# Capitalism . . . Is it a failure, or is this just a blip!



## NorthDrum (3 Feb 2009)

Just wondering. 

Considering the state intervention in the financial markets does this not mean that capitalism has been a resounding failure, or is capitalism only relevant for the benefits of the rich when things are going well?

Seems to work off the pretence of when times are good, its all about the money for the bigwigs, but when times are bad we all have to muck in to "bail" the country out. Governments hide behind the whole (our country needs the rich) when letting them do business with ridiculous tax breaks, is there any way to address this so our country is not constantly relying on the working class to prop up its finances!

With the U.S. government also bailing out select private industries for the greater good, is it not obvious that there are major flaws that need to be addressed? Will regulation really work or will it just simply be put in place for a year or so until those in "power" (the money men) decide that we are over regulated again!!!


----------



## StevieC (3 Feb 2009)

Its not perfect but its better than socialism. At least with capitalism, people have something to aim/work for. Lets face it not all men/women are created equal, some are always more equal than others.

Human nature being what it is though, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we had good regulation/practice and significant consequences for bad practice then we might have the sort of checks and balances that the American founding fathers dreamed of.

In my opinion the biggest problem is not having severe enough consequences for people doing a bad job, fiddling accounts or cutting corners in the name of profit. Golden parachutes make those in power care less about the consequences of their actions and care more about their next round of golf or what class they are flying (business or first class).

My 2 cents.


----------



## dockingtrade (3 Feb 2009)

i think the big problem is the business model that demands quarter on quarter,  year on year profit growth. If a corp make 1Billion profit it's like how on earth are we going to make 1Billion plus 10% next year. what's wrong with making 1billion the next or 900M??? I dont think im being nieve here beacuse look what happened the banks. They exhausted markets, now how do we keep growing they created false markets 100% mortgages, relaxing the requirements, lend to people who have bad credit ratings all because they had maximized profits and had to become unethical just so they could grow. there has to be value in a company that makes a profit and employs x amount of people. Not we need to cut so we can increase 1 billion to 1 billion +, what happens the year after next. Go to low cost economies and sell back into markets where the jobs are being lost?? Eventually they're going to kill the demand for their own products. (Im talking about companies making billions)


----------



## tiger (3 Feb 2009)

I see the boom-bust cycles in capitalism as inevitable as winter & summer.
We've had a very long summer (artifically so in hindsight), which makes the winter harsher.
I think we need 'appropriate' laws and regulation to manage capitalism, but it's foolish to use these to try and eliminate the boom-bust cycles (smooth out maybe).  I think this is where Greenspan went wrong.
Winter is good in nature, it kills off the old an weak, and the cycle starts anew in spring.  Winter (recession) brings similar benefits.


----------



## NorthDrum (3 Feb 2009)

StevieC, I totally agree with you regarding repurcussions for "dodgy" dealings in capitalist society.

The reason I started this thread is because it just seems like we will be back here in the next 20 years or so discussing the exact same problems that were caused by gradual reductions in regulation.

There is another way of looking at capitalism. It does focus or motivate the mind on personal positive gains (or goals), but this is done (at a corporate level) at the expense of morals , ethics and the vunerable. Capitalism at its heart is simply about greed but masks itself as a competitive open market idea. Yes it may be the best of a bad bunch of ideals but thats not exactly a reason to accept it as our way of life (universally).

If we are all agreed that bad regulation, lack of accountability and greed has gotten us here, then how can we believe that same broken regulation will solve the problem long term!

If money is what makes the world go round, then the moneymen control or influence policies, regulation and governments. This is not accusing anybody in the dail of anything, more making an observation of how the system works in all Western powers under the influence of capitalistic ideals.


----------



## george.shaw (3 Feb 2009)

The following quote is from my namesake George Bernard Shaw: 
“You have to choose between trusting to the natural stability of gold and the natural stability of the honesty and intelligence of the members of the Government. And, with due respect for these gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the Capitalist system lasts, to vote for gold.”

I am no socialist but think capitalism goes through good times and bad times - bull markets and bear markets. We just had a massive bull market in capitalism and looks like we are about to have a bear market in capitalism.

Capitalism will survive - it always does but likely to be a bumpy ride towards some form of genuine "Third Way".


----------



## capall (3 Feb 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> i think the big problem is the business model that demands quarter on quarter,  year on year profit growth. If a corp make 1Billion profit it's like how on earth are we going to make 1Billion plus 10% next year. what's wrong with making 1billion the next or 900M??? I dont think im being nieve here beacuse look what happened the banks. They exhausted markets, now how do we keep growing they created false markets 100% mortgages, relaxing the requirements, lend to people who have bad credit ratings all because they had maximized profits and had to become unethical just so they could grow. there has to be value in a company that makes a profit and employs x amount of people. Not we need to cut so we can increase 1 billion to 1 billion +, what happens the year after next. Go to low cost economies and sell back into markets where the jobs are being lost?? Eventually they're going to kill the demand for their own products. (Im talking about companies making billions)




I agree completely.  I find it amazing in the current climate that companies who are coming off a boom cycle lasting years seem to have no reserves to fall back on to weather the current downturn ,a few months of a downturn and they are going bust.
It seems to be that they expanded and expanded rather than consolidated and they are driven by market forces to do this
Is it shareholders who demand this,forcing management to pursue aggressive growth strategies ? But even non quoted companies seem to be in this situation


----------



## ixtlan (5 Feb 2009)

NorthDrum said:


> It does focus or motivate the mind on personal positive gains (or goals), but this is done (at a corporate level) at the expense of morals , ethics and the vunerable. Capitalism at its heart is simply about greed but masks itself as a competitive open market idea. Yes it may be the best of a bad bunch of ideals but thats not exactly a reason to accept it as our way of life (universally).



True, but unfortunately as you know yourself, it is the best of a bad bunch of ideals. Capitalism is always going to be amoral, it's up to governments to regulate in acceptable limits. And we should not let the public off the hook. While companies sometimes wrap themselves in good causes, when they feel it makes more of a buck, mostly they will bring standards of employment and quality of production down to the lowest legal levels, because that is what is demanded by the public buying the products and investors buying shares (and often those investors are pension funds owned to a small extent by members of the public).

So, what to do? Find a proper balance of regulation and commercial freedom. We seem to have leaned too far towards freedom, especially in the financial arena.

Ix.


----------



## ixtlan (5 Feb 2009)

capall said:


> It seems to be that they expanded and expanded rather than consolidated and they are driven by market forces to do this
> Is it shareholders who demand this,forcing management to pursue aggressive growth strategies ? But even non quoted companies seem to be in this situation



Also in agreement here.

Public companies do it through fear of public perception and greed. Private companies do it mostly through greed only. In the case of some private companies they have been bought out (either from a public company, or from an original private owner) and they can be far more ruthless than a public company, as they try to make a big profit on their investment.


----------



## mallow (6 Feb 2009)

Yep, capitalism always has been and always will be unstable.  We’ve had regulation and deregulation before and we’re right back where we always end up.  In a recession.  We can keep trying the same thing or we can figure out why it hasn’t worked so far.  You and I don’t control the regulation or deregulation.  Those who do control those decisions will make them in their own interests, which are not the same as ours.  Take a look at how the US deregulated in the 1980’s and 1990’s.  It’s instructive. Capitalism always focuses on the short term because the system is structured to reward short-term planning.  Always has been.  

  Comparing capitalism to a natural system is a fallacy.  This is not a natural cycle controlled by the movement of planets, gravity or anything else. It’s a man-made one.  In a man-made economic cycle, ‘winter’ doesn’t kill ‘old and weak’ animals.  It kills real people, old and weak ones such as we all will be some day.  Not in the developed world generally, but capitalism is a global system.  In the developed world ‘winter’ doesn’t kill us but it causes depression, suicides, joblessness, hopelessness, homelessness, poverty and deprivation.  That’s not a natural disaster.  This is the same argument used before the First World War to argue that war was a cleansing and natural thing.  We, humanity, created this system just as we chose war.  Nobody else. It’s our responsibility.  

  G.B. Shaw was a socialist by the way. A Fabian.  He didn’t always say straight up what he thought but he wasn’t recommending that we retain a capitalist system and simply return to a gold standard.  The important point in that quote is his opinion of government.   Those who say there is no alternative usually think of socialism as Russia.  If we were motivated enough to find an alternative we would do so.  And we would question our assumptions and learn about alternatives.  Why would we believe that human creativity and intelligence has reached its limits in our ability to organize ourselves?  That we can do no better than this?  If we truly believe that this is the best we can do then we can be certain that this will be the best we ever do.  

I wonder how long this thread will last….


----------



## tiger (6 Feb 2009)

mallow said:


> ...Comparing capitalism to a natural system is a fallacy.  This is not a natural cycle controlled by the movement of planets, gravity or anything else.


I think capitalism is a natural system, it's driven by greed one of our more primitive urges.  Do think we can do better? Yes, but we have to rise above this.
Maybe capitalism will eventually go the way of the death penalty


----------



## mallow (6 Feb 2009)

tiger said:


> I think capitalism is a natural system, it's driven by greed one of our more primitive urges.  Do think we can do better? Yes, but we have to rise above this.
> Maybe capitalism will eventually go the way of the death penalty



So a system driven by one human emotion above any other is a natural system?  Comparable to, say, the movements of the planets?  Now why would a system naturally evolve which is based on only one of any number of human emotions?  There seems to me to be an obsession with the emotion of greed above any other in current debates.  It is at heart a religious way of understanding the world and our place in it.  Religion, and morality, can offer tidy and simple explanations.  But if you choose to avoid any shades of grey then you're no closer to real understanding.  If you read the Bible, or polemics from the Middle Ages or the Reformation you'll find mirror images of that kind of language.  They railed regularly against greed and other 'primitive urges'.  Those weren't capitalist societies.

If greed is a natural emotion then we cannot 'rise above' it.  Any more than we can 'rise above' fear, or anger, or love, or empathy, or jealousy.  Individually, yes we can.  Collectively, we will continue to experience every human emotion as long as we are human.  Yet none of those emotions controls any of the others.  So why would they control what economic, political and social systems we create?


----------



## Padraigb (6 Feb 2009)

If an economy that could be described as socialist (even slightly so) crashed as spectacularly as the capitalist system recently has, many people would be trumpeting the death of socialism.

Yet some believers in capitalism have not had their faith even slightly shaken. I have even encountered the argument that the reason things went so far wrong was that we were not sufficiently capitalist. And that makes me think of the world Charles Dickens described: capitalist utopia.

Capitalism is for carnivores, predatory and aggressive; socialism is for herbivores, passive and usually gregarious; we are omnivores.


----------



## Damian85 (6 Feb 2009)

I don't think individual greed is the issue here. Capitalism drives collective greed. Profit is the corporations primary objective. People are slaves to capital, hence as a synergetic force, greed is the overriding factor.

Capitalism will reign supreme regardless of the result of this downturn. Governments won't change the status quo due to myopic, short-term agendas.

Capitalism has only been around for circa 350 years. It has a long way to go yet....


----------



## Padraigb (6 Feb 2009)

Damian85 said:


> ...Capitalism drives collective greed...



Wow; just wow.


----------



## askalot (6 Feb 2009)

It has failed but it is our belief system so we can forgive its sins!

The expansion of the middle class since the last world war has cemented a belief that capitalism and democracy are one and the same. This runs deep in the psyche of the west and will not be easily removed as is evidenced by our silence (apart from half-hearted protests) as the economy turns into a train wreck and governments commit our children's future earning to its rescue.

Pension funds down by a third, taxes raised, house prices falling further, more tax rises to come, bank bonuses on the back of tax payers and a political class that was happy to take the credit for the 'boom' but that dodges the blame for the bust.... all of these will shrink the complacency of the majority middle class, so the question is how long will the recession/depression last? And will we keep the faith?


----------



## Damian85 (6 Feb 2009)

I think capitalism will remain just as strong despite recessionary times and weak protests. 

Governments have bailed the capitalists out, locking themselves in and committing too much to change direction. Government support will remain.

For the individual, capitalism presents ambition and hope where he/she can always strive for wealth.


----------



## mallow (6 Feb 2009)

Padraigb said:


> Capitalism is for carnivores, predatory and aggressive; socialism is for herbivores, passive and usually gregarious; we are omnivores.



Who is anarchism for then? There are plenty of socialists who couldn't be described as remotely passive, or indeed gregarious.  Why would we design a system as 'omnivores' based on some combination of passivity and aggression?  

Damien85, Governments have never changed the status quo.  People have, many many times.  As to estimating the life of any economic system, I'm not sure even Nostradamus attempted that!  If you ask most of those who live under capitalism (by which I mean the developing world and the less well of in the developed world) you'll find that it doesn't present hope or ambition to them.  The fact one can strive for wealth doesn't mean one has any statistical likelihood of obtaining it.  Those in the developing world don't have as many illusions about things like 'The American dream' as we do.


----------



## Damian85 (7 Feb 2009)

No, I think capitalism has a long way to go yet. It will survive this recession and many more recessions/depressions in the future. Some features of capitalism may change and receive fine tuning, but it will remain dominant.

Capitalism is one of the factors that adds to the woes of people in developing countries. Of course they can't strive for wealth and abundance. Their main goal is survival. I suppose I should have specified the western world. We do, as a whole, strive for this. Why else would one go through an education process? Why else would one work jobs where they are submissive to immediate management and expect to show unquestionable loyalty to their often meaningless position? Ok, one could argue self achievement or conformity. However, the main reasons are to survive and to give short term sacrifice for potential future wealth. People see the capitalism as a system of survival but also as a system of potential.

As for people overturning capitalism? Ok, it has happened in the past. Most likely again in the future, but people aren't going to leave comfort zones and attempt to overthrow capitalism all of a sudden, or because of this recession. Capitalism has nurtured the growth of two of the most powerful forces in history - the corporation and limited liability. With the corporation, no force has ever had such a global reach and enforced such a dependency upon people.

In the age of the internet, the capitalist protest is still weak and passive. These protestors either lack credibility or potency. People are either not interested or in their comfort zone too much to care. Has our population ever been as materialistic for goods and services or dependent on a capitalist system?

There are some people looking to overthrow the capitalist system. I saw this documentary on a flight a number of months ago. It discusses the advantages of a resource driven equality system. Fairly long, and US focused but maybe worth a watch? 
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/


----------



## mallow (7 Feb 2009)

Damian85 said:


> NWhy else would one go through an education process? Why else would one work jobs where they are submissive to immediate management and expect to show unquestionable loyalty to their often meaningless position? Ok, one could argue self achievement or conformity. However, the main reasons are to survive and to give short term sacrifice for potential future wealth. People see the capitalism as a system of survival but also as a system of potential.



I don't believe believe work in order to achieve or to conform.  They work because it's the only way to earn a living for most of us.  They may get a sense of achievement from some particular job or line of work but it's not the reason we work per se.  As you say, we are dependent on capitalism for a job.  And we are dependent on that income for everything we need or want.  As for working for future wealth, if you are on the average industrial wage you can't be under the illusion that that job will make you wealthy some day.  You hope you'll have sufficient pension to stop working some day certainly.  But I don't think many people are under the illusion that their job in itself will make them wealthy.  

I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the potential for change.  Very few people foresaw the French Revolution more than a few years in advance.  And in 1916 no-one expected that there would be a popularly supported war of independence just a few short years later.


----------



## zephyro (7 Feb 2009)

mallow said:


> I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the potential for change.  Very few people foresaw the French Revolution more than a few years in advance.  And in 1916 no-one expected that there would be a popularly supported war of independence just a few short years later.



I'd most definitely prefer to live in a truly capitalist system but I think its current implementation in the developed world is very flawed. What would you suggest as an alternative?


----------



## mallow (7 Feb 2009)

zephyro said:


> I'd most definitely prefer to live in a truly capitalist system but I think its current implementation in the developed world is very flawed. What would you suggest as an alternative?



I'm an anarchist so I'm interested in what people think about capitalism and why.  Most people who express a desire to live in a real or true capitalist system would be fans of American influenced schools of libertarianism which don't really exist this side of the pond.  It usually boils down to a belief that capitalism=evolution=strongest should survive=richest are the strongest therefore... I've never met anyone who considered themselves to be 'weak' and who supported 'real' capitalism.  It's usually espoused by young men who consider themselves to be strong enough to be the winners of that contest.  And to be immortal naturally.... It's a point of view very influenced by American evangelicalism, which in turn gets its beliefs about wealth from Calvinist pre-destination ideas.  I.e. that basically wealth is a sign that you were chosen by God.

Note: I'm not assuming the above applies to you.  Just that it is my experience.  And that those are the kind of viewpoints that people who argue for 'real' capitalism are normally influenced by.


----------



## Damian85 (8 Feb 2009)

mallow said:


> I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the potential for change. Very few people foresaw the French Revolution more than a few years in advance. And in 1916 no-one expected that there would be a popularly supported war of independence just a few short years later.


 
Good stuff, fair points. However, I feel capitalism won't be overthrown in the same manner. Capitalism now has a global reach. Revolutions in the past were mainly contained within a region or country, usually where a majority was directly affected. Capitalism may be overthrown in a specific region or country in the future, but I can't see it being diminished globally. There are too many beneficiaries and advocators of capitalism and these groups will not be convinced it is flawed. 

This poses an interesting question; how would a revolution against capitalism occur, and what form would it take??


----------



## badabing (11 Feb 2009)

mallow said:


> I'm an anarchist so I'm interested in what people think about capitalism and why.  Most people who express a desire to live in a real or true capitalist system would be fans of American influenced schools of libertarianism which don't really exist this side of the pond.  It usually boils down to a belief that capitalism=evolution=strongest should survive=richest are the strongest therefore... I've never met anyone who considered themselves to be 'weak' and who supported 'real' capitalism.  It's usually espoused by young men who consider themselves to be strong enough to be the winners of that contest.  And to be immortal naturally.... It's a point of view very influenced by American evangelicalism, which in turn gets its beliefs about wealth from Calvinist pre-destination ideas.  I.e. that basically wealth is a sign that you were chosen by God.
> 
> Note: I'm not assuming the above applies to you.  Just that it is my experience.  And that those are the kind of viewpoints that people who argue for 'real' capitalism are normally influenced by.



Representitive democracy will never allow unadulterated capitalism. Survival of the fittest is an instinct that we have evolved with and will never die, but the concept no longer applies in the west. In fact the poorer you are, the more offspring you are more likely to have who in general have no problem living to reproductive age.  If you are a true anarchist, you will not tolerate a parasitic element to society born and bred off the welfare state over generations, you only give to those in need  who are willing to contribute. Anarchism may be a viable third option, but society is currently not up to it, much more is needed in the way of intellectual maturity. In the future, when populations, (sustainable) resources, and technology stabilizes, continued growth will be limited and capitalism in its current form will be impossible.  Unboubtably socialism will come to the fore,  and hopefully to the tune of the black and red. In the meantime its a capitalist / socialist mongerel all the way..


----------



## mallow (11 Feb 2009)

badabing said:


> Representitive democracy will never allow unadulterated capitalism. Survival of the fittest is an instinct that we have evolved with and will never die, but the concept no longer applies in the west. In fact the poorer you are, the more offspring you are more likely to have who in general have no problem living to reproductive age.  If you are a true anarchist, you will not tolerate a parasitic element to society born and bred off the welfare state over generations, you only give to those in need  who are willing to contribute. Anarchism may be a viable third option, but society is currently not up to it, much more is needed in the way of intellectual maturity. In the future, when populations, (sustainable) resources, and technology stabilizes, continued growth will be limited and capitalism in its current form will be impossible.  Unboubtably socialism will come to the fore,  and hopefully to the tune of the black and red. In the meantime its a capitalist / socialist mongerel all the way..



I'd understand the concept of 'survival of the fittest' a little differently I think.  It doesn't really make sense to say that that is how we evolved without qualification.  Fitness really meant adaptation to the environment and in many situations that meant cooperation between individuals and groups rather than competition.  Also, you're implying that poverty means parasitism and dependence.  It's true that dependence on the state often causes a culture of dependence, but it's not genetically passed on.

Capitalism has always required a pool of labour which is unemployed to use as a threat to those in work to keep their pay claims in check.  As, for example, at present the demand that the minimum wage be reduced to 'allow' some of the unemployed to get back to work.  That's a structural function of the unemployed.  Also, there are those in need who can't 'contribute' in the sense of providing some useful and quantifiable service to society.  For example the severely disabled.  That doesn't mean that an anarchist society would not provide for their needs though.  I do agree with your assessment of how society may change in terms of resources.  But there's a danger that whatever ideas are foremost in society at a time when it goes into crisis are those which will survive.  Like in the French revolution it was the ideals of the bourgeoisie which made it through to the other end, rather than the more revolutionary ideas of the poorer classes.


----------



## badabing (11 Feb 2009)

mallow said:


> I'd understand the concept of 'survival of the fittest' a little differently I think.  It doesn't really make sense to say that that is how we evolved without qualification.  Fitness really meant adaptation to the environment and in many situations that meant cooperation between individuals and groups rather than competition.  Also, you're implying that poverty means parasitism and dependence.  It's true that dependence on the state often causes a culture of dependence, but it's not genetically passed on.
> 
> Capitalism has always required a pool of labour which is unemployed to use as a threat to those in work to keep their pay claims in check.  As, for example, at present the demand that the minimum wage be reduced to 'allow' some of the unemployed to get back to work.  That's a structural function of the unemployed.  Also, there are those in need who can't 'contribute' in the sense of providing some useful and quantifiable service to society.  For example the severely disabled.  That doesn't mean that an anarchist society would not provide for their needs though.  I do agree with your assessment of how society may change in terms of resources.  But there's a danger that whatever ideas are foremost in society at a time when it goes into crisis are those which will survive.  Like in the French revolution it was the ideals of the bourgeoisie which made it through to the other end, rather than the more revolutionary ideas of the poorer classes.



Yes fitness to pass on your genes can involve cooperation, however, there is also an element of passing your genes on at the expense of your competition, so you cooperate when it is beneficial and you are selfish when beneficial also. This will produce the best results for you, of maximise your 'fitness yo your environment.

I agree with most of your points, but you have taken me wrong on implying that poverty means parasitism and dependence. I was implying that the welfare state when not properly managed (and its very difficult to manage) creates this parasitism.

Also, there are those in need who can't 'contribute' in the sense of providing some useful and quantifiable service to society. For example the severely disabled. This is true. I should have said, those who were able BUT unwilling.

Your comments about the necessity to keep a certain amount on the dole appears to have validity among econimists, a rule of thumb being below 6% is inflationary.

To clarify your point on the revolutions, yes in these times there will be a struggle between those appearing to be on the same side for superiority with those with more money coming out on top. At this point we will see highly leveraged individuals and companies getting destroyed, and those who just about managing to survive getting stronger and more powerful. So its bye bye Sean Dunne et al, to be replaced by a new class of despot!


----------



## UptheDeise (16 Feb 2009)

It was not capitalism or the free markets that got us into this mess, it has been government interference, in particular American administrations that have interfered with the markets and now we're paying for it. Dearly.

This recession is the correction that the market needs.


----------



## Caveat (16 Feb 2009)

I think it's strange that whilst many will cite what they see as the conceptual and practical evils of capitalism, not only will they not offer a viable alternative but they are quite happy to be a capitalist in their own private way - property ladder exploitation, buying and selling on eBay etc.


----------



## Sunny (16 Feb 2009)

UptheDeise said:


> It was not capitalism or the free markets that got us into this mess, it has been government interference, in particular American administrations that have interfered with the markets and now we're paying for it. Dearly.
> 
> This recession is the correction that the market needs.


 
What market interference by the American Government? They have reacted to the financial crisis but they didn't cause it (except for any blame that can be attached for flawed monetary policy and lack of regulatory oversight in financial services). If the Governments hadn't responded, the recession wouldn't have been a correction, it would have been economic armageddan. Might still be.


----------



## UptheDeise (16 Feb 2009)

The American government has been interfering with the markets for decades. Especially since they dropped the gold standard backing their currency. They've allowed the Fed to fiddle with the interest rate, they've also allowed the Fed to print as much money as they want. Devaluing the currency and causing massive deficits.

This recession would have been sharp and severe but it would still have remained that, a recession. By interfering with the markets, stimulus and bail out packages this recession will turn into a depression. It will even be worst than the 1930's depression which was caused by the government interfering again.


----------



## Sunny (16 Feb 2009)

UptheDeise said:


> The American government has been interfering with the markets for decades. Especially since they dropped the gold standard backing their currency. They've allowed the Fed to fiddle with the interest rate, they've also allowed the Fed to print as much money as they want. Devaluing the currency and causing massive deficits.
> 
> This recession would have been sharp and severe but it would still have remained that, a recession. By interfering with the markets, stimulus and bail out packages this recession will turn into a depression. It will even be worst than the 1930's depression which was caused by the government interfering again.


 
I am not sure what you mean about 'fiddle' with the interest rate. Also the Fed aren't allowed to print as much money as they want. Are you actually saying dropping the gold standard was a mistake?


----------



## UptheDeise (16 Feb 2009)

Oh they fiddle with the interest rate when it suited them. They drove it down to encourage cheaper credit when they should of let it well enough alone. They are not accountable to anyone and can print as much money as they want.

Sooner or later the Americans will have to go back to the gold standard.


----------



## mallow (16 Feb 2009)

Caveat said:


> I think it's strange that whilst many will cite what they see as the conceptual and practical evils of capitalism, not only will they not offer a viable alternative but they are quite happy to be a capitalist in their own private way - property ladder exploitation, buying and selling on eBay etc.



Any chance you could specify who you're talking about?  I've made pretty clearly what my alternative is.  Whether or not any alternative system is viable is a matter of opinion.  And buying and selling on Ebay does not make you a capitalist, nor does buying or selling a house or renting one.


----------



## Caveat (16 Feb 2009)

Relax mallow.

Who said I was directing the post at anyone on this thread let alone you?

It was a general comment.  Anyway, for the record, I didn't say that buying selling or renting houses makes you a capitalist.


----------



## mallow (16 Feb 2009)

UptheDeise said:


> It was not capitalism or the free markets that got us into this mess, it has been government interference, in particular American administrations that have interfered with the markets and now we're paying for it. Dearly.
> 
> This recession is the correction that the market needs.



The neoliberals arrive... How about 1837, 1870, 1907, 1929, the 1970's?  Damn governments at it again eh?  Isn't it peculiar that over the entire history of capitalism we've had a cycle of boom and bust, in every single country which has adopted it, over about two centuries, regardless of which government was in power or which policies they adopted.  Laissez-faire had its heyday in the 19th century.  It's extraordinary to me that any Irish person should now consider it to be legitimate, however carefully it is re-branded as neo-liberalism or anything else. It was laissex-faire economics which provided the ideological foundation for English government policies towards Ireland in the 1840's.  They refused to interfere with the free market in grain.  Because vast number of Irish people could not afford to buy at any price, they starved.  Honest neoliberals have no real problem with that.  Ireland was overpopulated and the weak died off and left room for the strong to thrive in their absence.

Does it not strike you that a system which has proved incapable of stability over several centuries may in fact be structurally unsound? The capitalist system has been both left entirely alone and thoroughly tinkered with over the course of those centuries.  Neither extreme nor anything in between them has prevented the cycle from recurring.  Your solution has been tried and at some length.  I often think it would be more intellectually honest of neoliberals to admit that they consider recession to be natural and normal and the pain suffered by any human being during it to be healthy and cleansing.  It's based on the usual skewed pseudo-Darwinian notion that those who survive recessions in a free market are the strong and those who die are the weak.  I'd love to find a neoliberal who numbered themselves among the weak.  Never have yet funnily enough....


----------



## mallow (16 Feb 2009)

Caveat said:


> Relax mallow.
> 
> Who said I was directing the post at anyone on this thread let alone you?
> 
> It was a general comment.  Anyway, for the record, I didn't say that buying selling or renting houses makes you a capitalist.



Yes I realize you didn't.  I was worried by your description of both property ladder exploitation and buying and selling on eBay as being capitalist.
That's why I asked who you were talking about.  I can't really understand your comment unless you explain in some way who you're referring to.  I've never met an anti-capitalist who was in fact a capitalist and had no ideas about an alternative.  And I know an awful lot of anti-capitalists so I'm curious.


----------



## Caveat (16 Feb 2009)

mallow said:


> I've never met an anti-capitalist who was in fact a capitalist and had no ideas about an alternative. And I know an awful lot of anti-capitalists so I'm curious.


 
Well for example I've come across quite a few people who have done well for themselves in , say, construction and who proudly describe themselves as "working class", campaign on local community issues, still drink in their local and are known as a great employer in the area and "never forget where they came from" but think nothing of exploiting their own workers, ruthlessly squeezing suppliers, and will do any dodgy deal re planning etc even if it is to the detriment of the society they came from.

On the other hand there are academic, upper middle class intellectual objectors to capitalism who idly jump on a 'funky alternative' bandwagon - having as they often do the inheritance or solvency not to have to worry about the practicalities of the system - it has already worked for them.


----------



## mallow (16 Feb 2009)

Caveat said:


> Well for example I've come across quite a few people who have done well for themselves in , say, construction and who proudly describe themselves as "working class", campaign on local community issues, still drink in their local and are known as a great employer in the area and "never forget where they came from" but think nothing of exploiting their own workers, ruthlessly squeezing suppliers, and will do any dodgy deal re planning etc even if it is to the detriment of the society they came from.
> 
> On the other hand there are academic, upper middle class intellectual objectors to capitalism who idly jump on a 'funky alternative' bandwagon - having as they often do the inheritance or solvency not to have to worry about the practicalities of the system - it has already worked for them.



Yes I know what you mean particularly in relation to the first.  There's a common misconception that if you come from a sociologically 'working class' background then you are working class.  It's a misunderstanding of the term.  If you have to work for wages for a living then you're working class.  The employer you described above is a capitalist.  That's a very good example of why working class doesn't mean poor, and it has nothing to do with your childhood or your parents income or where you came from.  That man doesn't live on wages, he lives on the profits generated by his employees.  It's really frustrating to see people accept men like him as one of their own, as working class.  But it's understandable since there's huge confusion between the political term and the socio-economic one. The first describes your position in a hierarchy and the second describes your social status or income.  Men like that rely on their constituents identifying themselves and him first and foremost as belonging to the same particular downtrodden community.  Rather than noticing that his interests are now in opposition to theirs.

The second is also a common sight, most often in environmentalist circles.  They are commonly made up of 'liberals' who are happy to lecture those worse off than them about their bad eating habits/wasteful use of energy/whatever it is this week...  They wilfully ignore the reality of the cost of solar panels, organic fair trade food and all the rest of it.  You'll usually find that that kind of person would like to reform capitalism, to make it a bit nicer and a bit greener.  They're not actually anti-capitalists at all.  On the other hand some of the most famous anti-capitalists were born aristocrats, Prince Peter Kropotkin for example was a famous anarchist.  Tolstoy was a Christian anarchist and he was also from an aristocratic Russian family.


----------



## PeterSellers (17 Feb 2009)

I think the real issue is short term thinking vs long term thinking. The current crisis is caused by people trying to make big gains on short term strategies without thinking about the long term consequences. (e.g. creating a property bubble which will eventually have to burst)


----------



## darag (17 Feb 2009)

> Isn't it peculiar that over the entire history of capitalism we've had a cycle of boom and bust, in every single country which has adopted it, over about two centuries, regardless of which government was in power or which policies they adopted.


Isn't it peculiar that over the entire history of attempting to run a country using an alternative to liberal economics we've had totalitarianism, mass murder, impoverishment, starvation, suppression, etc. regardless of which regime was in power or which policies they adopted?


----------



## mallow (17 Feb 2009)

PeterSellers said:


> I think the real issue is short term thinking vs long term thinking. The current crisis is caused by people trying to make big gains on short term strategies without thinking about the long term consequences. (e.g. creating a property bubble which will eventually have to burst)



The trouble is that you can't simply reform the focus on the short-term out of capitalism.  It's central to it.  If you look at the motivation of each of the participants in capitalist economics, they are all motivated to increase profits in the short term.  Capitalist theory says that all those individual short term focused decisions will be led by the invisible hand to benefit the long-term interest of all.  Unfortunately that just doesn't happen.  If a CEO or a bank boss doesn't focus on short-term profits he will be replaced by one who will.  You could attempt to regulate to avoid the problems that the short-term outlook of markets causes, but within capitalism, regulation causes its own problems.  It also gets dismantled again on a regular basis since those with the motivation to dismantle it also have the wealth and influence to get it done.


----------



## mallow (17 Feb 2009)

darag said:


> Isn't it peculiar that over the entire history of attempting to run a country using an alternative to liberal economics we've had totalitarianism, mass murder, impoverishment, starvation, suppression, etc. regardless of which regime was in power or which policies they adopted?



Are you arguing that every economic and political system over the entire course of human history in every society in the world has led to the above and that those outcomes are therefore unavoidable in any system?    If you're saying that Russia, Cuba, North Korea, China etc. led to all the above then you're absolutely right.  That's the predictable outcome of an authoritarian state. 

You've identified the problem in your comment.  You are working on the assumption that a 'regime' will be in 'power' and will 'run a country'.  That would be a State of one kind or another.  As long as we believe that living in a hierarchy is a natural way of organizing ourselves we will have States, and that State will exercise power over its citizens.  Power, and its distribution, is the problem.  There have been alternatives in human history where people organized themselves, in free and equal associations, without hierarchy.  Many tribal societies were organized in that way, as were early Christians or the city-states of medieval Europe.  For modern examples you could look at the anarchist areas of Spain in the 1930's, or the Ukraine after the Russian revolution.   

Liberal economics as you call it, or laissez faire to give it its proper name, is a blip in human history, as is capitalism.  All of the problems you've noted with 'alternatives' existed in previous human societies to one extent or another.  The Romans and the absolutist monarchs were pretty totalitarian, starvation is common throughout history due to crop failures, overpopulation etc, mass murder is ancient, as is poverty.  They've also happened throughout capitalist history, including during periods of laissez-faire economics.  19th century imperialism coincided perfectly with laissez-faire beliefs.  The native Americans weren't saved by 'liberal economics' and nor were the Irish in the famine.  So if your claim is that liberal economics will save us from all of those things it just doesn't stand up.


----------



## darag (18 Feb 2009)

The liberal economic "historical blip" - as you describe it - coincides with the greatest improvement in the general human condition and greatest increase in wealth ever in history.  Before the 19th century, economic growth effectively did not exist in Europe - the vast majority of the population experienced subsistence - as had been the case going back to prehistory.  Life expectancy at birth was roughly the same as it had been in ancient times.  You talk of liberal economics causing the 19th century Irish potato famine which is nonsense - Ireland had been plagued by famines throughout history - the 18th century "Great" Irish famine was arguably more devastating than the 19th century one.  Britain and Europe had been racked by famines before "capitalism" many of which were as bad or worse than our potato famine.

When the human condition of those living under the typical western liberal economic system collapses enough to begin to even approach that of tribal Africa, communist China or North Korea, the socialistic populism of South America, the nomadic system on the fringes of the Arctic, the feudalism of Afghanistan or the monarchism of the Middle East, I might consider taking you seriously.  Until then, I think that while life for the average person in the "capitalist" west will not be easy for the next few years because of the bust, most people in Canada, the US, Europe, Australia, South Korea, Japan, etc. have enough objectivity to see that their condition is still an order of magnitude better than that of those who do not live in economically liberal countries.

By every single human development measure, the average person living under "capitalism" is far better off than any of the alternatives.  And no - the short lived anarchist communes of Spain or the Ukraine do not provide a counter-example to the overall experiences of the 12 billion or so human lives which have existed in history.  The fact that you include the medieval cities which were run by mecantilism or controlled by guilds as part of your pantheon of utopias is bizarre but shows how desperate you must be to produce counter-examples.

A final point is that nobody or nothing is stopping you - with a group of like minded people - taking over some bit of unoccupied bog in the middle of Mayo and living a life "free" of capitalism.  To be true to the ideal, you should cast aside all of your possessions that were delivered to you by "capitalism" (lets say you start with underwear, shoes and toothpaste). Once you do this - free from the jackboot of "capitalism" - presumably you can enjoy an idyllic life.  Good luck with that.


----------



## mallow (18 Feb 2009)

We’ve had industrial capitalism for two centuries, not 12 billion human lives.  Not all of those two centuries were dominated by laissez-faire economics.  Two centuries are a historical blip in relation to the time humans have existed.  We have had greater economic growth in that period than in any other time.  The industrial revolution could not have happened without the use of coal, a limited fossil fuel.  It could not have continued without oil, again a limited resource.  Most of what is described as economic growth results from the exploitation of these limited resources.  A tiny amount of oil provides us with the same energy that previously had to be expended by 20 people.  It provides us with all of our consumer goods, our chemically manufactured drugs, transport, computers, building materials, food, electricity and water.  The exploitation of fossil fuels has allowed unprecedented economic growth.  It also coincides with industrial capitalism.  Of course it’s use in capitalist society has also provided us with soil erosion, deforestation, climate change, dead seas and dried up lakes and aquifers.  It will also run out some day since resources are by definition limited.  So capitalism hasn’t exactly been a miracle ideology, it had more than a little help.

  As for the greatest improvement in the general human condition, actually it hasn’t.  It has if you limit your perspective to the present day developed countries.  But capitalism in the 19th century produced Dickensian conditions, misery, child labour in factories and utter destitution for many.  Capitalism is also a global system so you can’t assess its impact without taking into account the rest of the world.  Their living standards have actually fallen since the 1970’s.   Most of them were conquered, many used as slaves in the 19th century.  That was capitalism.  In the 19th century it was believed that in order to grow the economy you had to expand and bring in raw materials and labour from poorer countries.  The legacy of imperialism can’t be separated from capitalist ideology.  When you compare living standards in the west and the developing world, you’re ignoring the fact that capitalism is a global system completely. 

  Life expectancy has increased and medical science has made massive leaps in the past century in particular.  But scientific knowledge did not begin two hundred years ago.  Medical science in turn was not produced by capitalism.  The invention of penicillin and the development of the germ theory of disease came from human beings, not from a capitalist system.  Capitalism did not discover germs.  

  I most certainly didn’t say that liberal economics caused the potato famine.  I said it exacerbated it.  Most serious historians of the time would agree that government policy before and during condemned many more to die than otherwise would have.  

  Finally, this notion about bogs in Mayo…. Land in Ireland is owned, even bogs.  If you ‘take over’ land owned by someone else you get evicted.   Neither toothpaste nor anything else is produced by ‘capitalism’.  It’s produced by human beings using machines and raw materials.  Are you seriously saying that goods cannot be produced under any system other than capitalism?  I'm pretty sure humans have exercized their ability to be inventive and have produced goods over the entire course of human history, regardless of how they organized their society.


----------



## Purple (18 Feb 2009)

Darag; great post.
Mallow; there's some great points and some awful rubbish in your posts.
I agree that anyone who works for their wage is working class... but you forget that most employers are PRSI workers who rely on their labour for their wage just as much, or more, than those they employ. You also forget/ignore that many people at the top of the capitalist system earning multi-million euro salaries are employees. 

Anyway, capitalism is an economic philosophy; socialism is a socio-economic one. An economic system should always be subordinate to the greater societal good (as capitalism is in the Western World). If you want to know what unbridled capitalism looks like read up on the East India Company or The Congo under Leopold the First of Belgium.


----------



## mallow (19 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> Darag; great post.
> Mallow; there's some great points and some awful rubbish in your posts.
> I agree that anyone who works for their wage is working class... but you forget that most employers are PRSI workers who rely on their labour for their wage just as much, or more, than those they employ. You also forget/ignore that many people at the top of the capitalist system earning multi-million euro salaries are employees.
> 
> Anyway, capitalism is an economic philosophy; socialism is a socio-economic one. An economic system should always be subordinate to the greater societal good (as capitalism is in the Western World). If you want to know what unbridled capitalism looks like read up on the East India Company or The Congo under Leopold the First of Belgium.



I think I've already defined working class as anyone who lives in wages.  That includes those earning multi-million euro salaries.  An employer, by definition, is a capitalist.  They work, certainly, but that doesn't make them working class.  They also earn profits from the labour of their employees.  That is what makes them capitalists.  I haven't been forgetting that in my posts, I simply didn't spell it out perhaps.  

I don't believe you can logically separate systems into merely economic, or merely socio-economic or merely political.  And capitalist is not just a 'philosophy', it is a system of hierarchical relationships.  That's very different to a philosophy.  An economic system by definition impacts on society.  The fact that most people must work a certain number of hours per week for an employer, the fact that they must pay mortgages and interest or rent in order to obtain housing, the fact that their income is subject to the fluctuations of the economy, have pretty massive social implications.  It's also incorrect not to describe it as a political system.  Politics, at its most basic, is simply how we organize our society, how we make decisions.  In a society with a capitalist economic and social structure, you can't separate the political system from the socio-economic one.  Each depends in fact on the other.  The State (i.e. the political system) protects private property.  Private property is a capitalist concept in that it creates hierarchy.  So the State is actually inseparable from the economic and political system.  

As for the economic being subordinate to the greater public good, that's not actually how it works in practice is it?  In fact, the public good is subordinate to the economy.  The public is now suffering because of the economic downturn.  As they do in each cyclical downturn that capitalism has always and will always have.  In a downturn, in order to 'rescue' the economy, the public are taxed more and public services are cut back.  The public good suffers to save the economic system.  Because the underlying belief is that the economic system is in the public good.  If you believe that then the economic system is not subordinate to the public good, it equates to the public good.  Doesn't actually hold up at present though does it?  

I am aware that we do not have unbridled capitalism and am very thankful for it!  However, this thread is about whether or not capitalism itself has failed.  I argue that it fails us even in states where it is regulated.  I don't need to address the East India Company to show that.  Our complete dependence on the economic cycle has a severely damaging effect on our society.  The lack of income and dependence causes depression, suicides, poverty and family break-ups.  Every single time it happens.  People's lives are damaged permanently.  If a system cannot provide the economic stability for people to have security in their lives then it has failed.  That's without even mentioning its other outcomes.


----------



## adonis (19 Feb 2009)

A lot of word written but they mean nothing. It is just a blip.


----------



## mallow (19 Feb 2009)

adonis said:


> A lot of word written but they mean nothing. It is just a blip.



A peculiarly repetitive blip.  Which has a tendency to wreck people's lives at each repetition.  But I'm sure all those losing their jobs today would agree with you.  Nothing but a blip, nothing to see here, move along please.... (preferably to Australia or somewhere)


----------



## darag (20 Feb 2009)

Ok I'm going to bow out of this after this.  Mallow you really need to take a step back and look at the evidence of history without prejudice.

Also you should try to stick with the well understood definitions of the terms being discussed here.   For example, you confuse capitalism with mercantilism or empire economics and proceed to criticize liberal economics on the basis of your redefinition.  Even when you do this you are historically backwards; European imperialism started centuries before liberal economics but did not produce a noticeable improvement in the standard of living in Europe.  A stark example is monarchist Spain plundering South America on an unimaginable scale and yet all this gold and silver did not produce a long term improvement in the standard of living in Spain - in fact the effect was the opposite.  In fact once capitalism took hold in Europe imperialism fell by the wayside as it no longer made sense.

Neither plundering other countries nor plundering the environment leads to a sustained improvement in the standard of life; this has been shown over and over again in history.  Did capitalist countries engage in such practices in history?  Of course some did but so did/do monarchist, communist, tribal, nomadic and feudal countries.  In the latter cases they lead to no general improvement in the standard of life so it is not these practices which lead to the historically remarkable progress in the human condition since economic liberalism was adopted on a large scale.

Just to clarify, my point in raising the context of 12 billion human lives was to attempt to make you judge liberal economics within the broad context of human existence.  Of the 12 billion, most lives have been relatively brutish and miserable in terms of all measures of human development - subsistence (i.e. working from the earliest age possible until your death after 20 or 30 years just to provide shelter and enough to eat) was about the best you could hope for. About a billion people have lived under the principles of liberal economics and those lives have been longer, happier, healthier, more fruitful in terms of intellectual development, more just, wealthier, more educated, etc., etc. than the other 11 billion.  And this isn't a historical effect; look around the world today and look at countries which resist economic liberalism and you'll see poverty, repression, misery, poor health, hunger, etc.  To claim that capitalism has "failed" is simply nonsensical if you are prepared to look at the macro historic and geographic evidence.

Whatever about having to "tighten our belts" in the west, the current financial bust is absolutely insignificant compared to the equivalent "busts" which have happened elsewhere or in other times.  In communist China, 30 or 40 million people starved to death.  In sub-Saharan militaristic/tribal Africa  millions starve due to "system failures".  This is the stark reality of life outside of the comfort of a western liberal existence.

Finally, regarding your moving to a bog in Mayo, it's pretty amazing that the only thing preserving the entire western liberal economic system is that nobody in history has been able to afford to buy some bog in order to effect your superior (if unspecified) system.  Excuse my skepticism but even Marx - a great thinker - got it absolutely and completely wrong in pretty much everything he predicted; I somehow doubt that your idea - whatever it is - is likely to be superior to his.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2009)

At the risk of sounding effusive that is a magnificent post Darag.


----------



## VOR (20 Feb 2009)

Spoken like a true libertarian Darag. Well done.


----------



## mallow (20 Feb 2009)

darag said:


> Ok I'm going to bow out of this after this.  Mallow you really need to take a step back and look at the evidence of history without prejudice.
> 
> Also you should try to stick with the well understood definitions of the terms being discussed here.   For example, you confuse capitalism with mercantilism or empire economics and proceed to criticize liberal economics on the basis of your redefinition.  Even when you do this you are historically backwards; European imperialism started centuries before liberal economics but did not produce a noticeable improvement in the standard of living in Europe.  A stark example is monarchist Spain plundering South America on an unimaginable scale and yet all this gold and silver did not produce a long term improvement in the standard of living in Spain - in fact the effect was the opposite.  In fact once capitalism took hold in Europe imperialism fell by the wayside as it no longer made sense. /quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## mallow (20 Feb 2009)

darag said:


> Neither plundering other countries nor plundering the environment leads to a sustained improvement in the standard of life; this has been shown over and over again in history.  Did capitalist countries engage in such practices in history?  Of course some did but so did/do monarchist, communist, tribal, nomadic and feudal countries.  In the latter cases they lead to no general improvement in the standard of life so it is not these practices which lead to the historically remarkable progress in the human condition since economic liberalism was adopted on a large scale.



   I have never argued that capitalism is the only economic system which plunders the environment or other countries.  As above, anarchists oppose any hierarchical system.  That includes the State communist countries such as Russia or North Korea, or state capitalist countries such as China.   You are attempting to rename capitalism as ‘economic liberalism’.  The latter certainly sounds nice and liberal and it avoids the baggage of the former, but what you are in fact referring to is capitalism.  If we were disputing the difference between highly regulated capitalist systems and, for example, England in the 19th century then the concept of ‘economic liberalism’ would be relevant.  

  ‘Plundering the environment’ in the sense of extracting fossil fuels, most certainly does improve our standard of life.  That improvement can be sustained for as long as the fossil fuels can be extracted.   Societies prior to industrial capitalism did not have access to coal at any scale, or oil.  Not all resources are equal in terms of energy.  Tribal, feudal and monarchical societies had access only to resources which produce less energy.  For example, windmills, watermills, wood.  Those provide an order of magnitude less energy than coal, gas or oil.  So clearly the use of lower-energy resources cannot improve living standards as much as higher-energy resources.  As for communist societies, Russia did actually raise living standards hugely from 1917 to the 1970’s.  (Of course being an authoritarian state they also murdered millions along the way)   But they did produce growth and improvements in general living standards.


----------



## mallow (20 Feb 2009)

darag said:


> Just to clarify, my point in raising the context of 12 billion human lives was to attempt to make you judge liberal economics within the broad context of human existence.  Of the 12 billion, most lives have been relatively brutish and miserable in terms of all measures of human development - subsistence (i.e. working from the earliest age possible until your death after 20 or 30 years just to provide shelter and enough to eat) was about the best you could hope for. About a billion people have lived under the principles of liberal economics and those lives have been longer, happier, healthier, more fruitful in terms of intellectual development, more just, wealthier, more educated, etc., etc. than the other 11 billion.  And this isn't a historical effect; look around the world today and look at countries which resist economic liberalism and you'll see poverty, repression, misery, poor health, hunger, etc.  To claim that capitalism has "failed" is simply nonsensical if you are prepared to look at the macro historic and geographic evidence.



   Again, you refuse to use the word capitalism.  You claim the entire period of capitalism, throughout the world, as a period of ‘liberal economics’.  Liberalism is one capitalist school of thought.  It does not equate to capitalism.  Is there any context in which you can use the word ‘capitalism’?  If not then you are attempting a re-branding exercise.  I won’t rewrite the dictionary for you.  

  Your summation of life for the human race prior to capitalism is limited to a Hobbesian worldview and therefore ridiculously simplistic.  Subsistence has not been the best one could hope for throughout human history prior to capitalism.  A citizen of ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome would dispute that.  Even primitive tribes were in fact very healthy (healthier than the early farmers) and studies have shown that in fact they spent less time working to obtain food and shelter than we do nowadays.  During period of medieval history peasants in fact had large amounts of free time.  The number of feast days they enjoyed amounted to at times almost 1/3 of the year.  Most had their own land and limited obligations to their feudal lord.  You’ve also completely ignored the wealthy throughout history.  

  The lives of all of those who have lived under capitalism have not been better than those who lived before it.  I think you completely ignore the 19th century!  You also seem to refuse to accept that the developing world is part of the global system of capitalism.  The developing countries you refer to as poor and repressed did not become so by some accident of history.  Nor through their own obtuseness.  They are a part of the same economic system of capitalism.  What you are arguing is that they should liberalise their economies more.  You want to impose the same neo-liberal dogma on them that has failed so spectacularly in the developed world.  Undoubtedly you also believe that the free market is efficient and the current crisis is caused by too much regulation…


----------



## mallow (20 Feb 2009)

darag said:


> Whatever about having to "tighten our belts" in the west, the current financial bust is absolutely insignificant compared to the equivalent "busts" which have happened elsewhere or in other times.  In communist China, 30 or 40 million people starved to death.  In sub-Saharan militaristic/tribal Africa  millions starve due to "system failures".  This is the stark reality of life outside of the comfort of a western liberal existence.
> 
> Finally, regarding your moving to a bog in Mayo, it's pretty amazing that the only thing preserving the entire western liberal economic system is that nobody in history has been able to afford to buy some bog in order to effect your superior (if unspecified) system.  Excuse my skepticism but even Marx - a great thinker - got it absolutely and completely wrong in pretty much everything he predicted; I somehow doubt that your idea - whatever it is - is likely to be superior to his.



   To say that we are better off than those who have or are starving to death is a truism.  So what?  I am as opposed to ‘communist’ China and tribalism as I am to capitalism.  You seem to imply that it is impossible for human beings to feed themselves regularly without capitalism!  The causes of famines are more complex than ‘They need more capitalism’.  That should really be obvious.  Ireland in the 1840’s was capitalist.  We had famine.  It’s a little fanatical when you attempt to prescribe capitalism as the solution to every problem throughout history and the globe….

  I have specified my alternative system before.  Just to be clear it’s anarchism.  It requires rather more than a bog.  I don’t have much to do with Marx and don’t know much about him.  Again, your attempts to simplify lead to inaccuracy.  Marx has little to do with anarchism although you right libertarians would like to equate us all with Marx and keep things nice and simple.  You might like to write off ‘my system’ as something someone far less intelligent than Marx came up with (would an IQ test resolve the issue?!). Anarchism isn’t exactly ‘my’ idea!  Any more than capitalism is ‘yours’.  Tolstoy, Gandhi, Bakunin, Thoreau, Malatesta, Proudhon, Shaw, Berkman, Goldman, Chomsky are all part of the anarchist tradition.  I haven’t exactly just invented it…


----------



## Purple (28 Apr 2009)

Very interesting mnaseersj, how about just posting a link along with your own overview?
If the author does not expressly state that the content can be reproduced then you may be breaching copyright.

On the substance of the post given that the author is a Muslim his thoughts are framed in the context of the overarching theological presumption that one of the basic requirements for happiness is the establishment of Islamic Law on earth. This law covers all aspects of life and as such there can be no separation of Church and State. Given this capitalism, as the inevitable economic model of a free “Liberal” and democratic society, will always be at odds with Islamic teachings, as well as true Christian teachings, since both seek to limit the scope of human freedom within the boundaries of authoritarian, infallible and unalterable “truths”. Since these truths are the direct or inspired written work of God they cannot be subject to democratic change ergo liberal capitalism is the enemy of religion.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2009)

Thanks for the reply mnaseersj. I really want to reply in turn but at 1am I won't to it justice but the crux of my point is that capitalism is just an economic system. Democracy (real democracy which allows freedom of speech and freedom of expression not the sham they have in Iran) is the best political system. How the conscience of the people is informed is up to the people. As long as they do not seek to limit the freedoms of others based on their religious beliefs it all works. I do not propose that the ethical values in secular countries are perfect, far from it, but they are better than those I have seen (first and second hand) in any country where the laws are subject to the limiting framework of religious teachings. That also holds true for the Ireland of now compared to the Ireland of 30 years ago. 
I do not see this as a fundamental flaw in the ethical codes at the core of any particular religion but rather the human failings of those who administer a system in which there is little accountability or room for reform. Such a system is inevitable where democracy is not underpinned by an electorate informed by a free press unencumbered by state control or censorship. 

By the way the notion of a secular state built on trade is in no way the reserve of the West.


----------



## Mommah (29 Apr 2009)

mnaseersj said:


> in ordinary people around the world facing financial hardship and ruin.


 
Mnaseersj. Interesting perspective, but one which makes me ask if you have ever actually lived in an Islamic state?

I have by the way.


----------



## Mommah (29 Apr 2009)

So like the perfect communist or capitalist state, no-one has been able to get one off the ground yet?


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2009)

mnaseersj said:


> ^ An Islamic State is one based on the model of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the Caliphate, and it is a State which people around the world are working to re-establish.


  Did the Caliphate as you describe it ever truly exist? From my reading of Islamic history it didn't.

How can any “perfect system” ever work when it does not take human frailty into account? If a perfect system requires that vast numbers of people be subjugated and forced into a pattern of behaviour which they find undesirable then such a system is just another form of fascism. 

Please don’t take my comments as an attack on Islam; I am simply arguing the general point.


----------



## Purple (30 Apr 2009)

Did the Caliphate as you describe it ever truly exist? How can any “perfect system” ever work when it does not take human frailty into account? If a perfect system requires that vast numbers of people be subjugated and forced into a pattern of behaviour which they find undesirable then such a system is just another form of fascism. 

Please don’t take my comments as an attack on Islam; I am simply arguing the general point.


----------



## csirl (30 Apr 2009)

As a general rule, it appears that the standard of living of people in countries which call themselves islamic is lower than comparative countries which do not. It also appears that once a non-islamic country becomes islamic, it's standard of living dramatically decreases. The evidence would suggest that democratic capitalists countries have much better standards of living. Even severe depressions in capitalist democracies appear to be much better than self professed thriving islamic countries. Even communist states seem to out perform islamic states - and thats says a lot!!!!


----------



## Purple (1 May 2009)

You keep quoting Sir Thomas Arnold, a man who spent his life in India, exposed to the remnants of the pluralistic Islam which had been practiced under Mogul rule (before the British destroyed it and arguable created modern Islamic fundamentalism). That’s a far cry from the Islam we see in some Middle Eastern countries in the 21 century. 
The crux of the matter is that any economic system which is part of an overarching totalitarian system of societal control will limit the chances of excess but the human cost is, in my view, far too high. The corresponding stifling of creativity and individuality will also limit economic and social development so that while there may be fewer lows there will be far fewer highs.


----------



## Purple (3 May 2009)

This thread has been heavily edited. The last page or so now make little sense.


----------



## dafmurray (31 May 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> i think the big problem is the business model that demands quarter on quarter,  year on year profit growth. If a corp make 1Billion profit it's like how on earth are we going to make 1Billion plus 10% next year. what's wrong with making 1billion the next or 900M??? I dont think im being nieve here beacuse look what happened the banks. They exhausted markets, now how do we keep growing they created false markets 100% mortgages, relaxing the requirements, lend to people who have bad credit ratings all because they had maximized profits and had to become unethical just so they could grow. there has to be value in a company that makes a profit and employs x amount of people. Not we need to cut so we can increase 1 billion to 1 billion +, what happens the year after next. Go to low cost economies and sell back into markets where the jobs are being lost?? Eventually they're going to kill the demand for their own products. (Im talking about companies making billions)



This is the core of the problem.  Greater risks taken and new high-risk investment products and strategies developed to keep profits artificially inflated.  Sooner or later these products and strategies trigger a cascade that leads from sensible growth/management to systematic boom/bust. 

Capitalism is inherently problematic and too many senior decision makers are isolated from the consequences of their actions.  Any action by Governments and world economic policy bodies MUST focus on consequences in the wider society or we will simply be trapped in alternating boom/bust cycles with the booms directly creating the causes of the next bust.  This may seem obvious and it is.  Therefore why hasn't anyone learned form it.  Because enough people always make enough wealth to be protected from the worst consequences of their own actions and retire to play golf. 

Have any of the nation's bankers been forced to make restitution for their appalling mis-management?  Gillian Bowler is still at I.L.&P. despite clearly having made very poor decisions.   Have senior figures in the public service and regulation industry been held accountable for corruption and failure to regulate?  No consequences means there will be no change and we will be facing another crisis in several years time, even if we get out of this crisis in reasonable shape.  The whole Capitalist system has become so crazily complex that the fundamental issues at play can barely be grasped.


----------



## smiley (31 May 2009)

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries". 

Winston Churchill 

I think he sums it up just nicely.


----------

