The main problem you have in the UK is that there is no longer any alternative to rampant capitalism to vote for.

(I have no idea what happens in NI).

Capitalism has helped the majority of the world's population.

Do you have any idea what life was like in say the Iron Age? It was not a healthy prosperous utopia.

Just one thing that jumped out at me:

I know, I know, that's not how a starving HIV-positive child in Africa sees it

We now have HIV medicine. Not everyone gets it, but it exists. It exists because of capitalism.

It may have existed without capitalism, but it may not.

Do you have any idea what life was like in say the Iron Age? It was not a healthy prosperous utopia

this argument always crops up in the capitalism debate.. and it always tickles me..

I'm not saying that I don't enjoy the luxuries of our health service.. and the life I have built for myself within the restrictions of our capitalist society would be very much poorer without it..

but.. I'm pretty sure that I could construct a lifestyle within a different set of parameters to that of our cosseted consumerist trudge that would be equally as acceptable.. and I'm not entirely sure that certain capitalist ailments such as mindless conformity and passive aggressive oppression and stress and depression and sobriety and soul destroying infinite mediocrity are any less of an evil than easily curable disease..

Just because people have dreams of rejecting capitalism.. it doesn't neccessarily follow that they are incapable of adjusting to a different standard of living..
It's quite simple if your heart is really in it..

We now have HIV medicine. Not everyone gets it, but it exists. It exists because of capitalism.

Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. 😕

I'm sure it's a great comfort to all the people dying in Africa that there is a cure for their illness, it's just that they are too poor to be able to get it.

You miss the point.

It's a travesty that they don't have it. But it EXISTS because of capitalism. If it weren't for the forces of capital working on civilisation since its start, we'd all be in mud huts dying like flies aged 40.

Whatever system we move to NEEDS elements of capitalism until someone invents limitless free energy, cheap robot androids or the replicator from Star Trek. Then we can pretty much kick back and relax.

Capitalism has created all the wonders of the modern world. And it has also enabled people to exercise their greedy gene.

Not that people didn't do that before mind. The just used to slaughter the neighbouring village instead of making dodgy business deals.

But it EXISTS because of capitalism

as does he massive spread of the disease in the first place

have scan at Affluenza by Oliver James it will explain a lot for you free marketeers, careful though you might not like to know how manipulated you are.
Books by Daniel Bell (Cultural Contridictions of Capitalism) if your a lefty will explain stuff and my even support your views but only to a degree (you may turn out to be a conservative (Person not supporter)).

Myself I'm mostly on the same page as the discredited Thomas Malthus and as the OP mentions at the bottom of his/her post I've "conceded" so I have no arguement but enjoy the explanations.

We now have HIV medicine. Not everyone gets it

And those who need it most, can afford it least so don't get it. I wonder what system caused that. A step too far in your defence of capitalism there mol.

Sigh.

If it wasn't for capitalisim NO-ONE would get it.

Capitalism is a million miles from the perfect system but let's at least recognise what it has achieved, please?

Note that I am NOT a free marketeer or a capitalist. I think we have a long way to go, but we also have COME a long way.

As does the massive spread of the disease in the first place

Are you honestly saying that the spead of HIV in Africa is due to capitalism? What the hell are you talking about?

Sorry, double post

Sigh.

Sigh.

Who says it wouldn't exist without capitalism? Eastern Europe was miles ahead of the rest of the world when it came to drugs being used to enhance performance in sports when it was under a communist regime. It seems they managed to develop pharmaceuticals for the common "good". Capitalism is now a force for good? Or should we ignore the plight of millions suffering because every so often it "achieves" something good.

please?

And try not to patronise. It makes your weaselling defence of capitalism sound all the more nasal in my head as I read it.

but let's at least recognise what it has achieved, please?

sigh..

that depends on your point of view though surely..?

let's see.. over population.. unrealistic expectation.. uncontrolled pollution plus all the things mentioned in my earlier rant..

where are the positives..?
name one..

Hang on, are you suggesting totalitarian communism as a better alternative?

Modern civilisation only emerged when the capacity for food supply outstripped demand through technological advances. This led to some people to be able to offer services instead of having to spend their time finding food. They offered services for money, which they could then use to buy food and have some extra to spend on other things. So you now have people with a) spare time and b) money to trade with. Not only does this allow for things like education and research, but trade also spreads ideas, knowledge and technology. All because of money.

Forgive me if I am mis-understanding the definition of capitalism here, but it seems to me that for the above to work [i]on its own without authority dictating things[/i] it has to be all about the money - ie capitalism.

Or should we ignore the plight of millions suffering

No! Of course I'm not advocating this! I'm saying we need to MOVE ON from capitalism not replace it. The time for the next stage is WAY overdue. However [b]an element[/b] of capitalism is essential for the time being.

where are the positives..?

Technology
Education
Cultural achievement
Scientific achievement
Medicine
Extended life expectancy

Just a few little things....

Shared Value is the way forward according to Porter
http://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value/ar/1

You can't get much bigger than Porter on this kind of thinking and this paper stacks up when you consider practicalities - lots of common sense stuff really.

PS If anyone wants a copy of the article, drop me an email.

Technology
Education
Cultural achievement
Scientific achievement
Medicine
Extended life expectancy

Just a few little things....

like I said.. whether these are good things or not depends entirely on your point of view.. besides.. I don't think that capitalism [i]created[/i] any of these concepts.. it just increased the speed at which they developed..

didn't someone great say that all the worlds modern evils are a direct result of geeks attempting to attract women..?

did capitalism create alcohol.. or music or sex or language..?

No.. so therefore it is utter folly.. but yeah.. a progression would be good.. anything else would be impossible.. 🙄

I'm sorry but the argument that some rich people in the west getting HIV treatment while millions die in Africa of the same treatable disease is somehow a ringing endorsement of capitalism is pretty laughable tbh.

Technology
Education
Cultural achievement
Scientific achievement
Medicine
Extended life expectancy

So presumably there were no advances in any of these areas in the Soviet Union then? 🙄

Note that I am NOT a free marketeer or a capitalist.

You keep saying that, it doesn't make it any more true.

"What did the capitalists do for us?"

The ability to buy anything you want if you have the funds. If you have the funds but don't know what you want then that has been solved also (marketing). Iphone/Ipad anyone?

We are all suckers to the system. Not one person on here can get out of that, even mountainbikes are a toy for those with money and to much time, made from resources stolen from future needs of others.

I know, I know, that's not how a starving HIV-positive child in Africa sees it. But the starving child's problems aren't caused by capitalism, they are mostly caused by drought, war, corrupt leaders and not enough condoms

If you want to talk about the third world, we have the likes of the gates foundation, millions of generous westerners and all sorts of other groups trying their damndest to help and corruption and greed on the part of the governments and authorities throughout Africa have kept them in poverty, not capitalism.

The vast majority of the population of china have existed in poverty for generations, open up the markets and they are thriving.

I am not saying capitalism is perfect, far from it, but it is the best we have, the main problem with capitalism is the distortions it suffers because of our own corrupt governments. They manipulate interest rates, offer financial incentives to their cronies, subsidise inefficient and non viable industries, bail out banks rather than supporting the normal hard working people who stand to lose if the banks go down, they distort the markets with protectionist policies and generally wreak havoc, regardless of whether their intentions are good or not.

Governments never make anything, never innovate, never lift people out of poverty without taking it from elsewhere. It is the free market that stimulates enlightened self interest (as well as the less enlightened variety) that actually creates wealth and ensures that everyone living standards creep up. We need the governments to make good laws and enforce them, without expecting backhanders from the corrupt subsidised industries that they prop up.

Of course this isn't the whole story but to blame our woes on business without accepting the governments absolute complicity in the problems is totally missing the point.

All those people who think this is capitalism are wrong.

You keep saying that, it doesn't make it any more true.

FFS you people are utterly failing to comprehend what I am saying in any way.

Capitalism a system based on money.

Rampant greed and moral delinquency is SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT!

One may enable the other.

All I am trying to do is bring a little more detail and subtlety to the discussion. The world is not black and white!

I am not advocating greed or the exploitation of poor people. I fail utterly to see how you would think this (actually, I don't - you are just reading a few of my words and putting me into a bogeyman pigeonhole you've made in your head).

The exchange and accumulation of money has allowed civilisation to develop. It has also brought massive inequality. Before money, we were all equal - equally badly off (not strictly true actually but you get the gist).

It's a bit like food. We all need it. Good food is lovely. Too much food makes us fat and unhealthy.

You can think of my position as being like Jamie Oliver's school food campaign!

Capitalsim benefits the few at the cost of the many a better system would quite simply benefit the many over the few

I agree to a point. However it's very difficult to get this to work without personal incentive, isn't it?

Governments never make anything, never innovate

NHS? Labour laws? Financial regulation (I am thinking great depression here) Keynsian stimuli?

Junkyard - excellent point. The distribution of R&D spending by large pharmaceuticals is, by a bizillion miles, the best example i know of where capitalism fails. There are many possible solutions but nobody seems to have made the effort to implement them.

Mole you are missing the point, people are painting you as the bad guy cause they are all guilty of capitalist crimes themselves. They have no defense as they argue that it's not right but carry on taking the advantage

NHS?

How many new treatments does the NHS pioneer? How many drugs do they manufacture? How many of the expensive machines they use are made by the NHS? As it is, the NHS (which I believe in) is a structure within the fruits of free market ingenuity are distributed.

Labour laws?

As I said, they make laws, but you can't eat laws.

Financial regulation (I am thinking great depression here)

More laws, there are many who think the great depression was caused by the US government in collaboration with some seriously evil bankers.

Keynsian stimuli?

There is an old saying, a politician is a person who wants to make the world a better place and wants YOU to pay for it. Aside from the fact that Keynesian stimuli has to have limits in order not to be an inflationary timebomb, who has been on the receiving end of the most recent bout of stimulus? Yeah, the bankers, it wasn't poured into large infrastructure projects or social welfare systems, it was used to recapitalise the masters of the universe who had seriously screwed up so I am not even inclined to believe it was a keynesian stimulus, rather it was a bail out to those who least deserved it. How they still have their jobs I have no idea - in fact, we are told that if we don't keep paying them a fortune they will leave??!?. What, and create a nice space into which a new generation of more responsible bankers can filter? Fine by me. You never change peoples minds, you just wait for the old guard to die off.

We are all suckers to the system. Not one person on here can get out of that

True.

molgrips is still a very confused man though.

How many new treatments does the NHS pioneer? How many drugs do they manufacture? How many of the expensive machines they use are made by the NHS?

Exactly my wider point - you need capital. However this is a response to the allegation that governments never innovate or help - they do.

As I said, they make laws, but you can't eat laws.

No, but you can eat their results. I'm thinking of child labour laws, slavery, minimum wage, that kind of thing.

More laws, there are many who think the great depression was caused by the US government in collaboration with some seriously evil bankers

The way I understand it the depression was caused by capitalism running riot, and regulation was subsequently introduced to stop it happening.

who has been on the receiving end of the most recent bout of stimulus? Yeah, the bankers

Yes BUT what did they do with that money? (and don't blurt out any daily mail bonus stuff unless you have hard stats). And what would have happened if they'd gone to the wall?

Tricky one this.

molgrips is still a very confused man though.

No, you are confused about my point of view and what I am trying to say.

I think you take the word 'Capitalism' to mean greedy bankers lighting cigars with fivers and laughing as they screw the common man. That's not quite what I am talking about.

No! Of course I'm not advocating this! I'm saying we need to MOVE ON from capitalism not replace it. The time for the next stage is WAY overdue. However an element of capitalism is essential for the time being.

I find myself agreeing with molgrips.

I think of it like this: there are two problematic extremes of economic model

1. Totally managed
2. Totally unmanaged

I think the answer lies somewhere in the region of "partially managed" which is what we have had. But just maybe deregulating finance pushed us too close to "totally unmanaged".

So I feel that an answer lies in better understanding the economic machine, and placing the mechanical governors in place to control it. Those governors are thorough and highly-informed independent legal and regulatory enforcement.

The present damage and instability means that financiers still have governments lashed to a barrel. The time to strike a new deal is when world economies are a little more stable, perhaps in 2-3 years.

I think the answer lies somewhere in the region of "partially managed" which is what we have had. But just maybe deregulating finance pushed us too close to "totally unmanaged"

Agreed. It's a balancing act, and we are wobbling around a lot still.

child labour laws, slavery

Good laws. Moley, I am largely agreeing with you.

The great depression was called by a load of bankers crediting the US up to the hilt and then withdrawing the credit. This then gave them the impetus to force congress to reinstate the fed (a private organisation) who control the debt and as such, the politics to this day. The great depression was a massive failure of the US Government, we know that there will be greedy free marketeers who want to exploit, they can be trusted in the same way as we can trust dogs to try and eat cats, but the government are supposed to represent the people and act in their interests, that is where the great betrayal took place.

The free market will always reflect human nature, both good and bad, it is the government who have the responsibility to protect us from the bad and they routinely fail miserably.

The great depression was a massive failure of the US Government

Through not enough regulation in the name of increased growth, I understood. Didn't they introduce more laws after the event? That's kind of what I was getting at but this is slightly historically OT now.

The free market will always reflect human nature, both good and bad, it is the government who have the responsibility to protect us from the bad and they routinely fail miserably

Agreed, and I think that they have been overall moving towards this since Victorian times. I personally think they could do a lot better of course.

Would you rather live in France, where you have a job for life and it's protected so you can idle away being mediocre, or the UK where you have to make the effort to be good at your job and innovate?