Is Capitalism a failure?

Like many in the world, I have had a ring side seat to the global financial crisis. Promises of government bailouts, repeated sighs as markets bounce, then collective moans as they drop again. World wide governments are sanctioning bail outs, guarantees and promises that cant be achieved.

Is unchecked capitalism a failure? If it is, what should replace it.

Are governments world wide actually smart enough to create and embrace a new system if worldwide economy fails completely.

Yes.

For all the talk of the free market, why are governments bailing it all out?

The problem is though, what alternative is there there, beyond introducing more regulation into the system?

Bush is still balking at the idea of more regulation and asking everyone to re-commit to "free market principles" - when it has obviously failed.

Any system left unchecked is prone to failure.

The free market, being handled in a fair, concistent and transparant way cannot be inflated in the way this has been. So Capitalism hasn't failed per se it's corporatism in cooperation with politicians that perverted the system, banks spurring them on to get more profit for the shareholders etc. Capitalism has failed bacause it needed to fail so people could say it has failed and install more control aka oversight into the hands of the few.

The only solution capitalism needs is transparancy of payments worldwide and total so people can decide for themselves if they want to do business with someone/thing based on financial transactions and profit per product, no regulations requered, total freedom and let your peers/clients sort it out. That will keep em honest because they would go broke otherwise.

Aah, sweet capitalism...my favourite hate-love...

I am not into any type of "-ism", I have my own way, but let me just compare the two opposites- in their core ideology, not how it has been practised historically:

Communism: power to the people and equality for all throgh co-operative ownership.
Capitalism: power to the companies and more to the rich taken from the less fortunate.

To me, capitalism is a dead-end based on greed and the more to the one who can lay their hands on it through the toughest means possible.

Must add though- communism is a political system, capitalism is an economical system (that tends to overrule the political one).

Of course capitalism has failed, it is doomed to fail just as communism works badly in practice but looks good in theory.

People are idiots, that's the problem. And the ones who live to climb the ranks of any system are the most moronic of them all it seems.

If I have to chose from what is on the menu, I'll have socialism with a humanitarian face. It works pretty well for us here in the north and I guess you heard about the "Swedish model".

[edit=typos]

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Raud]

reply to post by Harman


Like many companies we have had to adopt the sarbanes oxley financial system and all the misery and pain it entails, however I know that financial controls cant remedy poor corporate decisions, poor corporate culture and the culture of shareholders. Once you turn a profit, the only demand is that next year, more profit please, and after that year, more please, and if at any time you make the same or less profit, you are sold short as if you have made a loss.

Continual growth is impossible, no market can sustain it indefinately.

Capitalism.. a substitute for slavery ! people are slaves , and they believe they are free. Capitalism is based on the abillity of making other people to be your slaves! sure it is all wrong! You can try to watch a Google documentary called "the Corporation" . This team of producer made a psychological profile for the Corporations, and most of the mental ilnesses can be assigned to the entity called "corporation" .

video.google.com...

Google Video Link

reply to post by Harman


Capitalism - pure capitalism - is and should be a simple extension of the ancient barter system. I have something you want, and you have something I want: let's trade. If I don't want what you have to offer, go away.
To continue the analogy: capitalism is supposed to reward the farmer that works hard, get a good harvest and takes it to market expecting a good deal when he trades it for gold, cattle and new seed. Socialism on the other hand would take the farmers goods and redistributes them - even to the farmer who sat on his ass all season, and complained how unfair he was being treated.

Capitalism has been subverted, however, by the rise of the stock markets - a frankenstein-like monstrosity - which tilts the scale in favour of the middleman. The solution IMO is to reduce the power of the middleman.

True capitalism will always have victims (it is a survival of the fittest system), while socialism and its adherrents will always BE the victim.

For anyone who is interested in this subject, read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It will change your entire outlook on this subject.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by deltaalphanovember]

[edit on 29-10-2008 by deltaalphanovember]

I wouldnt know.

No government has ever had the moral backbone to allow full, unfettered capitalism. They have only engaged in quasi-keynesian policies, which reflect badly on capitalism.

Lets face it though, much like democracy, capitalism is the best out of a worst bunch.

What else are you gonna support? Socialism or Communism?!

Firstly, as a practitioner and slave of SOX, I can say that it is a joke. It isn't worth the virtual paper it is written on - ultimately it does not prevent any of the financial failures that we have seen ruining the economy for all.

No system of economic governance is "bad" per se; the communist ideal of cooperative market places is just as valid as the vaunted Western ideal of capitalism. The problems start when the implementation is corrupted.

We have a corrupted capitalism in the Western, where basic necessities are subject to the whims of profit and loss. Think about it, if a water supply company is operating efficiently (e.g. not haemorrhaging water from underground pipes) should it be subject to profit margins for the benefit of investors? Surely that is crazy? We talking about human necessities held to ransom by a profit culture.

So, what can we do? The system needs to change, clearly some industries need to have greater governance, especially the utility companies but also we cannot have the debacle of supermarket chains inflicting such financial leverage on farmers (arable and livestock alike) that the conditions of husbandry and work conditions suffers to the detriment of workers and livestock alike.

Capitalism is clearly out of control and needs checking. The premise of greater profits year in and year out is a ridiculous notion and clearly not sustainable which leads to an even greater feeding frenzy which upsets the markets. The old parable of "slow and steady wins the race" has never been more applicable.

The generation of money for the sake of money has superseded profit for the sake of investment and the greater benefit of mankind - either by free market forces or not.

To suggest that "free markets" operate is to suggest that we all have direct control over the way the engines of the finance market work. Obviously, we don't - that credit goes directly to the guys who are earning big bucks and moaning that they'll have to sell their 3rd home or start hiring out their yacht to maintain their standard of living. Boo-hoo.

Pensioners and poor families are looking forward to a Christmas where they can't even afford to heat their homes. Some of the old will die as a direct result of this scenario. Now somebody is going to tell me that the free market works?

How ridiculous that we consider that "one size fits all". I'm not against the free market per se, but can we really consider it applicable to the very necessities of life?

I say, let the children play at being millionaires and we can all get some pleasure from the joy of progression that it can bring, but please will the adults maintain some control over the household budget and the roof over our collective head.

Why does it need to be black and white, communism or capitalism?

I am sure that in some back room in some university somewhere, there are a host of other options to govern stable financial and economic operation. Just because it doesnt have a catchy name or hasnt been pushed into the media whores attention zone, doesnt mean its not viable.

Surely there are some other options out there, I would be disappointed if noone here knew of one.

Yes and no. Capitalist communism would work if we had robots controlling us.

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
Capitalism - pure capitalism - is and should be a simple extension of the ancient barter system. I have something you want, and you have something I want: let's trade. If I don't want what you have to offer, go away.
To continue the analogy: capitalism is supposed to reward the farmer that works hard, get a good harvest and takes it to market expecting a good deal when he trades it for gold, cattle and new seed. Socialism on the other hand would take the farmers goods and redistributes them - even to the farmer who sat on his ass all season, and complained how unfair he was being treated.

Capitalism has been subverted, however, by the rise of the stock markets - a frankenstein-like monstrosity - which tilts the scale in favour of the middleman. The solution IMO is to reduce the power of the middleman.

True capitalism will always have victims (it is a survival of the fittest system), while socialism and its adherrents will always BE the victim.

For anyone who is interested in this subject, read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It will change your entire outlook on this subject.

Agreed. Capitalism and the economy is nothing more than a TOOL made into a control system. Like a hammer being used to bash in babyheads, the tool ain't bad but the person handling it is. Capitalism just makes bartering easier, makes your sweat into tradable assets. That is a GOOD THING. I may be able to make the most beautiful marble statues but without a system to sell that statue i will starve to death or end up with 9000 chickens or something like that. When the world economy is arranged at a manner that secrecy in financials is impossible you will see that buying shoes for $350 that had a total cost of $10 will plumet, if people SEE that certain moneystreams go to companies that are known child labourers their sales will go down, if people SEE that certain companies pay their employees the bare minimum but their profits are through the roof their sales will go down.

Social economic control without laws to govern them is the only way to get this place under control, for the companies there is nobody to blame except the customers, well, tough luck and have fun going bankrupt! All that with only one rule 'let's see where your money goes'. This goes for EVERYONE. Politicians, corporation, private citizens etc. Anyone that uses the system is subject to the one rule: everyone can see where it goes. If you do not care that the company you buy from is heavily into clusterbombs, go ahead and buy it's products, if you do not care that those $5 shoes costs $250 for you, go ahead, it's your hard or easy earned money you are spending.

"Money" should be separated fro the ideological method behind investment and profit sharing. Money should be reclassified as a verb. It is simply a method of equalising the barter of different goods against others.

If I don't want eggs and all you have to barter is eggs - well, tough on you. Does that mean we should close down all the hen farms? of course not, so we use money to equalise the exchange and implement a third party to control the respective value of that money. It itself, money is worth no more than the manufacturing cost, only in *exchange* does it become valuable - hence it should be a verb.

It may be that once money was abstracted as a promissory note (i.e. no longer backed by a stash of real value such as gold that could be exchanged) it lost its value in our minds such that it was OK to profit from deficits, to provide credit that was backed by nothing but the dream of a good return at some future point - no longer was something tangible necessary.

If you ran your household budget like that how long would you last? Would the supermarket give you a tab until next year sometime when you think you'll be able to pay something? Yet we run a country like this?

The ultimate defence against failure? You and me and our taxes. Its OK to run it into the ground because we can just make the people pay. The worst of it is that we *must* pay or *we* will suffer. Pawns in a ridiculous game of promises of the future and profits for somebody else, never mind *us*.

Capitalism is useful for the generation of investment, but when we have an oil company profiting to the tune of 10 billion during a period when the Joe on the street is struggling to pay for fuel - well - need I say more.

Exorbitant profits on necessities are obviously abhorrent. On the flip side, if somebody makes a nice pair of shoes that somebody wants to spend 350 on, then good luck to them.

So, how do we reconcile the differences between markets? That is the true debate, not necessarily an argument between capitalism and any other form of economic policy. Our instinct does us justice. We *know* it is wrong that people die in a cold winter because they cannot afford to heat their homes, we don't really mind that somebody spends a week's wage on a pair of shoes. The key here is the power over necessity.

We don't all need the luxury of the expensive shoes, and if we want them we pay for them when and if we can afford them. However, we all need the basic amenities of life, basic food, heat, light. Why are these at the whim of market forces?

Originally posted by SugarCube
Think about it, if a water supply company is operating efficiently (e.g. not haemorrhaging water from underground pipes) should it be subject to profit margins for the benefit of investors? Surely that is crazy? We talking about human necessities held to ransom by a profit culture.

So, by your reasoning, we have companies that provide the necessities yet do not strive to make a profit - having seen firsthand in Africa how that works - it means a company that no longer cares about service delivery or quality. There is no longer an incentive for that company, no competition to improve anything. With no profits, there is no longer the ability to maintain and improve infrastructure. So when everything falls apart the government injects massive amounts of money into the loss-making socialist company and in order to get the cash, tariffs and taxes are raised.

Oh yes I want that like a hole in the head. Oh wait, I have it already: South Africa's telecoms, electricity, public hospitals and water.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by deltaalphanovember]

My point was "to the benefit of investors" - profit is clearly necessary as I pointed out in a previous post concerning the ability of capitalism to provide investment power by virtue of a return in the future, however, there are degrees of this.

Profits are essentially simply a measure of income-costs. How those profits are invested is the key question, also, the disparity between income and costs. For utilities, such as water and telecoms (for our modern world!) there is a clear need to invest which requires profit to attract investment. However, the *primary* motivation should not be the generation of wealth but the provision of service.

Surely the maintenance of pipelines and service delivery technology should be seen as a cost and not subject to "profit". Profit is just *that* - monies that are *extra* to providing a level of service that satisfies current demand AND provides for future developments. Reducing profit margin does not mean a reduction is quality.

Of course this is a difficult balancing act, but if we take your example to the natural conclusion then we could extract enormous profits from water companies purely to generate wealth - right up the point that only the wealthy could afford it.

You are quite correct that the focus should be on service delivery and quality - not specifically wealth generation. Wealth generation becomes a necessity to support the delivery of the service but not the over-riding factor.

We eat and drink to keep out bodies operating - not simply to consume food (although that may be questionable in some people). The same is true for companies that provide services.

Also, I would question how money that is currently collected by the SA water companies and telecoms etc are actually utilised. Are you sure that the profits are actually being use to benefit the company or maybe sidelined for the pocket benefit of investors?

[edit on 29-10-2008 by SugarCube]

the wealthies countries on Earth are the Scandinavic countries - all with a Socialist system. I guess Socialism is the best - and sure the name Socialims comes from the word "society" , and i guess this is a good alternative to Capitalism .
Regarding Communism - the idea is not bad, however as Capitalism , it simply went rong while abused by the elites. Whatever system we would have the key is to somehow protect the system against abuses from the elites. The system should be designed in such way that would not allow any way of cheating !

reply to post by sty


No. Scandinavian countries are the most equal in terms of wealth distribution, but thats inevitable when the model they use is overtly socialistic (>50% income tax).

The most wealthy nations are the USA, UK, Germany, Japan; all of which have inequality but overall are a hell of a lot more wealthy than Scandinavian countries.

en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)

Originally posted by SugarCube
Also, I would question how money that is currently collected by the SA water companies and telecoms etc are actually utilised. Are you sure that the profits are actually being use to benefit the company or maybe sidelined for the pocket benefit of investors?
[edit on 29-10-2008 by SugarCube]

I do concede you make valid points, nice debating there

On the subject of de-privatisation (ie water, health, utilities), South African experiences has shown that the politicians gain the profits and very little is put back into the system. My point is simply that any system ultimately run by politicians ("poly" meaning "many" and "tics" meaning "blood sucking insects") is doomed to horrible abuses. If we can find a compromise where public utilities etc. are run as charitable-type companies, where directors etc. are not able to receive bonuses or salaries and profits are transparently and wholly distributed back into itself, then we may have the start of something palatable to all.

It's just a pity humans run these systems - we are just too greedy to be great socialists, and too envious of others to be great capitalists.

reply to post by sty


Socialist countries are not all they are cracked up to be:

I read an article this month in Car & Driver that Finland has passed a law in which traffic fines are now based on your annual income. So a person going 5 over may be fined $10 or $100,000 depending on whom they are. This bit the CEO of Nokia recently when he received a $12 MILLION fine for going 15 over.

draginol.joeuser.com...

"To each according to what they own" - some may argue that its great that the fat cats who could easily afford the old fines, now get truly punished. I feel that viewpoint is rather short-sighted. Why punish someone more because they earn more? Should fat people pay more for a big mac? A stupid person pay more for education? Socialist thinking at it's finest.

reply to post by deltaalphanovember


Great example!

Also consider how well the socialist, isolationist government of Iceland is doing now...

I have always said that socialists have a good heart but a weak mind.