All my life I have looked for a word to describe how I felt about Capitalism.
No I am not a communist, totally and forever opposed to them.
Once a Socialist, but understand it can never work.
Happy with the form of part Socialism we have under both our types of government.
But it seems I always thought capitalism could never work for every one, every country.
If each country is a shop front relying on selling its products to the other shops surely we under stand big brand country's will put little brand ones out of business?
Capitalism may well be the best way, I like owning my own home, being paid for effort, can not think of a better way.
But it may be best if we all do, unchained greed has cost the world economy enough money to feed ALL the worlds poor.
House the worlds homeless and the change maybe cure cancer.
Talk that this crisis will last 2 more years is at best optimistic, surely we are out of new investors to pay yesterdays losses?
All those years trying to find a word that spoke about capitalism, it was delivered by todays events Ponzi scheme a perfect description , for me at least.

Belly,

Everything that works as a hierarchy in this world is some form Ponzi scheme, including unionism.

Remember the old union adage of "last in, first off". Guess what? That's a Ponzi scheme. The guys who were there first, get to stay and reap the benefits, while those who came in last are the first to get laid off when things get tough.

If you want to get rid of Ponzi schemes, you need to get rid of hierarchies.

Belly,
That's about right Ponzi is as good as any other term. Like you I have real concerns about absolutism/ fixed dogma of anything simply because people don't come in neat packages.
To me any ideology that has fixed ideals and fixed motivations (dogma) it’s badly flawed. In practical terms it is so corrupted by abuses of power it is as described a con (confidence) job (ref. the current economic crisis).
Statistically it will meet all the needs of a very few people (which capitalism does)
1/3(+or-) 2/3 will be ok but 1/3 well.... (Be they here in Aus or world wide)

For that reason I claim to be an unofficial Secular Humanist we've even got an 'organization'. If you're feeling thoughtful or just need help to sleep Google humanist or rationalist (they're different).
NB. To the Conservatives reading this Humanists are NOT re-badged Socialists or anything like them.

Unknowingly I've been one all my life...’people before profits’. Yet I am suspicious of Socialism, Communism or Capitalism if only that they never existed in their pure form (albeit flawed) for the above reasons.

PS (off topic)Saw Christopher Pyne last night on TV his power base isn't that strong (religious end).
I still think he's more show than substance....more money...for the rich was one of his claims. His philosophy is everyone should drink from the public trough regardless if they need it or not. Not to each their needs (humanist)... he's a big end ideologue.

Dear Belly,

Capitalism a Ponzi scheme?

Yes.

Like the classic Ponzi scheme, capitalism needs
a steady and ever-increasing supply of new
investors, or it collapses. There's been no
shortage of those in recent genrations as we
expanded from local economies to the global
capitalism we have today. But eventually, the
expansion has to stop...

"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go
on forever in a finite world is either a madman
or an economist." Kenneth Boulding, economist.

RobP.
"You need to get rid of hierarchies"
Why? they're not unique to Ponzi.
I always thought the money flow was Fifo rather than Lifo but that is irrelevant.
In fact Ponzi uniquemess is in their magic puding concept.

Foxy
Good call.

examinator,

The way I see it, when you're talking about a LIFO scheme you're talking about a club mentality. You have those insiders who can do no wrong (and consequently get the lion share of the benefits just for thinking the right way and for being there from the start) and then you've got the rest who are seen as possible invaders and only get the crumbs off the table. The people at the bottom are always feeding those at the top (who can easily have the attitude of "be mean and keep them keen").

This club mentality I trace back to hierarchies and the way they are used to keep others at bay and in their place. It's the root cause of the divisions in society, and all the iniquities that go with it, in my view.

Foxy, Examinator & RobP

Agree with all your points.

Question is how do we change the culture of hierarchy to a more lateral one?

Are there signs of change now? Such as Obama placing limits on renumeration for CEO's in businesses requesting bail-outs?

If a society can be judged by how well (or not) it treats its most vulnerable members, can a organisation be judged by how it treats its lowest paid? Is this still hierarchical? Or acknowledgment that without the coal-face workers what does constitute a truly competitive business - the salaries of its executives?

Wouldn't it be interesting if employees really were seen as valuable resources and competition extended to keeping employees and CEO's were judged on low employee turnover and high moral?

I don't believe that the problem is capitalism, the problem is
human nature. Some people want more and more. Just look out
at how many rush out to buy lottery tickets.

Under capitalism its quite possible to decide that one has
enough, is content with the world etc. That does not seem
to be common human nature.

Think about it Belly. Remember when you were not so happy
about losing 100 Grand on your house value, as you could
have used the money to buy a 4wd and go fishing around
Australia? Yet you seem quite content with your life.

Capitalism cannot be blamed for that, human nature can.

Fractelle,

"Question is how do we change the culture of hierarchy to a more lateral one?"

That's the $64 million question. I know Peter Shergold, the former head of the Australian Public Service, was talking about making the bureaucracy less hierarchical and more team-based. What actually came out of it I don't know.

I think the true solution is to move to what has been called the flat-earth model. It's where opportunity for all starts to replace vested and sectional interests and where individuals are empowered to make decisions that are in their best interests. However, this is a long and slow process and would probably take a century or more to play out if it started now. But every so often something happens that triggers more empowerment in/for people. One thing I can think of is the internet. Instead of people necessarily going to the doctor for a health diagnosis, they can instead diagnose themselves. This may save them money for mild complaints. It will also start changing the dynamics of society and the way it operates.

Are you sure you are talking about capitalism Belly? I am more concerned with the struggle between feudalism and egalitarianism. The property market is a good example of this struggle, with government severely restricting the rights of landholders to develop their land, then opaquely using those rights for the financial gain of themselves and their friends. This sort of abuse gets exposed fairly regularly, and has resulted in dismissals of councils.

I think that regulation has a place, but an abuse of regulation has created the housing affordability crisis. It is the antithesis of capitalism.

Yabby

"I don't believe that the problem is capitalism, the problem is
human nature. Some people want more and more. Just look out
at how many rush out to buy lottery tickets."

Why do people want more and more though, Yabby? You say human nature. I say it's because we're all fed the line every day that we need this or that, or we should update to this or try that new brand or product or whatever. I don't think we'd be wanting more and more at all, if it weren't for the aggressive advertising that Capitalism depends on.

I'm not arguing for the overthrow of Capitalism, but there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that needs to promote disatisfaction in order to perpetuate itself. Climate change is forcing us to realise that we can't keep growing forever, as pointed out by Foxy. There's something flawed about a system that requires endless consumption to provide employment for all. Not that Capitalism even pretends to try and provide jobs for everyone anymore.

I agree, Belly, the deregulated, free market Capitalism of the last few decades is indeed a Ponzi Scheme. It doesn't have to be that way though. The Capitalism of the post war years, for example, was much more measured and egalitarian than the free-for-all of today. There mightn't have been the vast increases in wealth we've seen in recent times, but the increases that were there were more evenly spread. And life satisfaction and social cohesion was arguably much greater than it is today as a result.

Fractelle, RobP
I see your point I guess it's the term that bother me. In any large society there has to be some form of hierarchy somebody has to act as spokesperson make the discission, given that a nation wide poll on every issue would be impractical.
There has to be a leader(s).
A society that had no hierarchy at all would be one that couldn’t function either administratively or societally. People are different in abilities, skills and drives.

RobP you are right in that we don’t have adequate control mechanisms to ensure equality in its many forms and the inhibitors are unchecked power and its abuses. As a consequence we also lack fraternity and liberty. (viva la guillotine?)

The problem is indeed human nature Just in case your history is lacking equality, fraternity, liberty were the slogan during and after the French revolution. I think they had the right goals but not ability to manage l human nature (collective human propensity not the group….then again…have you heard their early stuff? Viva la guillotine now? :-) ). The problem with all political structures is that they never able to adequately unavoidable corruption of human intervention. (guillotine… now?)
The trick is to set up parameters to manage it. As it stands today the system not only permits the more base side of our nature it encourages it.
The extreme at one end want no control and likewise the other extreme wants too much both would/have been disastrous.
Personally I favour regulations that direct and manage to specifically avoid either side gaining supremacy particularly in your power abusive ‘hierarchical’ sense.
And no la guillotine either. :-(

*I don't think we'd be wanting more and more at all, if it weren't for the aggressive advertising that Capitalism depends on*

Bronwyn, look in history, people have always wanted more. Do you
think that the Spanish plundered the Incas and stole their gold,
because of advertising? Clearly not and that is my point.

The businessman, who wants to make a killing, has been around for
eons. The pretty girl, who wants to marry a rich guy, existed
long before advertising too.

Somehow this is deeply engrained in our genes, back from our
hunter-gatherer days, which is after all, only about 500 generations
back, when we lived in caves.

Status matters to a lot of people, so in effect they are competing
with others. Envy seems to be what it is all about for many.

Capitalism enables peoples to do well if they wish and a great many
people want to be rich. That seems to have always been the case,
long before advertising came along.

Quite a lot to address, yabby nothing in the world is not affected by human nature.
Capitalism in its existing form is a problem human nature or not.
With no doubt I think to the extent he can Obama will put rules in place that improves capitalism.
Greed drove us to this day, how many of us knew it must come?
My post history is full of threads I started or entered to talk about the unsuitability of world spending.
While we can talk about restrictions to house building, it is not the problem.
It is a problem but not even close to the future we must face.
Yes I am unconcerned about the loss on my house price, in all honesty I should have sold.
Been some place on a beach rod in hand, but my home was bought for those in my family who will live here long after I am gone.
Ponzi scheme yes, if today my super fund, every Australian super fund, took all my shares and turned mine and every ones investments into cash?
Shares dive maybe more than our worst nightmares, we have, truly, not yet felt the full force of this crisis.
We must take this event as reason to do better, the wasted cash reminds me of how much better our hospitals could be.
Some of the truly greedy, few unfortunately, are now the true needy, more will join them before its over.

Yabby
"I don't believe that the problem is capitalism, the problem is
human nature."
In any system, the values from its top class, elit, soon or later become the values from the whole society.
In our ages the mass media play the main role on the creation of the public opinion, on the promosion of the ideas that the benefits from capitalists are benefits for the whole society, that every one can be a capitalist.
The mass media have controled from few hard capitalists who do everything to convince us that the lie is truth, the black is white, the bad is good, the Iraq is full of weapons of mass dstraction, and chemicals, al queda and ...
From the other hand the mass media and a huge number of various organizations do not tell us the very basics, who creates the wealth, why we have to privatize a profitable state organization, why the taxpayers have to give billion of dollars to the golden croocks, why 18 billion of American taxpayer's money went for the bonus of the managers when this money was for the creation of new jobs?
We lost billions of dollars of cause the smoking but for many years no one said us the truth, the capitalists have plenty power to press the politicians.
The environment destroyed because the oil companies gave plenty power to buy the politicians.
We left the golden croucks to destroy the international financial system because we was not enough strong to control them, because in really they control us.
Capitalism is not what we think, ask the majority of the people to tell you how happy they are.
It is an other story if they have no other choice as the main political parties are pulled from capitalists.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

"Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth.
Communism is the equal distribution of poverty."

Both systems ultimately fail due to internal corruption, abuse and changing circumstances and both have inherent shortcomings.

The only certainty is that ultimately, people suffer.

The last two posts may have got far away from the threads intent.
It never was to compare capitalism to any thing else, however I will do so now.
Communism, once thought to be the answer for the poor ,workers, in fact the world, it killed more workers and poor than maybe even Nazi Germany did, both are of no use to humanity.
Socialism was a better idea hijacked by communism, it was never anything but a true enemy of communism.
Many today still cling to Socialism, even I want to keep our current system of part Socialism we have under Liberal or Labor governments.
I however am not blind, Socialism can not work on its own, reward for effort is a reason humanity moves forward.
Capitalism not working in its present form, as said above it is the best we have yet it has lead right to what many thought it must, the world financial crisis.
Those who think I a unionist and worker till death betray my ideals must take of the dark glasses, it is time for both capitalism and my movements including the ALP to move into the future leaving yesterdays failures behind.

RobP, Examinator

Humans need some form of structure - I agree, but it can be a structure that values all members rather than just a tiny elite.

Rob - I agree with your timelines - it was only just over one hundred years ago we were putting children down coal mines. Attitudes can change, we are not fixed in concrete. In fact I'd go so far to say that it is human nature to adapt. So there is hope.

On the topic of consumerism - much would change if products were actually made to last or upgrade. When my windows OS was too old to be supported, rather than buy the latest I switched systems to Linux/Ubuntu. We can reduce the cycle of buy/discard/buy. However what is required is a change of philosophy vis-a-vis increasing profits to steady profit. Maybe the outrage caused by Pacific Industries moving a successful manufacturing business overseas will be a case of the pendulum swinging too far.

No single "ism" is the ideal. We need a balance of what works best. A government which provides infrastructure and regulates the excess of private industry. And we need private industry for innovation, real competition, and provision of the products and services that are beyond simple necessities like water or power (utilities should remain government controlled).

In conclusion, capitalism as it stands today - unsustainable - has become a Ponzi scheme.

BTW an example of a fairly lateral playing field is the internet itself, eg OLO - while there are those who believe themselves to be superior they are regularly put in their place by others.

Antonios

Are you talking about capitalism or parasitism? There is the hard work, innovation and industry that creates the wealth. Then there is the abusive control of peoples rights that sees the wealth sucked from them. The example I gave is housing affordability, where a basic dwelling could be available for less than $50, 000, but for the corruption of planning and development regulations. The inflation of asset values through the abusive regulation of markets is what attracts people to Ponzi schemes in the first instance, and also what makes the crash more violent.

Fester
I mean the parasitism of the capitalism which is the leading part of the capitalism, I mean all the golden boys and the organozations they control.
I agree absolutatly with you about the dweling prices, I do not know what means =Ponzi scheme= my Englis are poor.
I mean the very =smart= capitalist who create a big, very big ballon and they full up it with hot, compresed air and they sell it for gold, I mean the sick, dirty, parasitic, paranoic capitalism which create huge problems not only to ordinary people but to good capitalists who create, produce values and improve our lifes.
New conservatives, extreme right governments, put on the top of the pyramid the crouck,parasite capitalists.
You know, from the Bush's stimulus pack, 18 billion dollars wasted for managers bonus and private airplains.
It is a crime the poor taxpayers to give money for the economy, to open new jobs and the parasites, who have extremely high income, to steal from the stimulus pack
FOR ME THE GOLDEN BOYS ARE THE REAL, THE WORST TERROSTS AND THIEFS AND THEY HAD TO BE IN PRISON.
Do you know how hard the people will sufer of cause them?
Do you know what social and political problems the capitalist croucks will create to the whole world?
NO I AM NOT WITH THE CROUCKS!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Fractelle,

I agree that a balance is what is required to overcome a lot of the problems associated with capitalism. And, once the balance has been found, it's important that it be maintained so as to obviate the need for the bumps and rollercoaster rides that have been experienced in the last hundred or so years.

But the consequence will probably be that if people get lazy again and go back to the old ways of doing things, no one will bother to knock them into line. They will just be dropped off the pack.

RobP

"But the consequence will probably be that if people get lazy again and go back to the old ways of doing things, no one will bother to knock them into line. They will just be dropped off the pack."

Not sure exactly what you're meaning when you talk of people getting lazy again and going 'back to the old ways of doing things'. Are you referring to a return to the eight-hour day, or maybe an end to countless hours of unpaid overtime, or maybe a time when people had a life apart from work? If so, you've lost me.

Or are you referring to the laziness of people who attempt to profit through speculation rather than an honest day's work? If so, but I doubt it, I would heartily agree with you.

It's not laziness we need to be concerned about, it's greed. I agree with you and Fractelle and others who've called for a measured and balanced approach to managing Capitalism, but even if we are able to achieve this ideal, how long will it be before greed again brings us all undone?

Capitalism would work well if we were all prepared to live a modestly comfortable life and work to ensure that all other members of society could do the same. It's the greed of people who want more than their fair share and the mantra of 'greed is good' and 'more is better' that ends up creating a system where a privileged few prosper and the rest struggle.

No, I don't worry about laziness. I'm much more worried about greed.

Bronwyn,

As a general comment, I was talking about the individual laziness that leads to things not being done or maintained properly.

From what I've seen, it's not just greed that's the problem, although that's centre stage at the moment. There are also people who have caused problems for themselves and others by not pulling their weight in the past.

My point was that if they ever decide to go back to that way of living their life, I doubt they will be cut any slack. The caravan will move on as it were.

I wasn't suggesting the laziness epithet applies to you BTW.

AS I understand your heart, but am unable to understand the differences in your posts, even in this thread.
Those criminals who bought about this crisis are a by product of capitalism.
We have always had them, communism had them Socialism did too, part of the problem but not the problem
Hunger and true poverty drove me as a child first to communism then socialism, both drove me back to reality.
Capitalism rebuilt Europe after both world wars.
It rebuilt and refashioned Japan, China while not yet ideal is better for its capitalism.
A better way, still trading much like todays capitalism will come, but it too will suffer on the rocks of greed and theft.
Think quietly with me of workchoices, it harmed the weakest, the already poor and our kids.
It was made to reduce costs of wages to raise profits.
Yet 1800 jobs go over seas so wages can double for bosses.
some thing is wrong.
But blind hate of capitalism must first show a truly better way.

This has been a truly constructive series of posts and I find little with which I can really disagree. My problem is in trying to figure out exactly how we, in this country at least, can prevent our governments from pursuing the same goals of perpetual growth yet again; how we can ensure they do not allow our environment to be unsustainably exploited both locally and, as far as they can, globally; how we can ensure they take meaningful steps to distribute our wealth more equitably among all.

Our major parties are very much the lackeys of big business and seem to be voted in time after time by a basically apathetic populace.

Any thoughts?

Belly you have right about me.
There is a huge difference between capitalists from sector to sector, from country to country from time to time.
Also there is a huge diference between political parties left and right or even for the same political parties from country to country from time to time.
I am a left, non communist, mainly I am against the conservatives and some times against the labors too.
The labor parties (they are member in the Socialist International, as the socialist and social-democratic parties) but generaly the labor parties from the agglosaxon world are the most conservative.
I vote you because I have no other choice but when I have the opportunity to punch you I do it.
Generaly I am not happy with you but the other are much worst.
Personaly I am with the ordinary people, with workers, migrants, women, retired people, children, producers, creators, small, middle level industry, science and technology
I am not with banks, mass media, monopolies, olygarchs, multinational companies and with any one with low social and human sensitivities.
I try to put my self in the middle, some times I try to pull people to come where I am and some times I try to push people to go forward.
You have right my steps are not fix but my direction is very clear, at least for me!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Kulu

"Our major parties are very much the lackeys of big business and seem to be voted in time after time by a basically apathetic populace."

By having what we almost have now - enough independents in the senate who can veto at best or modify any legislature which is not in the best interest of all Australians. Big business will discover that the free ride is over.

RobP I am in agreement with Bronwyn that greed is at the core of our problems. Majority of people are not lazy - or this world wouldn't function as well as it does; for example we take it for granted that when we turn on a power switch energy is available.

Unfettered capitalism has failed - a result of this is a wonderful opportunity to create a foundation for a balanced system.

I remain optimistic.

*No, I don't worry about laziness. I'm much more worried about greed.*

I guess that is debatable, as both as people acting in their self
interest.

So I have a question for you :)

Bill Gates, world's richest man, was he greedy to invent Windows
and become the world's richest man?

If you think that he was greedy, why is he a problem and those
who contribute nothing, are lazy and want others to pay their
bills, not a problem?

Fractelle,

What you and Bronwyn say about laziness vs greed is correct when looking in the here and now. However, when looking at the really big picture, what is happening in the economic world today is no more than a final restoration of parity given that in much earlier times these aspects were much different or reversed. In other words, what we're seeing now is just a completion of the cycle in the effort and reward-for-effort dimensions.

I agree though that greed in the economy is at crisis point at the current time. How to solve it though?

Kulu,

Some thoughts.

Seeing as though regulation has been tried before, revisiting the same legislation probably won't work. We can let companies like Pacific Dunlop go offshore, but ensure all taxpayer assistance is severed. Then start supporting the fledgling companies that take their place. This would be a good time for industry diversification.

Overall, the best way to get a flatter, fairer and more equitable arrangement is to make the economy as diverse as possible so we have many strings to our bow. That is, when one industry isn't doing so well due to the inevitable ups and downs of the business cycle, another is bringing home the bacon.

The key to getting rid of the bumps is to remove obstacles so as to increase opportunities and participation for individuals and smaller businesses (the analogy I'd use here is the mathematical concept of the Fourier Series, where a large number of waveforms of different frequencies can be added together to make a flat platform - think of the platform in this case as a steady national GDP/production/output/profit). This would either mean breaking down big companies into smaller units or forcing the bigger companies to move offshore or to some other place so they don't compete with, and ultimately destroy, small and medium-sized businesses. It would also mean Government not monstering the "atoms" that make up the economy as well.

Microsoft loses court case - and $521m
12 Aug 2003 A federal court in Chicago has ruled that Microsoft must pay $521m to a web technology company and the University of California after finding that the software giant's Internet Explorer infringed on their patents.
http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,10005549,00.htm

1 Nov 2002 The case against Microsoft had been brought by the US Justice Department as well as 18 states and Washington D.C.
Half the states joined the Justice Department's settlement, but nine continued with the lawsuit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/652150.stm

September 17, 2007
European Union court rejects Microsoft's appeal in historic case
The European Union's Court of First Instance handed Microsoft a major defeat on Monday, slapping down the software maker's appeal in three significant areas of the historic antitrust case brought by the European Commission.

21 Apr 2006
Court rules Microsoft, Autodesk must pay $US133m
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A Michigan man on Wednesday was awarded $US133 million by a Texas jury in a patent dispute against Microsoft and Autodesk, a spokeswoman for Microsoft said.
http://www.crn.com.au/News/31832,court-rules-microsoft-autodesk-must-pay-us133m.aspx

19 May 2006 Symantec sues Microsoft over storage tech
Symantec has launched a suit charging Microsoft with misappropriating its intellectual property and with violating a licence related to data storage technology.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Symantec-sues-Microsoft-over-storage-tech/0,130061733,139257109,00.htm?feed=pt_court

28/01/2009 Microsoft Faces Friendly Court at Home, but Not So Much in EU
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/dunn/microsoft-faces-friendly-court-at-home-but-not-so-much-in-eu/?cs=30115

Yabby do not worry Bill Gate will not go in prison,
THE PRISON IS FOR THE GIRL WHO STEAL A CHOCKOLATE!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

RobP

I am looking at the big picture - greed has driven most of human excess throughout history.

I think perhaps you are confusing apathy with laziness. Apathy which occurs when people feel powerless to do anything.

However, this is semantics.

How to motivate people to do anything - well keeping on about the excesses displayed by big business such as Pacific Industries? WellA single letter to an MP is the equivalent of 10 phone calls.

Instead of telling people like Bronwyn and I that our opinions are flawed you could start a petition. I'll even provide a link:

http://www.gopetition.com.au/

Good Luck

Good try, Fractelle. I've already got my own ideas, thanks, that I write to MPs about. I either put my efforts into things I think I can win on or those I feel most strongly about. This one falls into neither category for me.

BTW, where did I say that your opinions were flawed? They're just right half the time!

*Yabby do not worry Bill Gate will not go in prison,*

Well lets us hope not, for I will tell you a little story
about how things were, about 15 years ago.

A company called Apple had a virtual complete monopoly on
PCs, as they had an easy to use system. But you had to pay
their price, buy their gear and their accesories.

Along came Bill Gates, he released Windows 3 and I bought
a copy for 49.95. Now any PC could be bought and used with
ease. Next he released MS Office, which was a third of the
price of any competitor and did a better job.

Using Windows 3, by 1995 I was on the internet, at huge
expense, as a company called Telstra had the monopoly on
phone lines. They were Govt owned, but they charged up
to 9$ an hour for internet access. Today, with all those
"greedy" competitors to Telstra, I pay 50 bucks a month
for 30 times the speed.

Hundreds of millions agree with me, or they would not
have bought computers with MS as the operating system.

Would the world be a better place, if Bill Gates had
never released Windows 3 and made his fortune? I don't think
so.

I frankly don't care about his motives, but I do think that
credit where credit is due. It was not a Fractelle or a
Bronwyn who had the intelligence and business sense to
allow me to use a cost effective computer and go online
in 1995.

If he was greedy or not, I really don't care, although now
he seems to be giving his money away.

He certainly changed the way I operate in the world and
he did it very cost effectively. Why should I think that
he is evil?

Yabby
Do you mean if MS did not use its position for the OS in the market to drive its competitors out from the market, if MS allow the free competision, today we could be worst?
Do you support the free competision or not, IF you support the free competision then you should know that MS violated it many times.
You said where we are today of cause the MS but you did tell
WHERE WE COULD BE UNDER FREE COMPETISION, IF MS DID NOT BLOCK ITS COMPETITORS.
Every one must respect basic rules for a fair system, but MS according to many courts, did not
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Yabby,

Good points.

However, would it be reasonable if I came up with a far better system than Windows, sold it for a fraction of the price until I put Microsoft and my other competitors out of business and then jacked-up my price substantially?

Also, it's not competition that reduced the cost of telecommunications, it's technology.

Back in the Windows 3 era, digital transmission was in its infancy and analogue was horrendously expensive.

Now its far cheaper, they are all squeezing the maximum profit out of each byte, to the satisfaction of their shareholders.

For example, it costs Telcos absolutely nothing to provide the SMS service (it's carried by existing data streams) yet it's treated like some sort of bank fee and they all charge for it.

Now it's competition that's keeping the cost of telecommunications artificially high.

I have a few ideas about a new capitalism, thats the best we can hope for, a better way.
Theft of large amounts of money should always mean prison, and loss of ALL asset's bought with that money.
I am talking of cooperate crimes, and no matter who owns those asset's bought with the money it should be taken.
Investors and share holders set wages at the top, a cap must be put in place.
All borrowed funds must be backed by asset's that are sold if not paid.
We can never take reward for effort away, its the back bone of our progress.
AS have you ever looked at how much Bill Gates gives to charity?

I have a few ideas about capitalism also. Like seeing people rewarded for their efforts. Like seeing living standards advanced through technological innovation and the maintenance of fair markets. And not allowing the rights of people to be controlled in the name of the public interest, then have those rights abusively administered for the financial gain of administrators and their friends: I think that the failures of capitalism stem from this last point, and extreme examples are The Phillipines, Albania, and the administration of land development in Australia.

Antonios, I think its pretty safe to say that without MS, there
would not be a PC industry and an internet as we know it.

Alot of Microsoft's disputes have been about browers, which they
give away for free. Their email programmes, they give away for
free. Why on earth should I complain?

You are free to use an Apple OS, or Linux if you wish. In those
days there was no competition. It cost a fortune to buy Apple.

Thank you Bill Gates from me and if he got rich in the process,
good luck. As it happens, now that money is benefitting the poor
in Africa etc, as he is the world's largest philanthropist.

Rache, when Frank Blount ran Telstra, it was a lazy Govt monopoly,
which screwed its customers for all they were worth. Those phone
lines were already there. Unlike electricity, it cost Telstra no
more for me to be online. My US friends were online for 10% of the
cost of what I was paying.

The difference was that I lived in the country, wheras in the cities
they had the first ISPs set up as competition. So Telstra could
screw me for all they wanted. I wrote to my local MP, but at that
stage he did not know what the internet was :)

Eventually I had to hire another phone line half way to the nearest
large town and by double jumping two local call distances, I managed
to join a new ISP, who had exactly 10 customers to start with.

Meantime this beloved Govt owned company, was fat and lazy, its
staff were fat and lazy and its attitude stank. Long live
some competition to get people who work for Governments off their
friggin butts. Lazy can be worse then greedy.

Yabby
When I lived in Mile End I paid $49 per month for high speed connection , unlimited downloads.
I moved to Ingle Farm, but I can not have DSL OR DSL2, my connection to internet is dial up, about $22.00 per month plus about $25.00 or more to phone to telstra for the connection to internet.
With DSL you can use the line for the internet and phone at the same time but with dial up I need an extra line for the phone, now I have to pay much more money for worst services!
Telstra could upgrade its installation for DSL,DSL2 but why to do that when with the old one, with worst services they earn more money?
Do not you know that state or private monopolists behave with the same way?
I do not live in a remote area but close to salisbery and Adelaide.
Do you understand Yabby? This is the real telstra today, FAT AND LAZY!
Hundrends of thousands of Australians knows very well about it.
It is seemed that you do not care very what happened to the next door.
As consumers we could be in much better contision if MS respects and follows the rules.
=competition, not questionable patent and trade secret claims, drives innovation and creates greater consumer value"
http://www.linux.com/feature/119242
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

*Do you understand Yabby? This is the real telstra today, FAT AND LAZY!*

Ah, but you should have been here 15 years ago lol. What you see
today is higly efficient and cheap, compared to what Telstra used
to be !

Internet access today in Australia is an absolute bargain, compared
to what it used to cost. I have a crook phone line, so I went
onto mobile internet. That let me dump 1 phone line, no more dial
up costs, 10 times the speed as what I had.

Anyone can build new phone lines today, or build mobile towers
if they wish. Closer to cities, there are plans even much cheaper
then mine. I pay 50$ a month for 1 gig.

Govts make the rules, if they think that MS is not being competitive,
they can fine them. I personally can't see the issue, for they
give their media player away for nothing as well. But then right
now MS has been outsmarted by Google, once again consumers are
laughing all the way. Why should I care if the Google owners
make billions or are perhaps greedy ? I love my google bar lol, all
free.

In terms of value for money, where I get screwed most is in the
services that Govts provide, as of course they have their monopolies.

Lazy public servants cost me far more then innovative companies,
providing ever cheaper consumer goods. We little people benefit
from all that competition.

Fester again and again in this thread I have said we must retain reward for effort.
Your fixation on the right to develop land is surely a flea on the back of todays problems with capitalism.
Yes councils are often useless, more often criminal, mine is both, including ALP Representatives.
But that is greed a real driver of capitalism, it is also slothfulness, by voters who let it happen.
Not just this crisis but stretching years back, billions have been lost or stolen, and nothing really is done.
Wealth creation is shouted from the roof top but without change investing is gambling.
capitalism needs rules, not chains but rules.

<Fester again and again in this thread I have said we must retain reward for effort.>

My comment was an opinion. It was not directed at anyone.

<Your fixation on the right to develop land is surely a flea on the back of todays problems with capitalism."

Given that a home is the main asset for most Australians, I would hardly regard the property market an insignificant component of capitalism. Having prices significantly higher than would exist under free market conditions has a very significant impact on first home buyers.

<Yes councils are often useless, more often criminal, mine is both, including ALP Representatives. But that is greed a real driver of capitalism, it is also slothfulness, by voters who let it happen. Not just this crisis but stretching years back, billions have been lost or stolen, and nothing really is done. Wealth creation is shouted from the roof top but without change investing is gambling.
capitalism needs rules, not chains but rules.>

My only difference here is that I see greed as a destroyer of the public trust upon which capitalism is founded. The greedy scheme dreamed up, be it stapled securities (fixed liability shares ) or obscure land administration, ultimately undermines that trust.

RobP

I agree we should let companies like Pacific Dunlop go offshore and I agree we should encourage diversification and all that. But how? We can't do it by allowing governments to pick and chose who or what industries they wish to back - they cannot be relied on to pick correctly (without undue influence being exerted by lobbyist with money to spare) or in the best interests of the country.

I think we need to bring back some forms of import tariff protection or other protective barriers rather than providing selective subsidies to various industries. I don't belief we achieved the wealth we did by having an unfettered free market. I believe we achieved it because we were prepared to exploit to the max our non renewable resources and conduct a sort of agricultural mining that has left much of our arable land pretty much degraded. ie we did it by consuming our natural capital.

Fractelle

I don't think writing to your MP or multi-page petitions or voting for someone in a major party who you believe to have the same values as yourself works. Been there, done that...mind you on environmental issues. Look at the continued logging of old growth forests which I understand 85% of Australians were against. Look at Peter Garrett former head of the ACF (Australian Conservation Foundation).

As Dmitry Orlov a former Russian American writer notes "In the Soviet Union they forbid you from expressing dissenting opinions, in the West they simply ignore you."

Of course the exception might be if you petition about a local issue in a marginal seat around about election time. Then of course your chances of getting at least a promise out of the government are good

kulu,

I think restoring trade barriers is definitely the wrong way to go. I noticed an article by Peter Hartcher today in the SMH, that pointed out some of the positives emerging from the global financial turmoil. In it, he mentioned the recent trade deal Australia reached with ASEAN. This, to me, is exactly the sort the thing we should be trying to do - creating new economic links with other parts of the world which are mutually beneficial.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/things-are-looking-up-in-this-topsyturvy-world-20090302-8mcf.html

Another thing we can do is to start exporting our expertise to the rest of the world (read: whoever we can get a comprehensive trade deal with). I actually think the deal with ASEAN is likely to be a good one for us for a number of reasons: the Asians are industrious; they are on the cusp of an upswing and thus hungry to better themselves; they are weaker than us which means we won't get to hold the rotten end of the stick; and it gives Australia more trade flexibility (ie more export destinations to smooth out our economic fortunes). It's also good for them because they will have better opportunities than they have had in the past.

I believe we need to go forward - cautiously, if necessary - and make new inroads economically, not go backwards.

Greed will always be with us, and it will always lead us to trouble like that we find ourselves in now.
Houses have been treated as an asset , a way of increasing wealth, not a home.
Greed drove the price rises and in my view not shortage of homes.
America sold too many homes to people who could not pay for them, mostly they remain empty.
If a shortage exists surely they would not be empty.
Free trade, not barriers is our best plan, if we lock products out our trading partners will too.
Not sure that Asian nations are on the up right now, just maybe they are going to go down before returning to growth.
We, all of us should take a breath, look back 18 months, compare that to last nights propping up of AIG.
Consider what happens if they fall?
our Ponzi scheme seems the best life boat we have but it increasingly is showing holes we never expected.

RobP and Belly

The global financial collapse isn't the only crisis we're dealing with. We also have to combat global warming and climate change and somehow deal with the reality of peak oil.

Trading produce long distances all over the globe is ultimately unsustainable. The fuel used and the carbon emitted to transport products, that in many cases can be grown and produced locally, is both unnecessarily wasteful and environmentally damaging.

It's easy to argue that globalized trade is the answer to our economic woes, It might be, but it's coming at a huge cost and one that will catch up with us all, sooner rather than later.

Some trade with closer Asian countries is possibly a reasonable option, but things like importing fruit from Europe and the US for example, purely so we can have year round access, is something that needs to be reconsidered.

I agree, no-one wants to go backwards, but in the long run that's exactly where the free trade agenda is taking us.

*The fuel used and the carbon emitted to transport products, that in many cases can be grown and produced locally, is both unnecessarily wasteful and environmentally damaging. *

All is sometimes not what it seems to be, Bronwyn. I once read a
report which showed that it required less energy to grow a leg
of lamb in New Zealand and ship it to Britain, then it did to
produce it in Britain. Reason being that those British animals
are intensively farmed and need protection from snow etc, wheras
NZ sheep just eat pasture.

Sea freight anyhow, is an extremely efficient way of moving cargo,
that is why rates are so low.

Next, it is virtually impossible to prioritise what is important
or less important. People fly on holidays, is that really required?
So what gets priority, fruit or holidays?

Expensive energy, which is where we are heading, will soon show
up high energy systems and make those products accordingly more
expensive, so reducing demand.

No point worrying too much about global warming whilst nobody
worries about an extra 80 million humans a year being added to
the global population.

Bronwyn

"I agree, no-one wants to go backwards, but in the long run that's exactly where the free trade agenda is taking us."

There's no reason why Australia can't in future be part of a research effort to perfect technologies like carbon capture & storage, renewable energy and making industries less emissions-intensive and export those as part of a free-trade package. What it will probably take is an acid rain scare in a populated part of the world to make authorities realise that this kind of research must be done and then carried through to an application.

So, in other words, why can't free trade go hand in hand with scientifically-based mitigation strategies and applications? Aren't we smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time?

A Ponzi Scheme implies that no wealth is created. Clearly this is not the case for capitalism. Surely there are better analogies? As a simple example, you could consider capitalism a wheel that is turned by human effort, and greed the brake: Too much greed and the wheel stops.

Yabby

"Sea freight anyhow, is an extremely efficient way of moving cargo, that is why rates are so low."

Rates might be low as you say, but the cost to the planet and to human health is anything but.

Shipping is responsible for about twice the emissions of carbon dioxide as aviation.

Particles emitted by ships burning bunker fuel, which to date is still the overwhelming majority of them, contain soot that researchers say captures heat when it settles on ice and could be accelerating the melting of the polar ice caps.

Health experts say the particulates worsen respiratory illnesses, cardiopulmonary disorders and lung cancers, particularly among people who live near heavy shipping traffic.

Ship engines also produce large quantities of nitrogen, which contribute to the formation of algal blooms at sea, which in turn use up oxygen when they decompose and create so-called marine dead zones in heavily trafficked waters.

“The sheer volume of pollutants from shipping has grown exponentially along with the growth of our economies and of global trade,” said Achim Steiner, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Program.

James J. Corbett, an associate professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware, is the co-author of a study published in December, 2007, that attributed 60,000 cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deaths each year globally to shipping emissions and forecast an increase to nearly 85,000 deaths by 2012 under current trends.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/business/worldbusiness/26shipping.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=worldbusiness

Enormous amounts of bunker fuel are consumed each year by the world fleet of cargo and commercial vessels as well as military ones. 2004 estimates give figures of around 290 million tons, 80% of which was heavy fuel oil.

http://www.gronkemi.nu/skepp_eng.html

"No point worrying too much about global warming whilst nobody worries about an extra 80 million humans a year being added to the global population."

What a cop out. We have to worry about both and you know it.

Trade is far more than it seems world trade gives us a reason not to make war on one another.
It opens us to new ideas and drives progress.
Yes we have problems with oil and over population.
We must not overlook it is the current system that drives change.
If world trade stops just what will hold us together?
Surely some of us, fear the answer to this crisis imposed on us will be war?
It has been in the past in such times.
While Ponzi scheme may not suit some I think the greed, crime, and carelessness behind our present problem makes a good fit.
Oil? if our system is not going to fall, we will find a replacement, we probably would have long ago if greed and self interest had no roll in the search.

*Shipping is responsible for about twice the emissions of carbon dioxide as aviation. *

Err so what? Compare it tonne for tonne of cargo moved and
shipping wins hands down, by an enormous margin. A huge amount
of cargo is moved by ship, compared to air.

Yup, ships burn bunker oil, which is the way that refineries get
rid of their rubbish. That is a refining or cost problem, not
a shipping problem. Those engines run great on clean fuel too.

*Ship engines also produce large quantities of nitrogen, which contribute to the formation of algal blooms at sea *

Bronwyn, I think you will find that algae or phytoplankton are
part of the food chain eaten by zooplankton, which are eaten
by fish. In many parts of the ocean there are no fish, as there
is no food. Dead zones usually occur close to land, close to
large human populations, where run off and human waste are dumped
into oceans.

*What a cop out. We have to worry about both and you know it.*

Nope, for me its common sense. Life is more then a feelgood
exercise. If we are going to make changes, they are going to
have to have visible results, more then just making people feel
a bit better about themselves.

Progress. What is progress? Is what we have experienced in the years preceding the financial crisis in Australia progress? I don't think so. Or if it is then it has a very narrow focus i.e. the increase of material wealth.

Progress of this sort has lead, in the already well off nations to a regression in social cohesion, overcrowding in cities that are getting ever bigger and bigger and lots of other adverse effects. It has degraded the environment both on a local level and on a global scale. Material growth has become an obsession with both our governments and of course all forms of business.

Unfettered free trade (and I don't advocate the opposite) is all very nice if the goal is more material wealth and greater economic efficiency (maybe). But it can cause major disruptions to established economies (eg Chile, Argentina, Uruguay in the seventies) and prevents some countries from ever breaking out of their poverty ruts. And the extent of global trade has been made possible because environmental externalities have not been costed in.

One thing is for sure the world cannot sustain for much longer the sort of material economic progress we have been having. The current free trade dogma needs to be tempered by a considered approach to what best in each circumstance needs to be done to improve well being NOT just what is most likely to help us consume more.

I think capitalism is a Ponzi scheme as it allows as to convert our stores of natural wealth to consumption. When those resources one by one run out the Ponzi scheme will be exposed.

RobP

"So, in other words, why can't free trade go hand in hand with scientifically-based mitigation strategies and applications? Aren't we smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time?"

I'm not arguing for an end to world trade. Like Kulu, I'm pointing out the costs and the unsustainability of globalised free trade as it's been practiced in the last decade or so.

Yes, I agree, we could and should be exporting alternative energy expertise and technology. If the Howard Government had supported renewable energy as it should have done, we'd now be well-placed to do so. Instead, we're still exporting coal and uranium and exaccerbating both global warming and world insecurity in doing so.

Trade has its place and, as pointed out by Belly, can lead to improved relations between nations. Unfettered trade, however, creates winners and losers and fails to uniformly increase the wealth of all participants as it's claimed to.

Third world farmers, for example, who once subsisted from their land but who've now been driven to specialise for export, are frequently left unable to feed themselves when prices collapse or pests or adverse weather destroy their harvest. Suicide rates among these farmers are high and on the increase.

We have to become a lot smarter and a lot fairer in the way we trade. Trade, purely for trade's sake, will always create as many problems as it solves.

kulu and Bronwyn,

Fair arguments, both.

There is definitely a trade-off in everything people and nations do. I think the best thing is to improve trade relations with nations that have historically gone without in the past, while the Western economies concentrate more on quality rather than quantity.

We do live in a finite-sized world and there is a limit to which we can collectively go before aspects of our society start to creak and groan and finally collapse. Hopefully nations and societies can arrest this decline in time.

My idea of progress is different to that stated here.
I speak of improvements in medical treatment, food , so very many things we say are good that are driven by profit not good Wil.
India once taxed to harvest its own salt, existing for England's profit, is trading its way to much better life for its people.
If trade is not a tool for less war what is?
The average length of our lives is a result of a way of life supported by capitalism.
Yet yes we must change the rules, stop the rot or we all go down.
We do not have free world trade, it is a dream that never will be ours.
Self interest and greed stops it.
America stops it.
This crisis truly challenges each of us, how long will it last? how bad will it get? are we even near the bottom?
What ever the answer we have to ask how did it get this bad? and so quickly?

RobP,

You mentioned carbon capture and storage as a possible technology to deal with CO2 emissions. I doubt it very much indeed. Read the excellent article on this forum by John Harborne, "Clean coal is not what it seems to be". He is a climate change skeptic but he certainly seems to know his stuff on "clean? coal?".

I don't think technology is likely to play a very big part in bringing about a world that doesn't overuse its natural resources, even with renewable energy. With some notable exceptions, such as computers, genetic engineering, and nano-technology our increasing consumption is of material things, the manufacture and use of which leaves a relatively large ecological footprint.

All this so-called infrastructure expenditure designed to save us from economic collapse is pushing us instead to an earlier environmental collapse. Did you know for instance that the manufacture of a tonne of cement results in the release of about a tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere?

The whole thing is a bit of a Catch 22.