The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why capitalism is not the answer > Comments

Why capitalism is not the answer : Comments

By Liz Ross, published 3/12/2008

Capitalism: it's costing us the earth. 'You can either have capitalism or a habitable planet. One or the other, not both.'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
OMG not the "Workers Revolution" again.

Its quite unnerving to see that there are some Marxists still left in the world. The complete failure of that ideology appears to have left very little impact on some. In fact, totalitarian Communist states based upon such principles have been some of the most murderous and oppressive in history, Russia and China somehow just spring to mind.

Pollution is the temporary byproduct of technological progress. Yes, we all want a pollution free planet but it has nothing to do with defects in Capitalism which has allowed such things as the internet on which you are now expressing your anti-Capitalist views. Why do you think its taken so long for China and Russia to improve their peoples' living standards ? Socialism leads to a lack of individual motivation. Capitalism is one of the driving forces behind the development of pollution control devices.!

And that little quip about Iraq? This is clearly a thinly disguised anti-USA rant - yet again. I'm not sure whether you are naive or simply misled. In a Totalitarian regime which you apparently propose you would be jailed for dissent.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 8:52:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Err...Robert Newman is an engineer, not an environmental scientist...but Hey, when has actual truth been big with Marxists who are in the service of the great (and terrible) idea.

Oh, and Atman, Marxists are still very common in the western world, even in spite of the ideology being responsible for more deaths in a single century than any other belief system has managed in the history of humankind.

Elitist academics will believe anything so it seems.
Posted by Grey, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 9:00:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah “Up the workers”

And “Yes Right Up ‘em ”

“we march united to overthrow capitalism and establish a workers utopia here on earth”….

Blah-de-blah-blah

Tried, failed and don’t need to repeat the exercise.

Socialism, the sort of political environment where personal effort is rewarded with denigration by the party faithful and derided as the work of capitalist lacky’s, where the kulaks found their reward for effort to be death.

Just ask any person who enjoyed the opportunities benefits of living in the workers paradise of East Germany, kindly watched over by the Stasi.

If you want a comparison of the merits of socialism versus the horrors of capitalism

Start by comparing the US problem with the Great Lakes, the crisis of Three Mile Island and strip mining in the Appalachians ,

Then compare that to

Chernobyl
The Aral Sea
The effects of Oil and Cotton production demanded by the Breznehev government 5 year plan.

Then the suggestion “You can either have capitalism or a habitable planet. One or the other, not both.”
Must be interpreted as

But if we adopt the lies and false promises of Socialism and its natural consequence, Communism, the outcome will be a lot worse than suffering under Capitalism.

One thing is certain, the biggest single cause for environmental degradation is the number of humans on the planet.

Whilst the socialists run around pretending faux-compassion for the inherently incompetent and demanding we all suffer poverty equally, capitalism is researching and financing real, long term solutions.

Capitalism is a system which allows people to benefit directly from their own effort. Likewise it is a system which allows the indolent to be indolent and live with the consequences of their effort.

When governments run everything there are no checks or balances against their corruption and incompetence, no protection for the users of products and services and no impetus for invention or innovation, just the monotony of mediocre performance and empty shelves in shops.

Capitalism is not perfect but it is better than everything else ever tried.


"Socialist Alternative" is no alternative, just an opiate for idiots
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 9:31:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We’ve recently heard from the Socialist Alternative before, I think. Can’t remember the name, but he provided a photograph of himself in front of Ayers Rock wearing a Saints football scarf. Perhaps we are going to get an onslaught of them posing as the new Messiahs to help us out of our current problems ‘obviously’ caused by dreaded capitalism.

I have never heard of Robert Newman, but if he did make the silly statement claimed by this author, he definitely has a screw loose.
For starters, politicians are not our “rulers”. If we had politicians of the kind this socialist wants, yes, we would be under their thumbs. But, one of the beauties of our free enterprise, capitalist system is that we don’t have dictators like socialist systems do.

“…today’s ruling class…” How backward and naďve can she be! Even the Russians laugh at that stuff now.

“Capitalism divides society into two main classes, the ruling class (for example, factory owners, bankers, employers) and the working class”, parrots Liz Ross.

Rubbish Ms. Ross. Capitalism gives choice and opportunity to all. We can take advantage of that, or be content to idle along if we wish. Socialism is not equal. There are the self-indulgent commissars and their toadies, and the grey shapeless masses who have no say, no hope and no future.

I hope we never see the “next article” you threaten us with. The time for the rubbish you spruik is long gone; only the results it still linger on in some unfortunate countries.
Posted by Mr. Right, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 9:33:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
20th century Soviet Russia wasnt particularly capitalist and they did a very bad job of not plundering the earth. Their environmental standards were truely shocking.

Yes, capitalsim, in its present form (micromanaged, centralised, corrupted, social welfare state administered and driven, not free, not open, not level... all the stuff that one would expect from State), is highly problematic.

Why is it that these ideolgical lefty puff peices that have been infecting the media lately, not being read for what they are. The lefties dont seem to have any trouble looking thru right-wing pap, but they're blind to their own rhetorical romanticism. It would be more useful if they made some constructive criticisms and offered some alternatives.

Communism, or quasi-marxism or all encompassing socialism (you are coddled from craddle-to-grave) sugar-coated in whatever is not a solution. In fact one extreme or the other is the problem.

A middle way is the only way, which we sort of have now, but its various components are very prone to being skewed by the ideological extremes. l hope the world doesnt swing to the other extreme after a decade right wing governance.

Remember Animal Farm. The pigs took over in the name of the 'common' interest. They claimed to represent the common interest and fight the exploitative owners of capital. The pigs learnt to walk on their hind legs and ended thinking they were human. They DID NO WORK... they conned, harrassed, manipulated, bullied, abused, coerced and harried others to do the actual work.

All pigs are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Out with the capitalist pigs and in with the marxist ones, who are re-learning how to walk on their hind legs.

Same swine, different breed.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 9:46:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
there is no such thing as a pure system

take responses like marxism has been tried etc,i would hesitate to say it was a pure form [same with communism[democracy,they all are flawed,because the truth is none of em is pure]

take this'free maret'that yet needs huge income from govt welfare to the'free lunch'marketeers,or the succes of democratic voting when big brother dopsnt like the vote result[re palistein]

we are being treated to proof the free market is a delusion,one need only look at the regular'grants'to gm [or hallo-burr-ton]and hundreds of other CLEAR failures of capitalism [its only a buzz word; its a theory[read ideal]that isnt really that much ideal as it is a brand

the title is going to get a lot of response[defending a name]the truth is capitalism is a system that uses fiat currency to capitalise real economy into a finantial gain[regardless of the damage it is not needed to'pay'for]it works or falls purely on its numbers.

well the numbers are in[it failed]yet govt is lending more fiat currency from the fed reserve[plus placing the intrest burden[and the new global carbon tax]to underpin this capitalist socialised communism system,that big buisness is setting itself up in

we need to put value on what is,have exploiters PROVE the percentage gain is fully covered by a much higher reyturn to those paying, subsidising this free market,you need only look at'privatisations LIES

,how can a en-debited private company needing to repay its giveaway price make electricity[or transport[or water CHEAPER than a fully owned debt free public utility DOES

its pure delusion they can do a better job[for proffit]ie capitalisms capitalisation creates a debt that sends it all back to day one[debt]then cant afford to maintain it[result a govt [tax payer]buy back and capitralism claims it works[when its failures have cost us big time]

and in the end can only feed greed[while creating via its con-joined micro damages real collateral damage to the system it feeds off[just to repay the fiat ursury,an uneeded burdon]

,that underpins the boom and bust cycle[the COn-sumer pays for its capitilist subsidy into a run dry[rundown]mediocracy
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 9:55:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Capitalism as practiced today is responsible for the scale of degradation we see. Unbridled profit-seeking at the expense of the environment cannot continue forever so the article makes a good point, but the solution isn't as clear.

Hiss at lefties all you like but none of you have addressed the crux of the problem. It isn't a question of marxism or socialism or capitalism or any particular ism, it's how we preserve what we have.

In any case, for those who haven't noticed, unregulated capitalism has proven itself vulnerable to excess and manipulation. Perhaps "Why today's brand of capitalism is not an answer" is a better title for the article.
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 10:01:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Please don't save us, Ms. Ross:

If with capitalism we will not have the means to survive,
with socialism we will not have a reason to.

The issue with the planet's demise is materialism, or greed, and both capitalism and socialism are materialistic doctrines.

Now there is nothing wrong with this - greed is part of human nature, and human nature is part of nature. There are consequences of course, which is how we learn and evolve, among them rendering this planet uninhabitable, but there is nothing to worry about - nature will repair itself, and in the absence of the overbearing human race and its social-structures, new life will regenerate and new forms of life will emerge.

Being frugal out of coercion is not worth living.
Being wasteful as if there is no tomorrow - then indeed there is no tomorrow.
We need to learn to be frugal out of choice.

Once we are rich in spirit, we do not need material substitutes.

But, unlike the naive-idealistic approach, taking away the wealth of the poor in spirit, does not produce richness of spirit - instead, it produces people who are poor in both wealth and spirit.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 11:57:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we go again. Every time somebody criticises Capitalism, somebody else drags out the old Socialism bogey-man as some sort of justification.

The USSR dismantled itself because of rampant internal corruption (more billionaires per capita than any other country in the world – almost overnight), rising oil and grain prices and the notion that it’s future was to be part of a European Union – not because of some holy revelation that Capitalism was the way to go.
China however, is doing rather nicely at the moment – economically speaking - and may be one of the things that will “save” Capitalism from its own excesses in the short term.

Both systems are rely on monetarism which in turn relies on eternal and growing debt and both are inevitably dead-ends. Both systems rely of self-interest and the exercise of power and influence. Remember it was the Capitalist financial system that, for it’s own purposes, funded the Boshevik revolution and helped Mao take over in China, not to mention deliberately financing the rise of Hitler and most other dictatorships during the last century.

By definition, Capitalism must destroy that which makes itself possible. When there are no more resources or new markets left to exploit, it has nowhere left to go. It creates as much inequality as it claims to eliminate.

Now, to get out of the current debt crisis, the Banks are creating yet more debt to save themselves. How long can that cycle go on?

The only people who believe in never-ending growth in any system are economists and madmen and one of the biggest problems people have is their inability to grasp the concept and implications of exponential growth.

At the current rate of population growth for example, the world’s population at the end of this century will be 100 billion!

How will Capitalism (or any other current system) cope with that, economically or socially?

I don’t know what the next system will be but it sure won’t be free-market Capitalism and it probably won’t be very friendly to the individual.
Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 12:19:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, I think the names of the activities say it all.

Socialisism and Capitalism are both "isms". The last time I checked my dictionary, an ism is a doctrine (read: an opinion or arbitrary way of doing things) having the connotation of somehow being skewed, incomplete/piecemeal or fleeting in nature.

So, at best, an ism is only an approximate best way forward.
Posted by RobP, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 12:37:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz says:

"These goods that are produced, however, do not belong to the workers who have made them"

DUH...of course not Liz, because it wasn't THEIR money which paid for the:

-The land on which they are made
-The building/factory/office where they are made
-Raw Materials used to make them.
-The Capital equipment used in making them.
-The struggle to gain a foothold in a dog eat dog competitive world.

THEY didn't sacrifice their
-accumulated retirement savings..
-Long service leave...
-Every other cent they could lay their hands on to get a business going...

but I know "I" DID!

Many business exist because of a gamble of one person or a few partners who stood to lose EVerything.. as some do.

There is no division of labor as you state..there are:

Brave souls who have some self confidence and scrape together the wherewithall to make a product or provide a service, and then, offer employment to others who might desire to have an income along the pathway of building that business.

The only thing an employer owed his employees other than a fair wage for a job well done, is in my view..some kind of incentive to be more productive (bonus) and... some kind of reward for time served (Long Service leave)

Of course....IF the 'workers' as you describe them are willing to invest ALL of their own capital in the business, then they might legitimately expect a better return as shareholders.

Other than that.. come out of cloud cuckoo land and the mirage of socialist utopia which will never exist....and get with the real world.
Posted by Polycarp, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 1:42:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Capitalism divides society into two main classes, the ruling class (for example, factory owners, bankers, employers) and the working class.*

We have of course seen what the other option lands up being,
ie Govt officials with their snouts in the trough and peasants
doing what they are told, or else. I'd prefer to take a chance
with my freedom, thank you very much.

The thread title is of course mistaken, it should have been titled
"Why religion is not the answer". For we know that an ever increasing
population is the real problem, which nobody wants to address.

As Muslims and Catholics try to outbreed each other and hundreds of
millions of women in the third world are denied family planning,
no matter how sustainably we live in Australia, it won't friggin matter.

Adding 70 million a year to the global population, is not going
to make things more sustainable, or solutions any easier.

Capitalism has one amazing feature which indeed could cause it to
save our chances to live on the planet in the longer term. It
empowers individuals with talent and ability to help themselves and
come up with innovative solutions to complex and seemingly
unsolvable problems.

I have yet to see where any other system of Govt can achieve the
same. No wonder that most inventions, new ideas and progress come
from the West and not from North Korea or Cuba.

In short, give all women the right to family planning and let
people innovate to their abilities, then we perhaps have a future.
Anything else and we are doomed to failure.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 1:58:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, the only thing I would add to your excellent post concerns

"empowers individuals with talent and ability to help themselves and come up with innovative solutions to complex and seemingly unsolvable problems."

and it is

if you are not free to do that, what is the point in being alive in the first place?

May I compliment you on the most succinct and directly challenging summation to the merits of capitalism over every other social system ever imposed (willingly or unwillingly) on people.

Well done.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 3:07:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yabby wrote
>>..Capitalism has one amazing feature./..empowers individuals with talent and ability to help themselves../..innovative solutions to complex and seeminglyunsolvable problems...>>

i dispute the statement[you mean like microsoft stealing every inovation via reverse_engineering and blatent theft from poor inventers unable to get lawyers?

>>..I have yet to see where any other system of Govt can achieve the
same...<<

me too bro[but,are we are talking about names,or govt systems
arnt we a demon autocracy?[auto-crazy]

capitalists egsist under all sorts of govts[from dictators stealing their peoples wealth,to principelities[steaLING THEIR PEOPLES WEALTH[TO THE COMMUNIST BILLIONARES],to royalty and republics serving the same elite intrenched wealth intrests[ie all capitalists GOT their wealth[credit]from the customer.

..>>most inventions,new ideas and progress comefrom the West and not from North Korea or Cuba...<<

funny i been seeing it come from china[japan]and from people inventing.[countries dont invent much but tax and law,and ways to get the wealth via inflation,tax or subsidy from the people to their big buisness mates]

>>..In short,give all women the right to family planning..>>

on one level i could agree[but on the other i refuse to support it[your meaning let the poor not breed[and only the leeches on sociaty [that hold 95 percent of the globes wealth do as they chose?]

it is usual with not allowing others to breed,that they are expected to die on the job[and we wont get into the forced sterilisations,and deliberate govt policy to make the deemed poor infertile[via vacinations and hormones in our[and their]foods and waters in short the concept versis the reality[that there are many who believe in their own rights but stuff the rights of their lessors.

>>..letpeople innovate to their abilities,then we perhaps have a future.Anything else and we are doomed to failure...<<

im glad i can agree to that last bit,i would add that ideas be taken on their merrit[not some selective intelectualised theft process that is running rife in this;capital is king system of systemised credit availment to those percieved as bettors,who get mates rates and the poor dumb wage slob paying income tax on_wages[wage isnt income!
BUT GOVT AINT GOING TO TELL them THAT
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 4:07:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby and one under god,

There are at least two forms of capitalism: i.e., market capitalism or state capitalism. The former represents the free market and the latter government intervening to influence events to the suit the current wealthy. With market capitalism the wealthy through good decisions have the right to become wealthier or, with bad decsions, to loose their wealth.

State capitalism is when the State tries to maintain the "current" status quo and not allow markets work to determine who survives. Benito Mussolini was head of government, head of the party and "head of corporations".
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 4:28:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Capitalism or Communism.. it all boils down to greedy people.

Some greedy for money..others greedy for power. Most greedy for both.

Unrestrained capitalism bankrupts the environment.
Unrestrained Socialism bankrupts the State.

The best solution is neither one nor the other, but the appropriate mix of free will, social support and good environmental stewardship.

That best solution is achieved when we put our relationship with God as it should be. Only then will we "do for others as we want them to do for us"

Jesus said "No one enters the kingdom of God unless he be born again"
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 4 December 2008 7:31:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Communism = rich party members ripping off the masses (and environment) and influencing government

Capitalism = rich investors ripping off the masses (and environment) and influencing government.

Bugger all difference for the masses except that in a capitalist society there is a slim hope that you might be able to "make something" of yourself.

Actually, thinking about it there was probably just as much of a chance to "making it" in the USSR, just that you had to take a different path (KGB informant, etc). Both systems result in most people scratching out a living, whether hard-working or not.

Pure capitalism relies on a monetary pay-off, whereas pure communism relies on non-monetary pay-offs (the feeling of contributing to the greater good). The downfall of both systems is greed.

However, the title of the thread is flawed - Consumerism is not the answer.
Posted by Country Gal, Thursday, 4 December 2008 10:41:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good post Poly but the last line doesn't belong. If only you could let go of the sermonising...
Posted by bennie, Thursday, 4 December 2008 10:54:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polycarp, Country Gal
Human nature has it that is all about POWER everything else flows from that. One could argue that most ‘ism’s’ are about power the search for it, the gaining of and maintenance of it once gained.
The tragedy is that what ever high ideals that ‘isms’ start power will corrupt it. The 1st Lord of Acton quoined it “power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely” be it Socialism, Capitalism or Fundamentalism.

Yabby, Col Rouge,
I think you’re confusing capitalism with democracy. No ism has ever been tried uninhibited except derivatives and that didn’t end well.
You can have capitalism of sorts but not freedom i.e. China
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 4 December 2008 11:04:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz says:

"These goods that are produced, however, do not belong to the workers who have made them"

That thinking is exactly the same entitlement attitude that drives greedy quasi-capitalists who expect to get fat salaries and bonuses after they ran a business into the ground... ALL CARE and NO RESPONSIBILITY.

The current system is only capitalist in form, not in function. Its basically a huge ruse, a massive con that the central planners of goverment, treasury, reserve banks have worked beautifully to sell us the idea that we are free to interact on our own terms.

Also, capitalism doesnt necessarily eat itself, just b/c some people use scarce resources to capitalise the product of their minds. At core capitalism takes the product of mind and converts it into a tradeable claim. It can do it by projecting the product of mind (pure creation in its most essential and abstract form) onto the physical and the abstract.

For example, someone can write a story, some music, they can entertain or educate and exchange claims (eg. money) for it. In effect they are capitalising the product of their minds and giving spectators a piece of it, at a price.

This, imo, is the essential problem of the human condition, irrespective of the political model thru which its projected. The apparently basic drive to turn everything, including discourse itself, into a CLAIM and then using that to drive an EXCHANGE b/w parties has seemingly infected every aspect of society.

Argueably THE CLAIM and THE EXCHANGE are the very essence of society (it claims all of us as cogs in its machine and we claim it as dependent on ourselves) and thus cannot be overcome without threatening the beast.

Squabbling over whose claim to a 'better' political system is best or has greater utility or merit is very ironic, in a palbably deluded way, bereft of any real degree of self awarness.
Posted by trade215, Thursday, 4 December 2008 1:21:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Human nature has it that is all about POWER everything else flows from that. One could argue that most ‘ism’s’ are about power the search for it, the gaining of and maintenance of it once gained.
The tragedy is that what ever high ideals that ‘isms’ start power will corrupt it."

I think your explanation is very close, Examinator.

Most decent and successful human activities start out honestly, naturally and fairly sedately. After a while, once a majority of people start to see they're a success - "Success has many fathers but failure's an orphan" - a lot of baggage starts to accrete around the original idea until the weight of the baggage starts to throw the original idea off course.

Then, almost magically, the activity evolves to an "ism" as if giving a warning to decent people that the one-sided shonks are dominating. For example, I suspect that "capitalism" was not widely known, if at all, by that name when Adam Smith was around.
Posted by RobP, Thursday, 4 December 2008 1:25:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Why capitalism is not the answer"

Easy. You asked the wrong question.

If the question was "what is the perfect social structure?" then capitalism isn't the answer, but then what is? God knows socialism, fascism, and communism have all proved to be miserable failures.

The question is why?

Motivation is the main reason. If everyone was caring and sharing, and delighted in working for the common good, then socialism would be the perfect formula.

However, most work for themselves and pay taxes grudgingly.

So capitalism is an imperfect system for an imperfect society.

In the meanwilst Liz Ross and other well meaning dreamers will continue to blow hot air.
Posted by Democritus, Thursday, 4 December 2008 8:54:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Certainly an example of unbridled capitalism is what is wrong with the business world today.

A good thing gone wrong as certainly could happen with too much de-regulation.

As with Maynard Keyne's warning near the end of WW2, that the growing mental elation coupled with the wish to return again to the Roaring Twenties - Keynes giving it simply a warning, with a new term, casino capitalism.

Though Keynes died soon after, we certainly stayed under his spell till the late 1970s, when it was realised that the Keynesian centralised business watchkeeper role, was not allowing enough multi-billionaires in our world - even though the steadiness had lifted both Japan and West Germany well away from despair

So why our money handlers forgot Keynes and grew so reckless, goodness knows

YET AS THE ABOVE IS JUST SIMPLE BUSINESS PHILOSOPHY< GUESS IT MEANS NOTHING TO OUR MONEY MINDED MODERNEERS?
handled
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 4 December 2008 10:55:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Democritus,

Even the question "what is the perfect social structure?" would be a wrong question: it assumes that a social structure can be perfect.

While we obviously need some minimal social structure so that we don't step on each other's tows, a perfect society is not the answer!

"Socialism" is not just an economic system - it is a way of life that places social structure above all else. Besides the common-term referring to communist-style socialism, there is also the infamous "national socialism", as well as "capital-socialism" (as in China, for example), "religious-socialism" and probably others.

We all have aspirations for life, that often involve society to some degree or another, but we must remember that society is only a means for our happiness and fulfillment, not an end by itself.

We all also have existential fears, facing our inevitable death and the uncertainty of what lies beyond it. We have various ways of dealing with those fears, and socialists tend to avoid facing it by gathering and talking-talking-talking, having long meetings upon meetings, conferences upon conferences, coordinating, coordinating, coordinating, huddling together as if the finite sum of finite people has better prospects of standing the infinite.

Once we undestand, Democritus, that this is why they blow so much hot air, we can have more compassion for socialists.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 4 December 2008 11:26:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think there are some large capitalist corporations, such as car manufacturers, Banks and Child Care centres who are trying to Socialise their debts right now, and get the non-consuming taxpayer to bail them out.

They join the long line of "risk-taking success stories" who are continually propped up by the State.
Posted by wobbles, Friday, 5 December 2008 8:23:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we were to take away all the human beings, there would be no value to speak of in the earth. There is no inherent value in nature. No-one has a right to speak for values over and above human values. Anyone pretending to, merely presumes to speak from the position of God. In reality, they are merely speaking for their own values, nothing more.

If we look at a graph of human population over time, it rises sharply after the advent of modern capitalism, with its characteristic of mass production for the masses. In non-capitalist societies, what happened to the human lives that capitalism supported for the first time in history is, they died.

You seem to be assuming that, in the absence of capitalism, yours would be one of the lives continuing. But it is more than likely that, in the absence of capitalism, it wouldn’t be.

Not only has capitalism supported a greater number of human lives, but it has supported them at a much higher standard. The poorest of the poor in capitalist societies live lives of a quality that in many ways is higher than that of kings only a couple of hundred years ago, for example, in their access to electric power and light, motor transport, fresh foods from great distances, modern pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications.

Socialists spent the first hundred years after Marx complaining that capitalism grinds the faces of the poor and is sure to bring us all to the point of starvation. Now they have spent the next fifty years telling us we’re all going to die because capitalism provides a standard of living that’s too high. Make up your minds!
Posted by Diocletian, Friday, 5 December 2008 8:04:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wobbles “I think there are some large capitalist corporations, such as car manufacturers, Banks and Child Care centres who are trying to Socialise their debts right now, and get the non-consuming taxpayer to bail them out.

They join the long line of "risk-taking success stories" who are continually propped up by the State.”

And I can think of thousands of people, like me, who recognize the superiority of libertarian capitalism over all other economic models and are angry that our hard earned taxes are used to prop up failed individual entities.

Personally, I would not have spent a cent on bailing out child care centres. Banks do not need our taxes either and why are ford and GM and Chrysler suffering when Toyota nd Honda seem to be dealing with the market environment?

“risk taking success stories” do not seek government alms, only incompetents who deserve to fail.

Finally, remember it is WEALTH created and distributed as dividends, purchases and wages and TAXES which are paid by the successful "risk takers" of capitalism, which finance the work of government and make possible the bailout money which the current government is profligately squandering on failed businesses so they can buy votes.

Protecting failed businesses is an expediency which suits imagination-free, here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians, intent of maintaining the status-quo it is not the natural expectation nor the desire of 'capitalism' and is more 'socialist' in its origin, where government gets involved in running everything.

Margaret Thatcher spent half a decade dismantling the stagnant edifices of the UK’s previous socialist governments nationalized businesses, to stop them dragging the entire UK economy into the abyss .
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 6 December 2008 9:09:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
regardless of thatcher capitalism,that evolved into keating privatisation,then how_hard privatisation>feather bedding capitalism that saw the public service excess benifits paid up front,in full,into trust?funds]

we now have rudditecapitalism[noting the income his partner derived from the how_hard contracting labour/hire service]rudite capitalism is serving the same capitalised elites to reap the cream then expect govt to fix it when the milk left turns out to be menaline

we are getting some good returns on the topic,the why of capitalisms has evolved into which capitalistic system[im setting on liberal capitalism,but what does this mean?

we must allways allow idiots to risk their own money for gross personal gain[borrowed money should not be speculated[beyond what assets they are'willing'to risk loosing[ie pay up the bet]just what are they putting;'on the line'

so what ideas might serve a benificient capitalised syst-em to allow all to share the spoils equally[instead of getting govt money for failure,to'get it'by inovating]but proportuinate to their risk/return based on their specialised inputs.

im being vague because the vision im trying to write into words is only a fuzzy revelation[basiclly a form of personal credit based on our potential,our real worth/special skills or idea,or;invention even dare i say it based on our station

to explain a child has a natural credit based on its base potential[factored off his/her name country statis,locality and possability of return for their life skills investment]thus as a student of the arts they warrent certain credit for study[the best get'credit'for recording[the best of the best get credit to tour]the higher your personal skills/worth the higher the credit available.

the same with growing a product[more shall be given;based on your previous'return'[small succes is needed to get the credit for the next stage]in short the numbers reveal our true personal credit

ok its a confusing vision,but see how qualifying your skill realises the credit for the next stage[but each next stage is payed for by succes in the previous venture[be it a course or a buisness venture] only via succes shall more credit be given

ok now tell me what the ism's are of my concept[im calling it]ACcredit-ism
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 6 December 2008 11:31:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem that the socialist environmentalists seem to have is with the existence of human life and prosperity. Well I'm sure a dispensation of socialism should do much to fix that problem!

Anyone who claims to speak for nature is merely staking a claim as a human being to the use of particular natural resources as against other human beings.

For example, someone who wants land to be used to preserve native vegetation, instead of for growing food to supply to people who would otherwise starve, does not argue from a position of moral superiority just because they are defending the value of ‘the environment’.

Economic calculation comprehends anything exchanged against money. Things like natural beauty and futurity, so far as they are taken into consideration in the price, are a value in their own right over and above the money value. This means that, from the environmentalists point of view, they would be getting a bargain, and there is no excuse for them not solving the problems they allege by simply *buying* the resources they claim are under-valued. No need for force, no need for public ownership, just peaceful social co-operation.

The unevidenced assumption of fact underlying your argument is that the earth is facing an ecological catastrophe.

However Bjorn Lomborg, in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist, examines this. Lomborg was a card-carrying member of Greenpeace and an academic statistician, skilled in analyzing complex data sets. He gathers and critically analyses the best evidence in the world on all the topics of environmental concerns. He concludes that the evidence does not support the basic environmentalist assertion. We are not about to run out of natural resources. There is no ecological catastrophe staring us in the face. There have been enormous benefits to show for the use of resources so far. Much of the environmentalist claims have a basis in political vested interests, spoilt hypocrisy, and fashionable mass hysteria. Read it: get the facts and then decide.

You have not yet got to square one in suggesting that the problem is capitalism
Posted by Diocletian, Saturday, 6 December 2008 12:46:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diocletian, reckon any old cockie like myself has lost sleep worrying about clearing land not so much in the early days, but mostly after WW2, when it seemed the Age of Industrialism was beginning to backfire.

Breaking down the last of a thousand acre piece, though one felt industrious to now have sight of the local town, was glad to see mallee hens along with scrub turkeys and kangaroos and emus, able to escape down into a wooded salt-lake area.

Many more years later, now it seems industrial man is capable of cleaning out timber and scrub from the whole globe no problem - so small wonder when natural growth lives mostly on carbon, small wonder that we are now trying to put God-given growth all back again.

Reckon it could be done, but as Adam Smith declared long ago, without government control of human greed, nature has little chance.

Furthermore as Socrates said so much earlier, Nature is very capable of paying back, even though it was Socrates who also gave the declaration, Out with Gods, and in with the Good.

Makes one wonder what in blazes is really good and what is flamin' bad?

Cheers, BB, WA.
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 6 December 2008 6:15:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

I don't think the aftermath of Thatcherism can be hailed as a brilliant success.

When she left, Britain was a very divided society and had the highest poverty levels in Europe. Things aren't a lot better now and all their Public Assets are gone as well.
Posted by wobbles, Sunday, 7 December 2008 10:12:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is far-left communist capitalism and far-right neo-con capitalism (e.g. Hu Jintao’s China and George W Bush’s America respectively). Both depend on rampant consumerism to sustain their economic growth. I suspect people like Rudd and Obama have identified the best way forward is to adopt a middle of the road approach. They will never actually claim it to be socialism, but you will hear phrases like social conservatism. There is some truth in Col’s mantra, ‘socialism by stealth’. Leaders around the world are recognising that globalising the world economies are having unintended consequences – much like the flapping of a butterfly’s wing in Brazil can affect the soya bean share price on the FTSE.

Diocletian
Those with the capital resources will survive these unintended consequences reasonably well – I don’t think Lomberg disagrees. However, our natural resources are under intense pressure as the world’s population is projected to increase from 6.5 billion to 9 billion by 2050 under the current economic paradigm. While we can sustain this increase in the short term, we can’t sustain it in the long term. I would say biodiversity and the ecological footprint is being compromised by over capitalising our natural resources – have you ever wondered why sea-food is getting too expensive for lower income earners, or why certain species can’t be found in the shops anymore, or why some fishermen can’t compete anymore or have to travel farther to find their fish stocks?
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 7 December 2008 2:09:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy