Global capitalism is failing

[Kozmos]

Not exactly failing,buts its certainly starting to crack.

 

[The Yankee]

You dont see the connection between poverty and the poverty and environmental crises ? (which some oil multinationals have spent alot of money trying to disprove...)

I would hope there's a connection between poverty and poverty.

But you could say that those environmental crises (which also happen in the First World, but we're not talking there, it seems), you must prove that capitalism as a whole is responsible. After all, in the Soviet Union, there was a lot of pollution in the factories.

And you also seem to dismiss any notion that capitalism may be the answer to the problem as well.

Offer some more tangible proof, please. Spell it out for us. Convince us.

 

[happy_Alex]

Look from life. The countires where the general population is prosperous overall are all capitalist democracies. Also note that of those countries, the ones who temper their free market with strong social support form the cream of the crop.

Meanwhile, capiltalist countries without strong social suport lag somewhat. Purely socialist countries come in behind even further.

I think the formula to eradicate global poverty is pretty obvious. The question is only how to implement it.

Thats the problem is an international one. One cannot say that because some nations are wealthier we just have extrapolate their practice into the rest of the world. The comfort of those countries is dependant on the poverty of many others (e.g. US farm subsidies which exceed its total aid budget and keep african farming families on or below the breadline)

 

[GeneralZed]

If wealthy nations continue protecting their markets - the EU subsides it's chicken production so much, that it's cheaper for Africans to buy it rather than buying from their own fellow companions. I don't see capitalism beeing fully or rigthly implemented nowadays. Call me an egoist, but what if the rest of the world becomes wealthier... We would experience more demand on resources, which probably won't be available for feature generations. As Keynes said: in the long run, we're all dead.

However, capitalism is very dynamic, not like communism. With capitalism the wealthier may get richer, yes, but they also may help poor countries. Do we see this today? Not quite.

 

[Urederra]

• Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day.

Where do they live? I haven't done the study, but my guess is not in the capitalistic countries. Not in the USA, Not in Europe, not in Australia, not in Singapore (I guess), not in Canada... etc.

• The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined.

Same as above. If rich countries are capitalistic and poor countries are not, then capitalism generates wealth.

• Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names

Again, same as above, not in the USA, not in Europe, et cetera, et cetera et cetera.

• Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen.

Too much is spent in weapons, specially in the USA. But capitalistic countries like the ones on Europe or America, spent their money after certain basic necessities are covered. Other countries, on the other hand, spend the money the EU and USA send to help them in weapons, and many of those countries are not capitalistic.

• 51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies are corporations. source

I will need help with this one, but, is not a corporation one of these place where people invest their money in? so, what? Does it mean that they are doing better than the government ruled companies? Does that support the idea that some, or most business are better not being ruled by any government?

• [
• The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation.

Still, almost everybody can afford a car. Maybe that's why it is the wealthiest nation on Earth.

• The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money.
• 20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the world’s goods.

Again, but are these countries capitalistic?

• The top fifth of the world’s people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign direct investment — the bottom fifth, barely more than 1%.

so?

• In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much.

so?

This is the charge sheet. In addition to this I would add the opinion that the current world system of integrated, essentially capitalist world framework is ill equiped to deal with environmental problems, principaly global warming.

hehehehe.... didn't I say zillions of times that the global warming thing is more a political than a scientific issue?

And that only a international democratic socialist order transcending national identities can overcome these injustices and problems facing humanity.

No, they can't. They tried and they failed. and more than 100 million people died during the trial.

And, of course, you want to be the ruler above of that democratic socialist order. We already know that trick.

 

[happy_Alex]

I would hope there's a connection between poverty and poverty.

But you could say that those environmental crises (which also happen in the First World, but we're not talking there, it seems), you must prove that capitalism as a whole is responsible. After all, in the Soviet Union, there was a lot of pollution in the factories.

And you also seem to dismiss any notion that capitalism may be the answer to the problem as well.

Offer some more tangible proof, please. Spell it out for us. Convince us.

As I said there are no other culprits. Global capitalism is the only world order. No other proof is available or surely necessary.

RE Soviet Union, national government (spent 125 trillion dollars on arms in the cold war) and Im arguing for international socialism bought about by trasnational representation.

 

[The Yankee]

As I said there are no other culprits. Global capitalism is the only world order. No other proof is available or surely necessary.

RE Soviet Union, national government (spent 125 trillion dollars on arms in the cold war) and Im arguing for international socialism bought about by trasnational representation.

So how was the Cold War an American phenomenon if you say the Soviet Union spent $125 trillion on arms (which seems vastly overstated, but it was still a large figure nonetheless)?

And why aren't there other culprits? If you said the Soviet Union was a national government and thus was different than an international system, why would you say that capitalism is the world order if there are other national governments that are not purely capitalistic or capitalistic at all?

Finally, if you say that capitalism is the extreme doing harm, then why is "global" socialism the answer? Why not something in between or of varying degrees between pure capitalism and pure socialism? You're offering another extreme that still has the human equation not considered.

 

[Mulholland]

Sure it can. Provided it is set as one of the goals.

The problem that OP is trying to state, and is probably not able to, is that the way capitalism is usually practiced, poverty alleviation is not one of its stated goals. It still comes though completely as a by-product and hence it probably does not come in volumes enough to eradicate it completely.

Goverment, can make it a stated goal and set up proper incentives so that it also becomes a goal for important participants in capitalism - the free enterprises.

But given the definiton of pure Capitalism this is not one of the stated goals. Once the wealth generated from a capitalist system is garnered and redistributred, even for a public good, it is not longer purely capitlist, it is more socialist. Pure capitalism will never exist unless it is functioning outside a national govenment's boundaries. It is a symbiotic relationship in this way.

A system cannot in and of itself redistribute wealth. It takes Philanthropists, govenments and people to decide where the redistribution is directed. As we are the fortunate few who actually live in somewhat funtional democracies we have the ability to lobby and vote people in who will adopt different redisributive polies.
What are your priorities?
1)Tax cuts wehere the bulk of the wealth is concentrated?
2) Redistribution to the most veulnerable?
3) An international redistribution using national wealth?

Where should wealthy societies focus thier priorites in this respect?

 

[BasketCase]

The OP made a list of "charges" against capitalism.

How do those "charges" actually constitute a problem??

My previous job paid almost twice as much as the one I currently have. However, the extra money simply wasn't worth the stress (short version: I got used as a cannonball in an office war between two managers). So, right now I am "poor" compared to my previous conditions. By choice.

The CEO of Microsoft is a lot wealthier than I am. Not because of exploitation or theft or whatever, but because of the choices I made. I'm happy with that. I should have the right to make that kind of choices.

When one steals from another, that's definitely wrong. However, theft is not confined solely to capitalism. Theft is a failure of people, not of economics. In fact, it's usually rich people who are the victims of theft, because a rich person makes a more attractive target. For that reason, there may indeed be more theft in a capitalist system--but the problem lies not in the system, but in the fact that the system creates more juicy targets.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Democratic transnationalism to stop the endles exploitation of poorer nations by the most powerfull and to exercise authority to stop the effects of climate change. A democratic institution which would have the mandate of the worlds people to challenge the boundless ability of multinational corporations to sublimate national interests in the pursuit of wealth.

Then somebody shakes you awake and says 'Welcome to Earth'. Can you explain how the worlds people are going to wake up one day and decide to provide this mandate? How does that happen, is there some sort of energy beam involved?

 

[Abaddon]

hmmm, while there is some arguement that the poor countrys are kept poor by the rich nations.. industrialisation is slowly being experienced everywhere. The large gap between rich and poor was like it is in africa now, how it was when we were developing nations. Sure its a slow process, but give it time and we will get there. Sure global communism would be cushty, but corruption and waste makes that dream impossible.

 

[Xanikk999]

• Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day.
• The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined.
• Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.
• Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen.
• 51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies are corporations. source
• The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation.
• The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money.
• 20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the world’s goods.
• The top fifth of the world’s people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign direct investment — the bottom fifth, barely more than 1%.
• In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much.

These facts can be validated at:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp


This is the charge sheet. In addition to this I would add the opinion that the current world system of integrated, essentially capitalist world framework is ill equiped to deal with environmental problems, principaly global warming.

And that only a international democratic socialist order transcending national identities can overcome these injustices and problems facing humanity.

Well its working better then communism at the moment. Check north korea and cubas poverty rate.

 

[happy_Alex]

Where do they live? I haven't done the study, but my guess is not in the capitalistic countries. Not in the USA, Not in Europe, not in Australia, not in Singapore (I guess), not in Canada... etc.

No they don't live in the west.

Same as above. If rich countries are capitalistic and poor countries are not, then capitalism generates wealth.

At the expense of poor nations and people.

Too much is spent in weapons, specially in the USA. But capitalistic countries like the ones on Europe or America, spent their money after certain basic necessities are covered. Other countries, on the other hand, spend the money the EU and USA send to help them in weapons, and many of those countries are not capitalistic.

I will need help with this one, but, is not a corporation one of these place where people invest their money in? so, what? Does it mean that they are doing better than the government ruled companies? Does that support the idea that some, or most business are better not being ruled by any government?

The aim of a capitalist corporation is to generate profit. It our current scenario it does this at the cost of human life.

Still, almost everybody can afford a car. Maybe that's why it is the wealthiest nation on Earth.

Maybe thats why it causes the most carbon emissions

hehehehe.... didn't I say zillions of times that the global warming thing is more a political than a scientific issue?

I don't know

No, they can't. They tried and they failed. and more than 100 million people died during the trial.

No they didn't. Thought H hated international socialism.

And, of course, you want to be the ruler above of that democratic socialist order. We already know that trick.

I didn't say that. You just assumed I did.

 

[El_Machinae]

Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day.
The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined.

This is because these groups have not learned the value of specialisation and trade. Both of these would improve with MORE enticements towards a stable currency and trade situations.

 

[BasketCase]

Ooh, hey--here's something you might find scary.

Out in the wild, the only way to survive is to exploit other living things--specifically, to kill them and eat them.

When we humans get our mitts in the system, and do things like exterminate wolves in order to protect our livestock--guess what? The system of nature starts going wrong.

It would appear that exploitation and inequality are the centerpieces of a strong, stable, and healthy ecosystem.....

 

[El_Machinae]

???

At the expense of poor nations and people.

They were poor before.

 

[Xanikk999]

Currently socialism in europe is not the answer to problems everywhere.

I doubt governments in third world countries like central america and certain african countries could support the system as it as in europe.

Capatalism and socialism both have there benifits and disadvantages.

 

[betazed]

But given the definiton of pure Capitalism this is not one of the stated goals.

Correct. It is not.

Once the wealth generated from a capitalist system is garnered and redistributred, even for a public good, it is not longer purely capitlist, it is more socialist.

Wealth redistribution has never been a good way of eradicating poverty. We know this empirically. If that is all we needed to do was that then Africa would not be still poor. By now, we have spent at least a trillion in aids (which is wealth distribution) to Africa. What we need to do is generate wealth for the poor by the poor. This by the way is one of the currently favored approach for the Millenial Development Programme (google that). Some aid is necessary - but just aid is not the solution.

A system cannot in and of itself redistribute wealth.

Since we do not need to, pure capitalism with proper incentives can easily eradicate poverty. Lets take an example. Say, a new factory has to be built. The capitalist, who will invest the capital and build it has lots of choices on where he can build it. Typically, he will build it where it suits him most. Government, by changing incentives (providing tax breaks, setting up economic zones etc) can make it so that the capitalist finds it most economical to set it up in a place where it provides employment to many unemployed (maybe rural) people. Now suddenly, these people have jobs and can (presumably) earn more. We have created wealth for the poor. No redistribution necessary.

Where should wealthy societies focus thier priorites in this respect?

In promoting industry, reducing corruption, and mostly removing tariffs that do not allow the under-developed world to trade their way out of poverty. As I said earlier, we need more capitalism (i.e. lesser tariffs).

 

[Xanikk999]

In fact the best balanced country would be the one that has elements of both socialism and capatalism. A society thats purely capatalistic or socialist would not prosper if that was possible.

Such as in the United states and europe. Just more capatalistic elements are more prevalent in the united states then europe.

 

[Xenocrates]

Where do they live? I haven't done the study, but my guess is not in the capitalistic countries. Not in the USA, Not in Europe, not in Australia, not in Singapore (I guess), not in Canada... etc.

I would say that the poor countries are more capitalist than subsidising, welfare-ing USA or Europe.

If you accept that, then the answer is pretty clear. If you don't it proves that propaganda is powerful indeed!

I think the West's biggest conceit is to preach capitalism and persuade poor countries to accept the exploitation of their people, while we aren't really playing capitalism at all.

I have spent a long time in the third world and one thing that really embarrasses me is the amount of power that I have. Because (presumably) of my white skin and magic UK passport, I'm treated with far more respect than if I was a black African in the UK. I can imagine how unscrupulous people may abuse that power to get rich at others expense. That's what I think is happening.

I was an English teacher before and I quit because I didn't see how teaching the International language of BS is a virtuous thing to do....