Global capitalism is failing

[happy_Alex]

I never said all poor people, obviously, the ones who do not want to work are gonna remain poor, but, who am I to go against their will?. Besides, I also said before that poor people in first world countries are richer than average people in developing or 3rd world countries. Being poor or rich is a relative term, showing data as if they are absolute terms is a fallacy, IMHO.

In general, historical data shows that capitalism generates wealth and increases living conditions of the people. Comunism, on the other hand, is the great equalizer, making everybody equally poor, and most often, poorer than before they were.


PS: You dropped the corn thing?

What people become unemployed because its their fault? Really ?

The poor I mentioned at the begining of the thread aren't relatively poor, they are dying poor.

Of course there can be a healthy middle class, but that's not what this thread is about.

PS You dropped the corn thing, not me. You said subsidies were not part of capitalism and I proved how profit making corporations are stakeholders in government. I'm still waiting.

FYI I am not a communist, I am a socialist and there is a substantial difference between the two.

 

[BasketCase]

I'm sick of the "you'll get rich if you work hard enough" BS. My parents have worked thier butts of all thier lives, and they are still working class people living from paycheck to paycheck.

Well, they're working from paycheck to paycheck here, instead of in some Third World nation where people can't vote, have shoddy infrastructure, and are being shot at by dissident guerillas.

(Well, actually, I don't know that, but since you're somewhere where you have access to a computer, I figure the living standards there are at least decent, and your folks are probably living in the same country )

I've got pretty much the same circumstances, and while the system has problems, I hesitate before messing with something that ain't broke.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I voted "I agree" on the poll.
The whole debate has been seen many times before, and it will reappear many times, so I don't feel like addressing anything in particular. Except for...

It is quite amusing to see how passionate such a system is defended. It makes me arrive at the following conclusions:
- There seems to be a certain ivory tower mentality in certain individuals. A bit like: I am doing OK, so what then? I can't refrain asking myself what those people would have said if they had belonged to the party elite in the old USSR, for instance...
- There also seems to be a way of thinking that what is done is not the point, but who does it. People who are quick to point out any tiny defect with alternative societal systems, tie themselves in knots to defend the holy capitalism.The good thing about this is of course that I see no reasons why I should take them seriously in these matters then.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm sick of the "you'll get rich if you work hard enough" BS. My parents have worked thier butts of all thier lives, and they are still working class people living from paycheck to paycheck.

They should manage their money better. Do they smoke, drink, run a car, buy things on credit, have children they can't afford etc. You can be on a low income and still be relatively well off. You get in trouble when you try and live beyond your means.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yep Basket makes a good point.

The purpose of capitalism isn't to get equality or fairness, it's to increase the wealth of the people born with silver spoons in their mouths and increase the servitude and poverty those born with silver spoons in their eye sockets. I contend it's working very well!

Compared to what? Capitalism isn't perfect but it works better than any other system. Would you prefer to be poor in the US/Europe/Aussie/NZ/Canada capitalist country or be poor in China/Cuba?

 

[JerichoHill]

It is very easy to find a fault with any system

It is verd hard to come up with an alternative solution that feasibly works.

As compared to the other economic frameworks we as humans have had over our history, capitalism by far and away stands as the proverbial "best"

I consider those who believe socialism and communism to be the answers to live in an ivory tower.

That's not to say that I find no faults with capitalism. I abhor the consumption gumption it creates, whereby we produce and consume so many things that have little or no real substantive volume.

But that failing is not due to the system, but the people participating in the system, and their value structure.

Asian capitalism seems to have more of an egalitarian family structure to it, and perhaps those VAB's meld with capitalism better (to producing results the OP complains about) than American capitalism, or European...err wait, Europeans are still pretty socialist.

Sorry, couldn't resist the dig.

 

[Odin2006]

They should manage their money better. Do they smoke, drink, run a car, buy things on credit, have children they can't afford etc. You can be on a low income and still be relatively well off. You get in trouble when you try and live beyond your means.

Typical right-wing, Calvinist-derived BS response. Working-class people wanting an occasional luxury does not make them irresponsible. Also, society is often at fault for encouraging consption beyond ones means. Blaming everything on the individual instead of society is more BS right-wing logic.

 

[El_Machinae]

Working-class people wanting an occasional luxury does not make them irresponsible. Also, society is often at fault for encouraging consption beyond ones means.

Buying luxuries makes you poorer, it's the way the world works. In fact, the US of A buys so much luxuries that they're setting themselve up for some long-term problems.

How is society to blame for people spending their money unwisely? If you're not strong enough to not see new movies ... is that society's fault?

 

[Richard Cribb]

Sorry, couldn't resist the dig.

Nothing to be sorry for, as I haly could have asked for a better text-book example of my claims.
Now none of those arguments are neither really new nor convincing, and don't need any attention, but this

Europeans are still pretty socialist.

is simply to rich to be ignored. Priceless.
Europe can indeed be pretty, but socialist it is not.

Typical right-wing, Calvinist-derived BS response. Working-class people wanting an occasional luxury does not make them irresponsible. Also, society is often at fault for encouraging consption beyond ones means. Blaming everything on the individual instead of society is more BS right-wing logic.

Great post, I totally agree.
Both the post you address and a few others in this thread give makes me think of what Diderot once quipped to D'Holbach; "This is the talk of a man who never had to wait for his dinner".

 

[JerichoHill]

Okay.

You sir, have an ivory tower problem. It seems that many delight in point out the flaws inherent in today's society, yet an actual analysis, with a counter-factual example of how a system could be designed that works better, aside from (socialism would!) seems mysteriously absent.

Now, you finish with concluding that I've never had to wait for his dinner. That's fine and dandy, except for the fact that I

1) Grew up next door to some Atlanta Housing Projects
2) Funded my own way through school via 3 jobs
3) Parents had little to no college education

Please, never assume you know the lifestory of someone on a messageboard, just from their posts. It's frankly insulting. Yes, I'm upper middle class now, but its because I worked my proverbial butt off to escape where I came from.

I would not have had this chance in many other countries, or in many other eras of civilization.

Communism - Failed
Socialism - Failed
Mercantilism - Failed

So yes, I will defend vociferously the system that allowed me to a way of life that otherwise I could not have enjoyed in another system, or another country. I won't be arrogant and say it is without flaws.

Let's me put it simply. In France, you had youth rioting because they a) didn't want their boss to be able to fire them and b) didn't want to work more than 35 hours. After massive protests, rioting, and looting, they got their way.

In America, we are having protests also about labor. Legal and Illegal immigrants are protesting (and much more peacfully than the French protestors, as of today) for the right TO WORK in this country.

Now tell me, sir, how you, in your esteemed knowledge of how the economy works, tell me which country's system is most problematic...

At least people in my country protest because they WANT to work.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Blaming everything on the individual instead of society is more BS right-wing logic.

And blaming society for everything rather than giving yourself blame and credit when either are due is immaturity.

 

[Xenocrates]

I'll not get personal but all of us here have arguably benefited from Capitalism to varying extents. That's hardly the point though is it?

In Basketcase's consistant world view it IS the point, but the rest of us pretend that there is more than self-interest underpinning our opinions.

 

[Zardnaar]

Typical right-wing, Calvinist-derived BS response. Working-class people wanting an occasional luxury does not make them irresponsible. Also, society is often at fault for encouraging consption beyond ones means. Blaming everything on the individual instead of society is more BS right-wing logic.

I'm on above the average wage and came from a welfare family. I have a few luxuries but save money in several ways.

1. I don't run a car. For long distance travel I use a bus and walk or bike everywear. Exercise is good.

2. My cellphone is 5 years old. I ring and txt people with it. I don't need a new flashy thing that takes photos.

3. I don't own an Ipod. My discman still works and I don't listen to portable music tat much except at work.

4. I don't own an Xbox 360. Never buy new consoles on release. What for a price drop.

5. My computer is 3 years old but is stil good for internet. I don't really play high end games.

6. I don't smoke

7. I only drink in moderation.

8. I refuse to buy things on credit.

I'm realistic about what I want and what I need. I'll probably get an Ipod and new cell phone soon but you don't really need all this little luxuries people keep buying. Most of my income is disposable.

 

[warpus]

Capitalism works well, but it would be arrogant to suggest that we can't do better.

 

[Zardnaar]

Better IMHO is capitalism with a moderate welfare safety net. Less than Europes but better than USA. NZ and Australia fit this category. Theres probably others.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I'll not get personal but all of us here have arguably benefited from Capitalism to varying extents. That's hardly the point though is it?

In Basketcase's consistant world view it IS the point, but the rest of us pretend that there is more than self-interest underpinning our opinions.

I'll be very blunt that personal experience is probably the most important thing to me when choosing an economic system. While I'm sure socialism sounds nice to an awful lot of people, there's plenty who want nothing to do with it. Such a big change in the status quo would likely lead to horrid social upheaval and probably a good deal of bloodshed. Now, sometimes that price is worth it for the end result (American Revolution, in my opinion, is an example. I can't think of a second off the top of my head). But I'm not convinced that a socialist "utopia" is worth that price.

 

[Zamecnik]

And we're all very proud of you. I would say, if your circumstances were as dire as you claim, exception proves the rule. Beyond this, you unfortunately you continue to display some large gaps in your articulation of economic history.

"Capitalism" as such did not simply appear on the scene following the dictates of an economic theorist. Feudalism, mercantilism came about through trial and error essentially, based on power/class interests at the time, theories came later. Capitalism arose from class interests in England and spread from there, in conjunction with historical/political events. I bring this up because your argument that no one can come up with an alternative is an argument frequently utilized by the right. Alternatives won't be dreamed up by theorists and then implemented, they will come about through trial and error based on social and political conditions, theories will come later.

You previously mentioned that the theories of the Austrian school were simply "co-opted" and used by political interests so therefore the results are not the fault of the Austrian theorists. Could we also not use that reasoning for Marxism/communism? Surely, the state capitalist regimes that emerged in the Soviet Union and China had little in common with Marx envisioned. However, there is little doubt that those states had his writings in mind, in the societal, intellectual sense. This reasoning also applies to the Austrian school, Friedman and the crew, and the resultant neoliberal regime we all labor under.

Back to global capitalism, neoliberal capitalism has been exported, in a variety of ways, to developing countries and the results have been mostly failure. Meanwhile, ideologues continue to claim that it "hasn't gone further enough," absurd (meanwhile turning back real gains gained through Keynesian development policy). Can't polish a turd. Global capitalism has worked for some and failed for the vast majority and no amount of northern moralizing and "blaming the victim" (its all corruption!!!! take a look at your state, its development and the role of corruption, its quite illuminating) will change that.

Okay.

You sir, have an ivory tower problem. It seems that many delight in point out the flaws inherent in today's society, yet an actual analysis, with a counter-factual example of how a system could be designed that works better, aside from (socialism would!) seems mysteriously absent.

Now, you finish with concluding that I've never had to wait for his dinner. That's fine and dandy, except for the fact that I

1) Grew up next door to some Atlanta Housing Projects
2) Funded my own way through school via 3 jobs
3) Parents had little to no college education

Please, never assume you know the lifestory of someone on a messageboard, just from their posts. It's frankly insulting. Yes, I'm upper middle class now, but its because I worked my proverbial butt off to escape where I came from.

I would not have had this chance in many other countries, or in many other eras of civilization.

Communism - Failed
Socialism - Failed
Mercantilism - Failed

So yes, I will defend vociferously the system that allowed me to a way of life that otherwise I could not have enjoyed in another system, or another country. I won't be arrogant and say it is without flaws.

Let's me put it simply. In France, you had youth rioting because they a) didn't want their boss to be able to fire them and b) didn't want to work more than 35 hours. After massive protests, rioting, and looting, they got their way.

In America, we are having protests also about labor. Legal and Illegal immigrants are protesting (and much more peacfully than the French protestors, as of today) for the right TO WORK in this country.

Now tell me, sir, how you, in your esteemed knowledge of how the economy works, tell me which country's system is most problematic...

At least people in my country protest because they WANT to work.

 

[Zamecnik]

Oh yeah, I forgot about the France thing. While the defeat of that particular bill was a great one, it is mostly a reactionary phenomenon. Great, because it stopped a continuing erosion of labor rights, but its not exactly moving forward, more a defensive reaction. But good for them anyway.

As for the states, I think you're simplifying things quite a bit, no? As I'm sure you're aware, the flood of immigrant labor is closely tied up with the neoliberal restructuring of the Mexican economy in the 70s/80s (under heavy pressure from the US government/corporations and the local Mexican elite) and the resultant unemployment and other problems. I think it's more the case of desparate people suffering and looking for the best option available. It's funny when the right complains about immigration when its their economic thinking that has largely created it. Of course, examined in a Foucauldian sense, it only helps the economic elite, cheap labor and all that fun so the paradox makes a certain amount of sense.



Let's me put it simply. In France, you had youth rioting because they a) didn't want their boss to be able to fire them and b) didn't want to work more than 35 hours. After massive protests, rioting, and looting, they got their way.

In America, we are having protests also about labor. Legal and Illegal immigrants are protesting (and much more peacfully than the French protestors, as of today) for the right TO WORK in this country.

Now tell me, sir, how you, in your esteemed knowledge of how the economy works, tell me which country's system is most problematic...

At least people in my country protest because they WANT to work.[/QUOTE]

 

[blackheart]

I'm sick of the "you'll get rich if you work hard enough" BS. My parents have worked thier butts of all thier lives, and they are still working class people living from paycheck to paycheck.

Because that's easily rightist propeganda to keep poor people working. It's work smarter, not harder. You can work 3x as hard as the next guy and still not get ahead.

 

[Xenocrates]

Because that's easily rightist propeganda to keep poor people working. It's work smarter, not harder. You can work 3x as hard as the next guy and still not get ahead.

You can't work smarter if your pig-tired from a long day down the pit and your boss won't allow you to try out new methods. For most people there's no way off the treadmill, except death.