Is Capitalism Doomed? How to Fix It?

[jem]

I was just setting the facts straight. It strikes me as odd whenever a Democrat acts like democrats a fiscally responsible.

Democrats as a strategy attempt to give away money to expand their voting base.

They have destroyed almost all the major cities on the east coast and CA.

The problem with republicans is that they too spent like hell. so they also suck.

But, at least within the group of Republicans are responsible people who are not trying to make govt smaller and less expensive.

 

[hippie]

Quote from shbhanda:

To me, our traditional labor market, at least in the developed countries is falling apart before our eyes. Corporations would rather use extra money to upgrade tech and cut fat, and American labor is pretty fat.

This most likely means that the Developed World Economies are likely to putter along, if not far worse if fear starts snowballing again.

Do you believe there is a problem and how would you fix it?

I believe the solution actually lies in bringing more countries into the consumer age and thereby creating a much larger base to build our houses of cards.

If it wasn't for the prospect of the BRIC countries bringing more demand to the world in the next five years, the stock market would be bouncing along its lows and we would be staring at another depression, imo. So, logically, the way to give hope to the markets and eventually wealth to more people is to increase the number of developing countries that Wall St. gets hope from.

Any takers?

Now the Chinese & Indians are taking jobs away from the West. Soon robots will replace them.......

There will be very few jobs for people with little to offer the world other than their labor & skills. Only those with the capital and cunning can prosper ..........It may force those without capital into a revolution if the capitalist system doesn't give them some safety net for the dispossessed workers of the world.

 

[Petsamo]

Quote from jem:

The problem with republicans is that they too spent like hell. so they also suck.

The Republicans spent a lot because of the recession, 9/11, Katrina & Rita, and the war on terror.

Obama quadrupled Bush's spending. And even though Obama is appeasing the terrorists, they still want to kill us. Europe still hates us.

Where's the indistinction here? You need to stop watching ABC, NBC, CBS, & CNN because you are easily influenced.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from shbhanda:


Do you believe there is a problem and how would you fix it?

I believe the solution actually lies in bringing more countries into the consumer age and thereby creating a much larger base to build our houses of cards.

If it wasn't for the prospect of the BRIC countries bringing more demand to the world in the next five years, the stock market would be bouncing along its lows and we would be staring at another depression, imo. So, logically, the way to give hope to the markets and eventually wealth to more people is to increase the number of developing countries that Wall St. gets hope from.

Any takers?

I agree.

The promotion of free markets - not free trade - should be the ultimate goal of every Western democracy. We need more global consumers, not less. Wealth creation via economic growth is not zero sum. The free market literally creates wealth under the right conditions:

1) Stable Government
2) Stable currency
3) Private Property Rights
4) Effective, transparent, impartial court system (Rule of Law/low corruption)
5) Low-rate tax structure
6) A standing military to defend it

It's those conditions Western democracies should relentlessly promote throughout the non-developed world. This could be accomplished through the use of preferential trade agreements; for every condition met, tariffs are reduced 10%. Of course, bureaucrats have known this for over a century, but instead opted to plunge the Third World into economic chaos to destroy their "competition". Kill the seed before it grows. In return, the West is subject to an ever increasing torrent of uneducated, sick, third world immigrants who largely prove to be a net drain on the States fiscal resources (think Mexicans) and dwindling job opportunities (thanks to offshoring), which demands the private sector carry an even higher tax burden to bring new immigrants up to our living standards. This consolidates power/wealth in the hands of Social Controllers (bureaucrats) at the expense of draining private sector wealth and stifling entrepreneurship. Pressure from above, pressure from below.

The world could provide high living standards FOR ALL had the fascist leeches at the top acted for humanity. Not against it. That's the real problem we face, today. Not a crisis of capitalism. Or whether the free market has "failed us". That's pure horseshit sold to us by the Controllers who want us to think Free Markets are the Enemy. Why? Controllers see the Free Market as their enemy because deep, vibrant, private wealth is the number #1 threat to the power monopoly these bureaucratic douche bags want to establish. Wealth is money. And money is power. Give the money back to the people (via free market capitalism), and we'd see a political revolution the world over, in 10 years. Our Control Freak leaders won't have it. So they try and sell us this crap agenda of Big Government Socialism, Climate-change/endless War garbage that just so happens to demand 60% tax rates for everyone, a gestapo agent on every corner, and open borders.

 

[Petsamo]

Quote from trefoil:

I'm sure that could be debated, but really, who cares?
Does it change the fact that Bush pissed it all away?
Does it change, at all, the very simple fact that once the Reps had both houses and the Presidency, they spent like mad?

Are you paying attention to what Obama & the Democrats are doing? You're a useful idiot.

 

[trade2live]

Yes it is doomed, doomed , doomed. And increasing consumption
by developing countries is not the solution. Reliance on consumption IS the problem, resources are limited, growth cannot continue forever. That's why growth at any cost policies mean shooting ourselves in the foot over trhe long term. But the politicians have no choice, growth is needed to meet the commitments to our aging population. We should be preparing for managing sustainable de-growth in the hyper growth countries and in the developed world while promoting sustainable growth in underdeveloped countries. Won't happen because of the powerful interests in finance and business.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from trade2live:

Yes it is doomed, doomed , doomed. And increasing consumption
by developing countries is not the solution. Reliance on consumption IS the problem, resources are limited, growth cannot continue forever.

That's pure claptrap. Guess who's behind the entire "peak resource" debate? The international league of control freaks. Yep, the United Nations.

The earth is a big place. The majority of which is unexplored. Try the seabed, ultra-deep water/land drilling, clean coal, coal gasification etc. Hydrocarbons on other planets which is proof positive gas is the result of natural geological processes. How else did methane end up on Titan? Even if oil bottoms at 150$, renewables become a viable energy source. Then there's the moon. The cure to high prices, is high prices. The real lynch pin to the global economy is energy. Solve that, and skies the limit. Miners and extractors have a vested interest in keeping supply tight. What incentive does Exxon or RoyalDutchShell have to announce - or even prospect - for fields that double proven reserves? Think about it. Do that, and profits drop 60-70%. Nope. Better to keep the market under the illusion of tight oil to keep those record breaking profits tumbling in. That's what I would do if I were them. Ever hear of the DeBeers diamond monopoly?

 

[SomeYoungGuy]

Quote from achilles28:

That's pure claptrap. Guess who's behind the entire "peak resource" debate? The international league of control freaks. Yep, the United Nations.

The earth is a big place. The majority of which is unexplored. Try the seabed, ultra-deep water/land drilling, clean coal, coal gasification etc. Hydrocarbons on other planets which is proof positive gas is the result of natural geological processes. How else did methane end up on Titan? Even if oil bottoms at 150$, renewables become a viable energy source. Then there's the moon. The cure to high prices, is high prices. The real lynch pin to the global economy is energy. Solve that, and skies the limit. Miners and extractors have a vested interest in keeping supply tight. What incentive does Exxon or RoyalDutchShell have to announce - or even prospect - for fields that double proven reserves? Think about it. Do that, and profits drop 60-70%. Nope. Better to keep the market under the illusion of tight oil to keep those record breaking profits tumbling in. That's what I would do if I were them. Ever hear of the DeBeers diamond monopoly?

Particularly insightful. thanks.

 

[Misthos]

Quote from achilles28:

That's pure claptrap. Guess who's behind the entire "peak resource" debate? The international league of control freaks. Yep, the United Nations.

The earth is a big place. The majority of which is unexplored. Try the seabed, ultra-deep water/land drilling, clean coal, coal gasification etc. Hydrocarbons on other planets which is proof positive gas is the result of natural geological processes. How else did methane end up on Titan? Even if oil bottoms at 150$, renewables become a viable energy source. Then there's the moon. The cure to high prices, is high prices. The real lynch pin to the global economy is energy. Solve that, and skies the limit. Miners and extractors have a vested interest in keeping supply tight. What incentive does Exxon or RoyalDutchShell have to announce - or even prospect - for fields that double proven reserves? Think about it. Do that, and profits drop 60-70%. Nope. Better to keep the market under the illusion of tight oil to keep those record breaking profits tumbling in. That's what I would do if I were them. Ever hear of the DeBeers diamond monopoly?

If energy is so abundant, then why all the wars in far-away places?

 

[piezoe]

If we wanted to have an enlightened discussion of capitalism and its future we should first try to understand what capitalism is about, and it isn't about free markets, just the opposite in fact. Perhaps it would be good to start with a definition so that at least Y'all were on the same page. You might start by looking up the definition in a dictionary.

capitalism[/] 1. a system under which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are in large measure privately owned and directed. 2. the concentration of capital in the hands of a few, or the resulting power and influence. 3. a system favoring the concentration of wealth.

If anything, the U.S. is becoming more capitalistic, not less. Capitalism is alive and well in the U.S.

It is rather obvious to me that big government is not necessarily counter capitalistic. Some of the most powerful capitalistic segments of U.S. business and culture are very much dependent on government control. Five clear cut examples are the defense, medical, insurance, banking and communications industries, and a possible sixth is agriculture. Some, perhaps most, of these industries operate as cartels via government regulation favorable to them. Still other industries use their trade organizations via national code regulation to obtain protection from pesky competition. Regardless of how protection is obtained , these industries are well protected from free competition.

Though there have been constant attempts from interlopers to break down these protections, the attempts are usually successfully thwarted. The most persistent interlopers are sometimes permitted to join the cartels, but on the cartels terms.

Were American style capitalism not alive and well the Pentagon would not be buying military hardware no longer wanted nor needed, medical costs would not be up to eight times higher in the U.S. than in other developed countries, homeowners would not be virtually forced to insure improvements on hilltops against flooding, banks would not be indemnified against losses by the tax payer, tobacco farms would not be subsidized, the growing of hemp would not be forbidden, and high definition television would have been available 25 years ago, as it was in Asia.

There are a few important areas of business where free enterprise has recently dominated. One such is in the high tech semi-conductor industry. The world, particularly the U.S., has enjoyed tremendous benefits from competition in that industry. (It has not been entirely true in the case of software, however, where Microsoft succeeded in establishing a monopoly with only minimal help from the government, but also without effective interference from the Department of Commerce.)

It should be noted that the free segments of American business are mainly those that are relatively new and have, so-far, flown under capitalist radar, or are localized and therefore have little impact on the overall economy. Once these free industries get big enough, there invariably arise forces seeking to bring them under capitalist control. At this very moment we see these forces appearing with regard to the internet. There will be persistent attempts to regulate and control internet traffic to the benefit of the major content and internet service providers. Eventually with the unwitting, but sometimes not, help of the U.S. congress, these forces will succeed just as they always have. It is a process that may take years, however.

Yes, indeed, capitalism is alive and well in the U.S.