Conservative British PM David Cameron claims to have a vision for “moral capitalism”. This new age of "responsible capitalism" would see corporate greed replaced with a more enjoyable form of popular capitalism. Under this new regime the excesses of the old ‘system’ would be replaced by a more equitable and fairer form of capitalism.
Cameron said “more people should have a stake in capitalism. I want these difficult economic times to achieve more than just paying down the deficit and encouraging growth. I want them to lead to a socially responsible and genuinely popular capitalism. One in which the power of the market and the obligations of responsibility come together. One in which we improve the market by making it fair as well as free, and in which many more people get a stake in the economy and share in the rewards of success."
The Labour Party leader Ed Millband said “There are companies that are too powerful and can take advantage… And government hasn't done enough to blunt their power, to say 'Enough is enough'.
As the conservatives rely the failures of unfettered capitalism they rush forward with calls of forgive us for our excesses and greed which has led to the economic suffering of innocent people. Behold, we have a new miracle cure for the ills that beset us, we call it “moral capitalism”. It’s the same old capitalist rubbished dressed up to fool the people once more. The cynic in me says the capitalists are trying to wriggle out of their obligations for the economic mess that they have created, while shifting the reasonability for the clean up onto the ordinary people in society.
Will Tony Abbott be able to bring Australia the benefits of this wonderful new moral capitalism when he wins the next election or will he preach the same old corporate line of the “ economic rationalist” he is. Will Julia Gillard hitch Labors buggy to the back of the capitalist wagon as labor loves to do.

Not much hope of the conservatives going that path, even less with abbott in front. You have far more chance for that from ALP than any of the others.

It makes me laugh when the today's leaders somehow think their hearts are more noble minded than the last couple of generations. Most today can't parent their children, keep a marriage vow or show any love to their kids by disciplining them. To think they want to lecture about morality is an absolute joke. Look at the lives of the current crop in Government and only the blind would deny how morally bereft today's generation is. State and Federal Labour have enough trouble keeping their representatives out of gaol.

Capitalism is the only workable system.
It rewards effort and effort comes from self interest, that is why it works.
Politicians words about MORAL CAPITALISM are not believable, yet.
After a global crash? maybe.

It rewards effort and effort comes from self interest, that is why it works.
Belly,
you're starting to regain the right track. All you got to do now is to tell the public service union to tell its members to start earning their money & conditions. Reduce their unfair share to give us our fair one.

Capitalism is a system that in terms of resources, destroys what makes it possible to exist in order to feed itself and must inevitably fail.
When there are no resources or no markets left to exploit, it's finished.

In a free market capitalist system you simply can't have a level playing field where everyone wins. To win, somebody must lose.

Self interest certainly works but at a significant cost and only for a short while.

While the USA for example with only 6% of the global population uses 36% of the planets resources yet still has significant poverty and social problems, I wonder how much longer it can continue in its present form.

Unfortunately any attempt to regulate that system is met with extreme resistance by very powerful self-interest groups, as can be seen by the anti-AGW campaign and all its similar predecessors.

No easy task for me such a thread.
I tread a different path, avoiding, as much as I can, individuals weird thoughts, that I have just started to form opinions.
Runners contribution,not sure,truly what does his comment want to contribute.
Rache, I under stand you, disagree but under stand, our author thinks as you do.
I once did, forgive the person I was as a youth.
Not for sins, not for commitment, but for not understanding.
Few of us do not want a better world, even less would not want criminal capitalism bought to justice.
Achievable change is extremely hard to get, minority's pushing minority views are not going to get it.
No system, even the far better than Communism but tainted by it and Nazi use, wrongly, of its name Socialism worked as well Capitalism.
I can put a list of failures of Capitalism that would go around the world twice, and not end.
But the lists from other ways would be longer.
We all want better for those in need, all know of Americas street people,shameful.
Self interest, dislike it hate it, but it is the driver behind every human being.
We have to, CONFRONT this those we help the most say on welfare, too often, leave self help behind , in fact help them selves to more they do not need, vote conservative and do not care about other than self.
Dreams will not change the truth any system has faults.

rache you are spot on. Pure capitalism can only operate in a totally unrestricted market. A market with absolutely no regulation or controls. In such a state there would be no place for organised labour or government legislation. Cycles of 'boom and bust' would be constant. Total exploitation of both labour and resources by the entrepreneur would be the cornerstone of society. Other than to maintain social order so exploitation could go on unhindered there would be little need for government.
The most ardent supporter of capitalism realizes such a system can not operate in the long term. That bastion of 'free enterprise' the USA still recognizers the need for organized labour and government controls while maintaining the authority of capital. Capitalism breeds inequality in society that is the nature of the beast.
I like that old protestant adage which labour has embraced for the past 130 years 'a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.' Who determines what is fair? If society was to totally embrace 'moral capitalism' you would end up with a socialist society, would you not?

If history shows us anything it is that you cannot get a "level playing field". Even in the most egalitarian-professing of socialist administrations or the most holy of theocracies you inevitably get a preferred class.

And while it may be true that the 6% US population uses 36% of world resources. It's worth remembering the point Rhian made on another thread: "the definition of 'economic resource', or indeed 'resource', is not fixed but changes depending on demand, technology, etc. Oil was not a resource at all until the nineteenth century, when people worked out how to use it for energy on a significant scale."
It is conceivable that many of those "resources" would not be seen as resources by communities who seem to be only in the business of making babies.

And the other side of the equation is, while the US may consume 36% of resources it also does most of the research and produces most of the break-throughs that lead to medicines to treat the other 94% ailments.And it produces the bulk of emergency food that goes to feed the other 94% when they have overstocked and degraded their turf.

SPQR I agree totally with that.
Lets lift the curtain on some victims of Capitalism country's.
Education Government and Religion combined, and controlling.
To such an extent progress is impossible.
And the view God will fix every thing stopping the activism self interest drives.
Rather than push the wheel barrow of a better brand of Capitalism, real improvement can only come with TOTAL SEPARATION of Church and state,that would be promising.
Take the Capital West away and we stop progress.
Humanity has not found its end point yet, we may take many more years to find a better way but pushing against public opinion gos no place.

Many on the Left like to blame all of the world's woes on the West and on the US in particular, but according to the Global Footprint Network (GFN), which has actually tried to do the math, the US is responsible for about 15% of the world's consumption, and the top billion people in the richest countries are collectively responsible for about 38% of the consumption. 62% of consumption therefore takes place in the poorer countries. The only way to completely avoid consumption is to be dead, and if there are enough people, it doesn't matter if the per capita figure is low. Here is a link to the GFN 2010 atlas. It is worth taking a look at the tables starting on p. 28 and the graphs showing the relationship between environmental footprint and rank on the UN Human Development Index starting on p. 21

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2010

It is clear that the level of consumption required to give people what we would consider a minimally decent quality of life is quite high. Even if the US cut its consumption in half it would make relatively little difference in global terms, and global population growth (currently adding about 80 million people a year) would soon erase any benefit.

Some forms of consumption are simply senseless waste that benefit very few people while needlessly trashing the environment, and capitalism does bear some responsibility for this, but I can see no reason for forcing ordinary people to lead crowded, joyless, regimented lives just so that we can cram in more of them.

Great points, Divergence!

http://www.smh.com.au/national/prolife-push-in-labors-ranks-20120121-1qbaq.html

Mind you, I'm pretty pessimistic about our species. You'd think
that educated people could somehow separate religion from reason
and at least those with a basic understanding of biology would
have an influence.

Given that in both Australia and the USA, there seems to be a trend
back to the days of the "holy zygote", in the world of politics,
I don't think we have much hope. Nature will have to sort it all
out the hard way, the way I see it.

Divergence I too like your post, and have always been from the left.
Just a smidgen that is, now.
I like the Australia we live in, its directions and care for those who can not care for them selves.
And yes America has its issues religion and some extremely bad Capitalism.
But without it?.
Ideal world, Capitalism, is not achievable, not yet.
Dreams that allow bad mouthing the country that fought 2 wars, along with Russia's victory in Europe, then rebuilt at its cost Europe twice is blind.
Some countrys entwine them selves in beliefs that prohibit growth and change progress and education.
The true left think in terms of a better world but in truth see only one sides problem.
The first heads to roll if the west falls will be the very lefts.

An example of 'Unfettered Capitalism' at work. The place King Leopold's II Belgium Congo from 1885 to 1908.
King Leopold had the famous African explorer Henry Morton Stanley secure land for him through land rights treaties which were to be “ brief as possible and must grant everything to Belgium”, Stanley secured 450 such agreements. King Leopold had a new country 76 times the size of his own. Leopold claimed he was going to “ civilize and uplift these indolent and corrupt peoples”. By 1884 Leopold had gained recognition for his new state of the Congo, he then quickly developed a military dictatorship in his new possession, forming the ‘Force Publique’.
What was abundant in the Congo was wild natural rubber, to which world demand was now escalating at a rapid pace. The native people had to be made compliant labour to gather this new commodity wild rubber. In Leopold’s Congo it was an offense to pay any African with money.
One method to get the natives to be part of this free market was to seize village women, keep them as hostages until the men brought in the required amount of rubber, which since monetary payment was outlawed for natives, payment for the rubber was in the form of a couple of goats or some such token.
Private companies operated in the Congo, joint ventures ensued between Belgian, British and Dutch firms. These businesses used prison stockades to keep hostages. If the men of the village resisted the demands for rubber it meant the death of their wife, child or chief. The ‘Force Publique’ supplied military might under contract and each company had its own mercenaries. Profit were huge, for example The Anglo-Belgian India Rubber and Exploration Company was able in one year to return a profit of 700% on investment. Between 1885 and 1908, there were between five and eight million native deaths as a direct result of Leopold's capitalist state of the Belgian Congo.
Of cause this all happened in the dim distant past private companies don't operate like that today, lets talk about West Papua, no.

Paul,

Unfortunately, the concepts of exploiting other people and killing other people to take their resources were invented long before anyone ever heard of capitalism. See any archaeology textbook. King Leopold was one of the great mass murderers of the 20th century, but he was well behind Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin, who weren't motivated by capitalist greed.

Bad behaviour in poor countries by corporations that have their headquarters or operate in Australia should be treated in much the same way that we treat child sex tourism by Australians, but you need to remember that Papua New Guinea, etc. are independent countries, unlike the Belgian Congo under King Leopold. The corporations are only able to exploit the local people if the local elites are willing to betray them.

Folk on the Left obsess about the guilt of the West but never mention the bad choices of the poor people or the guilt of their elites. This is because many of them see the poor people and their leaders as childlike little brown brothers, not as fellow adults who have made some bad choices. After all, no one expects a child to reliably plan for the future, forego a present reward for some greater future benefit, or consider the rights or welfare of anyone but himself.

Divergence, The present situation in West Papua holds striking similarities to the Congo of 1900. Foreign power Indonesia, military dictatorship, a valuable commodity copper, very profitable private corporations with private militia, 100,000 indigenous deaths in the last 50 years. Total exploitation of the local people. Recognition by foreign powers of Indonesians sovereignty over West Papua, only the time and location have changed.
Given the right conditions pure capitalism will always lead to total exploitation. The capitalist will never grant benefits to those he exploits, other than those benefits needed to maintain the exploited at a suitable level to maximize profits, unless forced to do so.

Paul,

You are obviously right about what is going on in West Papua, but you haven't established that the Indonesians are behaving badly because they are capitalists or in league with capitalists, or because they are people and they can. Would they necessarily be behaving any better if Indonesia was a feudal society (think of the Crusaders in Palestine) or a Communist state (think of the Chinese in Tibet)?

Does anyone honestly think that the capitalist has a moral conscience? Given the right conditions the capitalist will exploit to maximize profits, the bottom line is all that is important. Why do very profitable banks in Australia exploit people in the third world, purely to maximize profits. How do multinationals act when given a free hand to operate in the poorest of countries, they do what they can to maximize profits.
On a small scale the Howard government introduced legislation to increase the capitalist power to exploit and many took advantage of work choices laws to do just that. as far as capitalists are concerned there is no 'new age of enlightenment' there is only the power of those they exploit that prevents total exploitation.

*Does anyone honestly think that the capitalist has a moral conscience?*

Its an interesting question, Paul. If you take a closer look
you will in fact find that America's richest two people, Bill
Gates and Warren Buffett, are giving away their riches to
charity. America is in fact littered with philanthropic
foundations, doing the same. Take a look at a bloke like
Ted Turner, the founder of CNN. He too gave away billions.

So whilst corporations are paper entities, their job is to
run efficient and profitable businesses, the eventual
owners of that wealth, based on the evidence, do in fact
have a moral conscience as they can't take it with them.

Who benefits? The poor in Africa and other places where
Gates and Co invest their money, to eradicate polio and
similar projects.

Paul, as is the case in many from the true left, wants more, better.
And in all probability is a decent person.
Such views however, a better Capitalism, or even something better are just a dream.
One that over looks so much that is good in our existing system.
We in this country at least in part fund welfare education health care public transport.
We fund national defense and fire and flood relief and protection.
The list is too long for 5 posts.
We saw trials of other systems, every other proved worse, enslaving people.
We all are in part Capitalists, we change jobs if wages are low , invest in superannuation buy a home.
Self interest as has been said will drive the most of us forever.
In finding fault with that, first look at the faults in other systems.

Yabby, You refer to Bill Gates and co, I have to agree, the individual can have a 'moral conscience' even if they head up a huge corporation. My interpretation of 'the capitalist' is a bit more abstract. In fact their acts of giving is down right communistic. However the capitalist when wearing his corporation hat must act differently, he must act as a capitalist acts, huge corporation are beyond the control of the individual and must answer to share holders who expect to see profits and profits can only be obtained by exploration.
Belly you refer to we in this country fund public transport etc. None of that has been obtained through capitalism but rather through the social collective, which robs capital to provide these social benefits, is it not? Pure capitalism will never spontaneously provide public this or public that. You seem to intemperate the benefits of our mixed society as being down to capitalism. The big thing that capitalism provides and socialism can not, or at best very poorly, is the entrepreneurial skills needed to bring resources and labour together, the need to maximize profits drives innovation, but it does not provide a 'free lunch' and never will. The entrepreneur will be present in any society it is a genuine skill that all societies need.

The way is a constructed mix of capitalist and socialist. Some things are best owned by federal, to be subsidized and kept at a reasonable cost. Some people buck the system, and prefer private schools, which doesn't help, But when it comes to public transport they prefer it to be subsidized.

*huge corporation are beyond the control of the individual and must answer to share holders who expect to see profits and profits can only be obtained by exploration.*

Paul, I assume that you meant exploitation rather then exploration.
That is of course not the case. The best way to make profits, is
by cutting waste and by giving your customers a better deal, for
then they will come back again and again and not bother going to the
competition down the road.

Indeed corporations have to answer to shareholders and cannot do
with the money, whatever they want. If your bank took money from
your account and gave it to charity, would be you be happy with that?
If not, then why expect other corporations do it with shareholders
money? But of course shareholders, being the owners, are free to
give away as much as they like. So I think you confuse the role
of the corporation. If directors started giving away shareholders
money, they could go to jail, as far as I am aware.

Yabby,your assumption was correct, In the capitalist model, if owners capital was given away then it would no longer be capitalism, it would be some kind of socialism as owners expect reward for risk. If Bill G stood up at a shareholders meeting an announced Microsoft had made 10 trill profit this year and he had, in a philanthropic gesture, given it all away to noble causes and the shareholder gave Bill 3 cheers for his actions then there would be no problem, but I hark back to the reward for risk factor, so no matter how much Bill may like to do so, the capitalist model does not allow for that kind of action, there are constraints which must be met. Free market competition is good for the consumer, but bad for the capitalist as it diminished profits, it drives down margins and that is counterproductive for the capitalist so to increase profits in the face of competition the capitalist has to be innovative and innovation costs, it will force the capitalist to look for cost savings within and without, like cutting waste etc to drive up profits. From the capitalists point of view the best business is a monopoly. Imagine if there was only one oil company in the world which had an unfettered monopoly, with total control of supply and price, given demand as it is for such a company the sky's the limit. There would be no innovation, no great cost control, no looking for new ways to maximise profits, profits would maximise themselves. I don't think anyone at a shareholders meeting even yells out "Can't you do something to bring down the price." Why would they?

The reason Ben sends that..*newly created money/credit..
(which lowers the worth of the money..you have in your pocket)

[or your retirment fund has invested in]..

is to keep buying back all those fraudulent mortgage-backed securities..Wall Street suckered the Europeans into buying.
http://www.tngovwatch.org/gentlemen-start-your-printing-presses/

Now they are demanding..either refunds or jail for the crooks,
and Bernanke is perfectly willing..to crash the dollar..through over-printing to keep his buddies out of prison.

other capitalist sins
[enron evidence 'destroyed''..in 911 buildings]
[primary insurer...immediatly paid off
so underwriters had to pay off too]

double
as two policies were issued..
[both..for that specific event]

the two billion asbestos removal couldnt be insured[at any price]
so big money...'pulls the building'

heck pay day
plus so much more

judaica And 911 Part I

http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/judaica-and-911-part-i/
Rabbi Dov Zakheim was President of SPC International..in the 1990s and Comptroller of the Pentagon..on September 10,2001..

when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld..announced that 2.3 trillion dollars in DOD money..had gone missing...[one day [prior 911]

There..*was a COMEX vault..containing gold
and silver bullion..in the basement..
four levels down at WTC Tower 4.

A billion dollars..in gold and silver..went missing
from the COMEX on 9-10-2001...

Jim Willie PhD told us that the Treasury Department..in the 1990s sold 2.2 trillion dollars more..in Treasury bonds..than were required to finance the debt.

The evidence for this theft..of 2.2 trillion dollars was in the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald..at One World Trade Center on 9-11-2001.

All the evidence
was conveniently vaporized.

like this next
[latest scam...wind power]
http://toryaardvark.com/2011/11/17/14000-abandoned-wind-turbines-in-the-usa/

and the greenie's hide ya head in shame
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394945/The-green-killer-Scores-protected-golden-eagles-dying-colliding-wind-turbines.html

your no better selling out
to the green capitalist..taking bribes..[the green govt cash subsidy grab]

ohh an 'davos'
capitalisms godheads]..is meting
http://www.wariscrime.com/2012/01/24/news/davos-2012-from-capitalism-to-fascism/

storm clouds
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Warning_Signs_That_We_Should_Prepare_For_The_Worst/17462/0/38/38/Y/M.html

more govt cash to capitalists
germanic 100 billion euro's
to harnass the sun[solar]..lol
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0%2C1518%2C809439%2C00.html

how about the HUGE tam,ill-flue govt *subsidy
to big dass/capital
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120118101540.htm

that other cloud
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/department-of-justice-misdirection-on.html

capitalists
love free work enforcement
[werk macht frei?]
http://www.presstv.com/usdetail/222854.html

war...loves capitalists
http://www.examiner.com/nonpartisan-in-national/us-war-law-explained-arrest-us-war-criminals-before-they-do-iran
indeed usa..capitalist/enimies dont really egsist
http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2012/01/washingtons-enemy-doesnt-exist-former-cia-officer/

20%..is nowhere near the 90%
a bomb needs[just excuse to loot plunder and kill

the CAPITAL-list thrill
[see the dead's
name,..is capitalised][DEAd]

corp...[is short for corpse]
it has no life of its own
corpse-oration[corpe-ration]
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/24/kucinich-corporations-can-legally-buy-elections/

govt is a capita-list...dead voters really do vote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKqPuPDQtiA

couldnt find the post/link
i was looking for..rummy romnie
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/23/1057689/-Mitt-Romneys-Bain-Capital-earned-$342-million-by-bankrupting-a-company-and-firing-850-Floridians

thats what capitalism does
destry a viable living planet
to sell off the spoil for fiat cents on the dollar

the greed

overcomes all other need

*Can't you do something to bring down the price." Why would they?*

No different to you Paul,not pleading with your boss to pay you
less. Both you are capitalism are driven by human self interest.

So both you and capitalism need competition to keep you honest.