Go-vangelist
United States
Denver
Colorado
-
DAVOS, Switzerland (AP) - A four-year economic crisis has left societies battered and widened the gap between the haves and have-nots, financial leaders conceded Wednesday - with one suggesting that Western-style capitalism itself may be endangered.
"As a result of this recession, that's lasted longer than anyone predicted and will probably go on for a number more years, we're going to have a lot of economic disparities. We've got to work through these problems. If we don't do it in three or four years, the game will be over for the type of capitalism that many of us have lived through and thought was the best type."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120125/D9SG29580.html
Interesting article. Have we abused capitalism to the point where it's in danger?
-
KNOWN GOOD
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
-
tesuji wrote: DAVOS, Switzerland (AP) - A four-year economic crisis has left societies battered and widened the gap between the haves and have-nots, financial leaders conceded Wednesday - with one suggesting that Western-style capitalism itself may be endangered.
"As a result of this recession, that's lasted longer than anyone predicted and will probably go on for a number more years, we're going to have a lot of economic disparities. We've got to work through these problems. If we don't do it in three or four years, the game will be over for the type of capitalism that many of us have lived through and thought was the best type." http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120125/D9SG29580.htmlInteresting article. Have we abused capitalism to the point where it's in danger?
We don't have capitalism. You can't abuse something that doesn't exist.
-
Shane
United States
Greenwood
Indiana
-
As far as the United States goes, we're simply in a state of decline...or entering a "new normal"...or whatever we want to term it. This is due (of course) to lots of factors such as the narrowing of valued skill sets, removing middle management (which easily dates back at least to the late 80's), and so many more.
There are many unemployed that aren't represented, such as myself, that are grossly underemployed. Then, there are the "haves" in power because of strong networking and having obtained the correct skills valued in today's "capitalism." Also, captains of industry (such as those in Congress) are disconnected/insulated from the realities and won't (and don't feel the need to) respond in a meaningful way.
Ironically, protests that have been effective elsewhere won't have much effect here unless they're on a much larger scale. So, is capitalism in danger? No - it's just evolving to dissolve much of the middle class.
We either accept it or find a way to change it.
-
Rich Hussein Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
By some definitions, gaming is my religion
-
tesuji wrote: If we don't do it in three or four years, the game will be over for the type of capitalism that many of us have lived through and thought was the best type."
And good riddance.
-
pronoblem baalberith
United States
Pleasantville
Massachusetts
-
Francis Fukuyama is a tool.
-
Ed Bradley
United Kingdom
Haverhill
Suffolk
The best things in life aren't things.
-
The current problems are being caused by the exact same issues that caused the Great Depression.
It was predicted by several economists.
Neoclassical economics (the one that's passed itself off as science, and the only version of economics for the last 40 years) has failed. Its models are flawed and based on faulty logic. Slavishly believing in it took us into this problem and is preventing us climbing out.
We can yet return to healthy capitalism but only if we can break the stranglehold of Big Finance on our political processes. And cleanse ourselves of the economic brainwashing that's got us into this mess.
-
steven slater
England
County of Essex
-
Capotalsim will only fail when it fails to make the majority bettr off. Thats the issue now, the vey rich are beter off thenever but for many their standards of living are in decline. Thus there ism a danger that capitlaism (or the version we have of it) will be seen in the same way it was around the turn of the 20thC.
-
steven slater
England
County of Essex
-
pronoblem wrote: slatersteven wrote: Capotalsim What is capotalsim?
Its what capitalism will become.
-
steven slater
England
County of Essex
-
pronoblem wrote: slatersteven wrote: pronoblem wrote: slatersteven wrote: Capotalsim What is capotalsim? Its what capitalism will become. ...and if differs from capitlaism how?
It has fewer I's.
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
tesuji wrote: DAVOS, Switzerland (AP) - A four-year economic crisis has left societies battered and widened the gap between the haves and have-nots, financial leaders conceded Wednesday - with one suggesting that Western-style capitalism itself may be endangered.
"As a result of this recession, that's lasted longer than anyone predicted and will probably go on for a number more years, we're going to have a lot of economic disparities. We've got to work through these problems. If we don't do it in three or four years, the game will be over for the type of capitalism that many of us have lived through and thought was the best type."
This part makes me chuckle, since myself, my brother, and many of my friends figured it was the new normal in 2009. We also don't buy that whole "market forces" crock.
Quote: Interesting article. Have we abused capitalism to the point where it's in danger?
Everything gets abused to a point where it is meaningless. Peter the Great's despotic rule made Russia a great power, but his successors clung to this style of leadership and debased it. Same thing with the Bourbons. All ideas start off with some merit and then decay and unravel. For now I call this "inevitable negative mutation."
It is hilarious though that after suffering no depressions once the banks were regulated by FDR, we suffered economic ruin the moment we lifted most of those regulations. If it happens a third time, we truly are idiots. Or those in power are incredibly unscrupulous. After all, unregulated markets can make you a killing, even as they flush society down the toilet. As the ice caps melt from global warming caused by fossil fuels, companies are scrambling to get the oil from under the ice. This is the selfish ethics of capitalism taken to a destructive and farcical level.
joecool10424 wrote: There are many unemployed that aren't represented, such as myself, that are grossly underemployed. Then, there are the "haves" in power because of strong networking and having obtained the correct skills valued in today's "capitalism." Also, captains of industry (such as those in Congress) are disconnected/insulated from the realities and won't (and don't feel the need to) respond in a meaningful way.
That networking occurs at the Ivy League level. That is where our degenerate aristocrats gain their training. It also hurts that the pool of ideas are narrow in many of those departments, which are also insulated from much of the world.
-
Not Just Wrong- SPECTACULARLY WRONG.
Spain
Texas
-
The reason that we use Capitalism shouldn't be because it makes us rich.
We should embrace Capitalism because it helps protect human freedom.
I would rather be free, but poor, rather than rich and unfree.
Capitalism and the idea of the market being a wonderful way of generating wealth is just a nice side benefit.
The real problem isn't with capitalism, its with a lack of transparency with privileged participants in the market, who are able to use regulation as weapons to better compete with other, lesser informed, members of the same market.
Darilian
-
United States
Missoula
Montana
-
No one is free in a capitalist society.
-
Not Just Wrong- SPECTACULARLY WRONG.
Spain
Texas
-
tscook wrote: No one is free in a capitalist society.
Sorry, I don't buy Marx.
Darilian
-
Rich Hussein Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
By some definitions, gaming is my religion
-
Darilian wrote: We should embrace Capitalism because it helps protect human freedom.
You are mixing up some causes and effects here.
Certain kinds of freedom allow capitalism to exist and it can be a useful tool for civilization. When people forget that the purpose of Capitalism is to encourage people to do useful things and not just to make more and more money by manipulating the system, it all falls apart. It requires vigilant adult supervision to remain useful.
-
KNOWN GOOD
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
-
Darilian wrote: The reason that we use Capitalism shouldn't be because it makes us rich.
We should embrace Capitalism because it helps protect human freedom.
I would rather be free, but poor, rather than rich and unfree.
Capitalism and the idea of the market being a wonderful way of generating wealth is just a nice side benefit.
The real problem isn't with capitalism, its with a lack of transparency with privileged participants in the market, who are able to use regulation as weapons to better compete with other, lesser informed, members of the same market.
Darilian
That last paragraph is exactly what I mean. We don't have capitalism, which depends on equal competition between goods and services. We have a bourgeoisie monopolization. Competition is actively suppressed by the bourgeoisie who have billions of dollars in government to keep their suppression active. From intellectual property laws to corrupt market regulation to asinine trade policy, capitalism left the building long ago shaking its head in disgust.
-
Xander Fulton
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
gittes wrote: All ideas start off with some merit and then decay and unravel. For now I call this "inevitable negative mutation."
I believe the specific word you are looking for is "entropy".
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
XanderF wrote: gittes wrote: All ideas start off with some merit and then decay and unravel. For now I call this "inevitable negative mutation." I believe the specific word you are looking for is "entropy".
Now wait I saw Logopolis. According to Tom Baker entropy is the second law of thermodynamics.
But it does sound much better. Another word that I could use is decay.
What kind of adjective would you attach to the "abstract" kind of entropy I am thinking of?
-
Jasper B
Netherlands
Leiden
-
Darilian wrote: The reason that we use Capitalism shouldn't be because it makes us rich.
We should embrace Capitalism because it helps protect human freedom.
I would rather be free, but poor, rather than rich and unfree.
Capitalism and the idea of the market being a wonderful way of generating wealth is just a nice side benefit.
The real problem isn't with capitalism, its with a lack of transparency with privileged participants in the market, who are able to use regulation as weapons to better compete with other, lesser informed, members of the same market.
Darilian Capitalism helps freedom how? A certain amount of freedom is required for capitalism to really work yes. But the other way around, I'm not seeing that.
But on the regulations issue, it is one of the few things ideologues on all sides agree on: the confluence of business and government breeds abuse. However actual politicians on all sides are also unified in their willful ignorance of that fact.
-
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
-
gittes wrote: XanderF wrote: gittes wrote: All ideas start off with some merit and then decay and unravel. For now I call this "inevitable negative mutation." I believe the specific word you are looking for is "entropy". Now wait I saw Logopolis. According to Tom Baker entropy is the second law of thermodynamics. But it does sound much better. Another word that I could use is decay. What kind of adjective would you attach to the "abstract" kind of entropy I am thinking of?
I wouldn't call it entropy at all. For that says it is a law of nature and inevitable. There is nothing inevitable about what has gone on here. It is the result of bad decisions and bad priorities being rewarded by those with the power to manipulate the system to such a state. But it is conscious choices that have brought us to this place. It did happen. But it didn't have to happen.
Human beings, especially the powerful, should never be let off the hook thusly.
-
Clay
United States
Alabama
-
Darilian wrote: The reason that we use Capitalism shouldn't be because it makes us rich.
We should embrace Capitalism because it helps protect human freedom.
I would rather be free, but poor, rather than rich and unfree.
Capitalism and the idea of the market being a wonderful way of generating wealth is just a nice side benefit.
The real problem isn't with capitalism, its with a lack of transparency with privileged participants in the market, who are able to use regulation as weapons to better compete with other, lesser informed, members of the same market.
Darilian
Could you present your definitions for both capitalism and freedom? Bonus points for a quick argument explaining the link you see.
-
Bill Wood
United States
Eden
North Carolina
-
As already stated, the brand of Capitalism is not capitalism - it has become a trend towards feudalism if not already there.
We are headed to Civil War if it keeps up.
My 19 yr old son said over the holiday season that he fully excepts a mass atrocity by the PTBs in his lifetime.
-
Xander Fulton
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
tstone wrote: gittes wrote: XanderF wrote: gittes wrote: All ideas start off with some merit and then decay and unravel. For now I call this "inevitable negative mutation." I believe the specific word you are looking for is "entropy". Now wait I saw Logopolis. According to Tom Baker entropy is the second law of thermodynamics. But it does sound much better. Another word that I could use is decay. What kind of adjective would you attach to the "abstract" kind of entropy I am thinking of? I wouldn't call it entropy at all. For that says it is a law of nature and inevitable. There is nothing inevitable about what has gone on here. It is the result of bad decisions and bad priorities being rewarded by those with the power to manipulate the system to such a state. But it is conscious choices that have brought us to this place. It did happen. But it didn't have to happen. Human beings, especially the powerful, should never be let off the hook thusly.
It did 'have to happen', though, because human nature at the meta level is entirely patterned and predictable. Every system of government or society in human history (and we've had lots of attempts) has failed for ultimately the same reason. More and more power attempted to be collected into the hands of fewer and fewer who attempt to exert increasing control over it...
It always collapses.
-
Kenneth Pike
United States
Phoenix
Arizona
-
I think it's cute how y'all are talking about capitalism as though it were a radio button in the "cultural configuration" menu. In at least one sense, capitalism is less a market style and more a brute fact--the inevitable force of self-interest operating in all markets. In that sense capitalism is never in danger, though its influence can be abetted or suppressed. There are other things that can be endangered by the ways we approach capitalism, though; China, for example, is rife with small-time corruption in part because of state policies that fail to properly account for capitalistic forces.
I won't speak for Dar, but that's one major reason I see freedom and capitalism as interconnected; individualistic notions of freedom are generally tied to self-interested action, which in turn are a foundational impetus of capitalism. In the extreme, then, capitalism really is about greed and selfishness, but that doesn't mean the opposite extreme of totalitarian market regulation is the better choice.
Whether a particular bank regulation or tax structure strikes the appropriate balance is where the political rubber meets the road. And honestly I think most people working on these problems recognize that and are striving to get it right, all the while recognizing that today's fix may well be tomorrow's unforgivable blunder.
But of course that's not the kind of talk that galvanizes the base; without apocalyptic prognostication, how the heck is anyone supposed to generate ad revenue?
-
Víctor Pérez
Other-Africa
-
Guys, check your facts. Capitalism is a specific pattern of relationship between economic agents in production; capitalism was absent until a few centuries ago and is widespread today, essentially unchallenged in the countries from which all the posters in this thread hail from.
Posts here seem to conflate everything from market distribution to fair pricing to perfect competition with capitalism. More specifically, there is the implication than in them good ol' days we had the good capitalism, and now people have grown greedy and we have bad capitalism because there are imperfections in competition. This is, I'm sorry to say, bullshit. It just happens to be a bullshit that has monopolized a field of study, Economics, and has been taken as the official narrative to justify social engineering in the last three decades, so it's oft-repeated and respectable and the proper thing to say in social situations. Underlying these ideas about capitalism is the picture of the economy drawn by neoclassical economists, based in pure speculation, such as the motto that educated self-interest in each individual maximises collective welfare, and that "perfect" competition always leads to maximum efficiency; no matter how appealing they may seem, these sort of assumptions so widespread in neoclassical economics are unsubstantiated. Which was OK when these were first put forward, as the complexities of collective behaviour were beyond what mathematical analysis could deal with when the marginal approach was developed in the 1860s, but is inexcusable today.
However, I find more interesting why these assumptions, although unjustified, sound reasonable. I guess it all comes down our (largely common) liberal culture framework. The orthodox economic view is after all strongly antisocial, academic, utilitarian, and property-oriented, and fits well with the rest of the lot. That is, after all, common sense: the imperceptible cultural background that permeates every one of our intellectual efforts, isn't it?
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
Alaren wrote: I think it's cute how y'all are talking about capitalism as though it were a radio button in the "cultural configuration" menu. In at least one sense, capitalism is less a market style and more a brute fact--the inevitable force of self-interest operating in all markets. In that sense capitalism is never in danger, though its influence can be abetted or suppressed. There are other things that can be endangered by the ways we approach capitalism, though; China, for example, is rife with small-time corruption in part because of state policies that fail to properly account for capitalistic forces.
I won't speak for Dar, but that's one major reason I see freedom and capitalism as interconnected; individualistic notions of freedom are generally tied to self-interested action, which in turn are a foundational impetus of capitalism. In the extreme, then, capitalism really is about greed and selfishness, but that doesn't mean the opposite extreme of totalitarian market regulation is the better choice.
Whether a particular bank regulation or tax structure strikes the appropriate balance is where the political rubber meets the road. And honestly I think most people working on these problems recognize that and are striving to get it right, all the while recognizing that today's fix may well be tomorrow's unforgivable blunder.
But of course that's not the kind of talk that galvanizes the base; without apocalyptic prognostication, how the heck is anyone supposed to generate ad revenue?
As usual your reply is well thought-out and eloquent.
I generally agree with your arguments about moderation, and disbelief at apocalyptic statements about the death of capitalism. It has been said many times before and capitalism has survived. But the same could be said of monarchy. That is where I disagree with you, for unless I misunderstand, you seem to think capitalism is "natural." If it was, it would have existed before the eighteenth century, when it was just a theory. Of course it feeds off some natural human tendencies. So does everything. After all, any idea, painting, or sport comes from man. It must appeal to man on some level.
I also don't see how capitalism leads inevitably to freedom. It seems to exist just fine in totalitarian states, both today and in the past. I do think capitalism is best in a free society that does not make money the ultimate measure of man.
-
|
|
