Majorities in each of the seven populations we surveyed agreed that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in capitalist societies. Even in America 55% believe that capitalism makes the condition of the poorest people worse. On the face of it these are devastating findings. At the very least they suggest that people no longer believe that capitalism is the universal engine for social mobility that it was.

and big business is not thought highly of either

More than 70% of people in Britain, Germany, Brazil, India and Thailand believe that the big business has – to some extent – bought, cheated or polluted its way to success. Even in America 65% believe that “ethical business” is probably not a natural combination. Only 10% of Americans, 6% of Britons and a measly 4% of Germans do not think big businesses are guilty of malpractice.

https://social.shorthand.com/montie/3C6iES9yjf/what-the-world-thinks-of-capitalism

Comrades man the barricades 😉

Worth a read as the overall stuff is more nuanced than that link suggests and as always its a mixed picture

It used to be the case (in the US) that even though the poor knew capitalism hurt them most they supported it as they believed they would be the 0.00001% who could escape the ghetto and make it big. Turkeys voting for Christmas etc…

To be fair, everyone knows that it’s a poor way to run the world, but it’s the one that works best in practice right now.

Also, footflaps has it… It could be YOU.

I am not really sure what works best means as we can all easily think of ways of improving it even if this just means spreading the wealth about a little bit more fairly or companies being made to pay a fair rate of tax.

The second part seems to suggest most folk think and accept social mobility is a myth

Capitalism vs what? How was the survey question framed? The question is quoted in JY’s link, but it doesn’t define what ‘capitalism’ is. So in some ways it’s a question about people’s perception of capitalism.

There’s a spectrum of capitalism vs socialism, with the wild west at one end and communism at the other. Most people seem to agree that societies need to be somewhere in between those two, I think. So lots of support from the state, good infrstructure and long term planning, paid for by taxes on private enterprise and maybe with some government owned businesses. The devil is in the detail of how much of each of those things.

Apart from “for interest” purposes, surveys of what people THINK are generally misleading. But reality is genuinely more mundane or different as the article in the Guardian noted today:

“The dramatic fall in global poverty over the past two decades is the best news in the world today. “

Pity such facts don’t suit the convenient lazy narratives

+1 for “what people think” being a pointless metric – what we think and the facts are not terribly familiar with each other, generally 🙂

Also worth noting what happened to communism. I have some interesting conversations with my GF who’s the same age as me (42), grew up in the USSR and left for the US and then UK as soon as she could. Having actually experienced the reality of it, she’s not a fan of communism…

It’s also a matter of perspective – global power is rebalancing and in the West that feels like we’re losing. In developing countries I suspect the sentiment is different.

Also worth getting some data on global poverty – globalisation has had a very positive impact for millions of people outside the rich world…

Mind you, big caveat to all this: the way capitalism has been managed by the West/rich world in the 20th and early 21st centuries has been massively detrimental to the planet and is currently in a massive debt crisis, the extent of which is being kept hidden from the electorates by zero interest rates and QE. The Central Banks may or may not be able to move us out of this crisis without a bigger crash than 2008 – time will tell…

The biggest challenge is that capitalism as we currently know it hasn’t shared the wealth enough to ensure support from all it’s participants – hence the current sentiment. Communism failed. State-run capitalism Chinese Style looks like it’s not working too well either…. so it’s not clear quite what system is the one which provides long-term sustainable stability…

I remember reading research into fmcg marketing back in early 90s and the difference between people say the do and what they actually do. Can’t remember exactly but broadly one result was approx 80% of people who claimed that one type of margarine was their favourite had never actually bought it!

In the aftermath of decades of bingeing on debt to bring forward consumption, we are now enduring the hangover in which we will have sub par growth for a sustained period. Get used to it!!!

Yes THM it is a pity that they did not agree with you and what you THINK and they still think the system does not help the poor IMHO its probably because they can see the vast disparity in wealth between the …even Jesus noted how bad this was for the rich never mind the poor and we all know they could do so so much more.

so it’s not clear quite what system is the one which provides long-term sustainable stability…

No system will offer long term sustainable stability. A growing population means that sustainable isn’t an option and stability can’t be guaranteed due to the complexities of the system. Best you can do is look to try and smooth out the peaks and troughs and make sure that over a long enough period the majority trend is most people do better.

capitalist societies

Well we don’t have a purely capitalist society anywhere I can think of. Molgrips 2nd para above sums up most of the balance of options.

Indeed we like most societies have a mixed economy

No system can guarantee stability – things change and you need flexibility not the opposite to react. We prefer government inspired (sic) panaceas instead! Why the surprise when we are disappointed?

So what has happened to earnings over our generations?

In the aftermath of decades of bingeing on debt to bring forward consumption, we are now enduring the hangover in which we will have sub par growth for a sustained period. Get used to it!!!

Having grown up in 70s and 80s I’m frequently astonished at the level of material wealth we now seem to think is the baseline essential. IMO we’ve massively lost perspective on how much stuff we really need so having less than we have now feels like a massive fail to a lot of people, dropping back to 1980s living standard would feel like poverty, when in fact I remember it being rather ok. Walking to the shops instead of driving really wasn’t that much of a challenge.

Main problem is that no-one told Joe Public what the deal was: “have lots of debt to buy lots of shiny things. This’ll go on for a while and then like any binge, it’ll come to a painful end and it’ll hurt like hell.”

If they had maybe we’d have a) been more sensible and b) be less shocked now the obvious end game has been reached.

A lot of people seem to think that rampant consumerism and massive increases in material wealth was some kind of manna from heaven which would go on for ever and ever. Silly of us to be so daft really..

It is human nature, always has been, always will be. You have those with power and wealth and those without.

Natural Selection, except these days we (on the whole) we do not go around clubbing each other over the head.

dropping back to 1980s living standard would feel like poverty

I remember being confused when we bought a second car in the mid-80s, I honestly didn’t think you were allowed to own two.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/100-ceos-nest-eggs-retirement-savings-41-families

reading the above link its hard not to to be sickened by the style of capitalism that fails to give back to society but instead make’s one or two individuals so wealthy, its broken and it needs to be bought back into line or it will destroy it’s self and probably the rest of us as well.

A simple analogy “monopoly” the game ends up unplayable because all the wealth on the board is in one players bank.

· For all of the negativity towards capitalism, more people in all seven nations believe that the free enterprise system is better at lifting people out of poverty than government;

· Although doctors, teachers and charity workers may be more admired than business leaders in popularity surveys there is a widespread recognition that entrepreneurs and business leaders are just as important to society;

· The populations of India, Indonesia and Thailand are all more optimistic about the future – especially in India, where 50% of respondents expect life for the next generation to be improved;

· Overwhelming majorities in all seven countries recognise that strong community and family life underpin a strong economy;

· Most countries – other than Germany – recognise that government should spend less on welfare benefits in order to fund greater investment in infrastructure.

Comrades stop wommaning your barricades!

A simple analogy “monopoly” the game ends up unplayable because all the wealth on the board is in one players bank.

Many economists are already saying that the current polarisation of wealth is hurting productivity, with not enough money in the general population for people to consume enough to drive growth. We’re back at 1930s levels of inequality (which prompted dramatic intervention and wealth taxes to redistribute wealth between 1940 and 1970).

For a lot of Americans there is no socialism, it’s Capitalism v Communism and they’ve got a mutli-generational propaganda fuelled problem with Communism. You only have to look at the videos of sick Americans without insurance shouting that ‘Obamacare’ is a Commie Plot.

Someone once described the “American Dream” is the belief that those who don’t, will accept those who have, have the right and duty to screw them over to increase their wealth. In exchange for the opportunity to one day be one of the haves.

But enough of the Americans, they’re certainly not alone in that – it’s a fact that ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ are relative terms and you can’t have one without the other – if every one had a million pounds no one would feel rich. More importantly they wouldn’t be, because if everyone has got a million pounds no one is going to fix your washing machine for £50, you need to find someone to whom £50 is a worthwhile amount of money to get their hands dirty.

One of the cornerstones of a capitalist society is the ability to make money, with money – if the Rich have lots of money, they make lots of money simply by having it, the poor on the other either need what they have to live, or have none at all and starve – so the gap widens thanks to inflation – it’s very telling that in the history of the Western World – the powers that be argue endlessly about Income Tax, some would say to distract anyone looking at Wealth Tax.

It’s not easy to reverse the process either – whilst on the face of it we live in a democracy, it’s by no means a completely fair one – most Countries in the West are governed by 2 to 4 political parties, usually 2 – and whilst one persona has one vote, someone with lots of money can influence the tiny number of people who receive them.

I think history shows the best tool to reverse the “Rich getting richer” mechanism was the guillotine.

So in this environment in which nothing is given back, what is the difference between outcome after earnings and outcomes after earnings are redistributed via tax?

In the 40s technological change led to a rapid increase in the demand for unskilled labour at the same time as the supply of skilled labour was increasing => lower inequality

More recently, technological change has led to a sharp decline in the demand for unskilled labour combined with higher global supply plus increased demands for skilled labour => higher inequality

Things and supply and demand change. Governments are largely passive observers (phew) implementing ST fixes (eg tax credits) instead of training and raising skill levels

In a historical context there is nothing exceptional about current levels of inequality. The exceptional period was the 40-70s

Hmm, I thought that that things like infant mortality, life expectancy and BMI were better recognised indicators of poverty?

Plus, I have to wonder how well Yougovs polling methodology penetrates beyond a narrow section of Indian or Chinese society? I find it hard to believe they are going out to poll random agricultural villages in the middle of bumf*** nowhere.

Was reading a fascinating article on micro-finance initiatives in developing countries the other week, about Bangladesh and the Grameen bank (evil bankers, boo, hiss!) well worth having a look for.

In a historical context there is nothing exceptional about current levels of inequality. The exceptional period was the 40-70s

No reason why we can’t chose to return to the ‘exception’ of the 40-70s though. I don’t really fancy the whole peasant / serf thing as something to aspire to.

Socialism sounds wonderful on paper.

Not many South Koreans want to live in North Korea.

+1 for “what people think” being a pointless metric – what we think and the facts are not terribly familiar with each other

What people think is a useful metric exactly because what we think and the facts are so disparate.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/american-exceptionalism

One aspect of capitalism that truly grips my shit is that when the shit hits the fan we all of a sudden become a collective, once the blades have been cleaned and the fan re-started we then become a capitalist society again where greed becomes king.

Indeed we can help out the farmers but the steel workers can **** off

It is human nature, always has been, always will be. You have those with power and wealth and those without.

Its really not small scale humans civilisation cooperate effectively
Even if it were true it used to be “human nature” to invade countries and rape and pillage I would not use this argument to support it or argue it was good]]No human brings their child up going no dont share with your brothers or friends keep them to your self its just human nature that some have more. I honestly dont think that point is actually true. SOme humans are greedy and some are altruistic the problem is the greedy ones accumulate wealth and power which enables them to get their way more easily
Yes that is the choice that faces us what we have now or North korea with nothing inbetween and certainly no way we could make South Korea fairer 😕 Its not really helpful to take extreme examples and rung with them. There are also corrupt regimes which are capitalistic that are nothing to be admired with no rushing there. Eritrea for example or Somalia but gin atypical choices there.

So in this environment in which nothing is given back, what is the difference between outcome after earnings and outcomes after earnings are redistributed via tax?

Straw man is strawy Capitalism does not do this the state does this and the argument is that they should do more

DO you wish to argue that many corporations dont go to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying tax/ minimise it ,often to piss taking levels? DO you really wish to claim the tax system is massively redistributing wealth? AS levels of debating there IMHO

The big issue I have with capitalism is its demand for continuous growth.

And when, such was the case a few months ago, when growth had stalled for way too long, someone or some people, somewhere, who has/have a vast amount of wealth, decide that the only growth they’re going to get is to devalue the engines of capitalism, the stock markets, thereby reducing the worth of the smaller players, buying them up, reducing competition in the process, and the resultant demand from their shopping spree increases the value of shares and they all suddenly get wealthier. On paper at least, but also with additional assets of the organisations they have devalued in their process.

Which is all very well, especially for all you profit and greed is good merchants. But stop and think, just for a moment…

How many times can this particular method continue to work? Because eventually, all that will be left will be a handful of extremely, nay, obscenely wealthy players who will have to duke it out between themselves for the ultimate boss fight.

Furthermore, given that we’ve also done the lets create wealth by pretending it exists, i.e. credit, how will the capitalists dream of continuos growth next be exploited? Especially as we reside, live and exist on an infinite resource? It’ll be air next, you heard it here first.

One aspect of capitalism that truly grips my shit is that when the shit hits the fan we all of a sudden become a collective, once the blades have been cleaned and the fan re-started we then become a capitalist society again where greed becomes king.

[quote]The big issue I have with capitalism is its demand for continuous growth.
And when, such was the case a few months ago, when growth had stalled for way too long, someone or some people, somewhere, who has/have a vast amount of wealth, decide that the only growth they’re going to get is to devalue the engines of capitalism, the stock markets, thereby reducing the worth of the smaller players, buying them up, reducing competition in the process,[/quote]

Corporatism ? Capitalism – in fact failure is essential to capitalism as fear of loss is the ultimate regulator of risk

Glad that’s sorted then. Next.

dropping back to 1980s living standard would feel like poverty

That’s the trouble with relevative poverty. The world has far less actual poverty thanks to capitalism but everyone wants more than they have. Which is why capitalism works…

“There is plenty of food in the world today to feed everyone, but the fact of the matter is that food is part of the world’s economic system and only available to those of us that can afford it.”

How the other half dies 1977

Hardly surprising that people see increasing inequality and assume that means the poor are getting poorer. Yes we’ve done the arguments about increasing inequality being a bad thing and I agree, but that doesn’t mean the perception is correct.

Is North Korea genuinely socialist?

As lots of other have opined, what we ideally want is capitalism mixed in with social democracy – all the good things from capitalism with a state reigning in the worst excesses and controlling inequality. I’m surprised to find myself on the socialist side of this debate – I think our country is too capitalist and not enough socialist.

As lots of other have opined, what we ideally want is capitalism mixed in with social democracy – all the good things from capitalism with a state reigning in the worst excesses and controlling inequality.

I think almost all want that what we debate is where that balance and where that line of state interference/control/redressing gets drawn and what the actions are. The majority seem to think its drawn to favour the [very very] rich and not reigning in the excesses and I think they have a point.

As lots of other have opined, what we ideally want is capitalism mixed in with social democracy – all the good things from capitalism with a state reigning in the worst excesses and controlling inequality.

Which to all intents and purposes is what we have. But that makes for crap debate so we have to create absurd exaggerations in order to stimulate debate/froth. Even the original link can’t seem to make its mind up.

5thE very true!!!

As lots of other have opined, what we ideally want is capitalism mixed in with social democracy – all the good things from capitalism with a state reigning in the worst excesses and controlling inequality.

In which case we need to align ourselves with Scandinavian thinking and loosen ties with America.

Why align ourselves with Scandi thinking? Another myth…

Most of the features that are admired about Scandi society predate (by many years) the model that is falsely claimed to be typical of the region as did their greatest periods of prosperity. Scandis success was under a rather different (albeit quite familiar 😉 ) model.

If capitalism makes the poor worse off why are the worlds poor in huge numbers trying to get to the capitalist societies of Europe, USA, Australia etc?

Assuming what you said about “huge number” was true the the reason that poor people from one capitalist country are moving to another better off capitalistic country is because its richer and possibly because its human nature to be greedy.
Now we have cleared that up shall we get back to discussing whether capitalism causes iniquities and seeing if we can think of a way to improve it ?

shall we get back to discussing whether capitalism causes iniquities

Whoah there a minute – when was that proffered as a subject? Certainly not in the original post…