Stern.. I did forget to ask this, but also ran out of words.

Just listening to RN about the subservient capitalist machine, Google, bowing to the might of the Communist China in order to get a seat at the table in that Communist nation-state, in order to be part of 'the most successful nation on Earth' as it takes over and beats the Capitalist world.

So, what's going on Stern?

How come Capitalism has failed so utterly with its rampant consumerism, and now has to lean on Communism to get through?

How can this be 'the free market'?

Can you explain the symbiotic relationship between your Capitalism that you so adore, and the Communism that you so fear?

Something must have gone horribly wrong, I wonder what it was?

Because, as it stands at the moment, it looks as if Chinese Communism, funded, aided and abetted by western Capitalism, is actually lifting more people from 'poverty', in a shorter space of time, than Capitalism ever did.

So, while I have no desire to live in a 'Chinese' world, anymore than I want to live in a 'Texas' world, looked at objectively (well, with at least one eye closed), it seems to be not worth supporting your form of 'free markets' at all!

You and Mr Hume make much of the 'liberty' model being linked firmly to Capitalism, but there is no 'liberty' engaged in in China, is there? Yet they are making hay as fast as they can, while that Irish president O'Bama struggles as his/your model of Capitalism shrivels and dies (on taxpayer subsidies).

I don't understand.

TBC, Severin
The fact of government handouts to businesses, and that businesses scramble for them, and try to influence policy so as to get them, and that these are an unjust redistribution of wealth, means that these markets are, to that extent, not free. But that is not an argument against free markets; it's an argument against government handouts to businesses.

Peter Hume

Stern made the claim "I prefer to spend my time trying to work with “what is”".

Well. "what is" is that your precious free-trade is propped up by tax-payers (aka government)/ Therefore, for you, to be making whopping claims about its benefits for the majority is a whopping lie. It is not a separate issue, when it is very much a part of the equation.

Also, as TBC has pointed out Communism has done very well out of Capitalism. Hardly surprising when both are propped up by huge populations of people.

I can see where Stern gets his circular thinking from.

What is required is a balance, a sustainable for-all type balance. Yabby once referred to the entrepreneur being like the cave-man hunter. No cave-man worth his hide would kill more than he could eat within a reasonable time. Whereas, the Murdochs, the Packers and, yes, the Gates' pile up far more than they can ever practicably use. While they sit upon their steaming piles of wealth, people starve, sell their children, suicide or bully people even lower down the pyramid than themselves.

There is no more justification for unregulated capitalism than there is for communism. Both extremes are reprehensible.

*just because a few wealthy eccentrics make a fetish of appearing poor, and a few more are tight at fishes' a-holes*

Squeers, somebody actually wrote a book about all this, called
"The Millionaire next door" IIRC. What came out of the stats was
that it wasn't the show off with the fast car who actually had
money, but your small businessman, who had worked for 40 years and
drove a Ford or similar.

Its also something that I learned from business and investing in
companies. Those who flashed it around, were usually those who
never paid their bills and I refused to give them credit.

*I say people would actually be better off with a little more "time" and a little less "rush".*

Poirot, everyone has that choice, many do in fact take it up, its
why people like me can fool around on OLO :)

*maybe we should drive Sherman tanks?*

Squeers, for what? SUVs are quite safe. I use them as I need them
for the country, but I know of city people where safety is the
prime reason that they buy them. Not everyone wants a Volvo.

*If the government subsidises business, in particular big business that is "free market Capitalism"*

Severin, we don't have free market capitalism, we have a mix.
Govts buy off companies, as they want jobs for voters. A company
would be silly not to take their money.

*As with shareholders, only those with the greatest number of shares have any influence into company policy.*

So your single vote in a democracy is basically worthless? Those
with more shares do in fact have more say, they have more to lose.
But even with one share, I can sell it if I don't like the company's
policies, I can rally other shareholders to see my point of view. etc

Severin,

It's interesting that you raised Yabby's reference to cave-men. Thorstein Veblen links the origin of the notion of ownership in primitive communities to "booty" - something that was obtained in a successful raid, like stealing a woman or useful tools, etc.
Then, because of the communal nature of societies, the main comparison was between the new possessor of the goods and the enemy from whom the goods were taken, another communal group.
Veblen wrote: "The habit of distinguishing between the interests of the individual and those of the group to which he belongs is apparently a later growth." and "The man's prowess was still primarily the group's prowess, and the possessor of the booty felt himself to be primarily the keeper of the honour of his group."
In an evolutionary sense, possession of "booty" has now morphed into a comparison between the owner and the other members of his own group.

TBC Capitalism has failed no one.

What has happened is its purity has been debased by neo-socialists who have meddled with the regulations to drive a particularly odious social agenda.

the democrats in USA wanted to achieve social equality by forcing banks to lend to those of specific racial background, regardless of their default risk profile. This stuff is long standing and includes bit of legislation by Carter as well as Clinton.

So those, who had benefitted from “affirmative action” could also get loans because if conservative bankers did not achieve given racial lending ratios they would lose their banking licences.

However, the borrowers of dubious character had no intention of repaying debts and mortgages on houses which were subject to market forces (price goes up and down) and to make it worse, were excused liability due to the “jingle mail” laws – GWB happEned to be sat in the oval office when it hit the fan but the problem goes back to Clinton and before.

Similarly I recall the GM bailout was an essential for US Democratic politicians (left) but was resisted by the US Republicans (right).

So your claim, that capitalism needs communism is a deceit. If capitalist philosophy had been followed, from, the start

The US housing crisis would not have occurred.
The derivatives problem would not have occurred
The global financial crisis would not have occurred.

The short answer is simple,

Economically naive (stupid) social mind /socialist governments, instead of following the common sense rules of capitalism, bastardised the system with fraudulent, socialist leaning regulation and brought about the economic problems of which you speak.
Of course, the one in the biggest trouble at the moment is Greece, who cannot afford to pay the unemployable because it has run out of other-peoples money and needs more loans to stave off complete economic collapse.
Sure China is no bastion of democracy but China today is a lot better than the China of 40 years ago, when the democratically elected capitalist, Nixon made the first overture in dialogue with the Chinese Collectivist dictator, Mao