Global capitalism is failing

[JerichoHill]

I don'k know how you sleep at night, perpetuating a system that sends people to their deaths.

--Was that comment really necessary?

 

[happy_Alex]

Sorry.

You want to close down this debate because I haven't 'seen the light' and the only possible cause for this is that I'm not taking the trouble to read your thread. Thats not right.

Or you may not have offered valid arguments.

You said that you have failed to 'convince' me and that you can't convince me because I have already made my mind up RE point one. Nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise.

You want to talk about facts, well those are facts posted at the beginning of the thread, are they not? So what we are discussing is what the cause of these are. You don't want to see these facts, thats the trouble, any one can cherry-pick 'facts' to underline their own point of view.



RE point two, you don't accept, for example, the link ('fact' if you will) between, say literacy and education for the many, not for the few?
Or universal heathcare and life expectancy?

 

[Atropos]

Point one: Read the results of the poll. It is obvious that on this forum, at least, your view is in a minority. I might also point out that the GDP per capita of England in 1750 was approximately equivalent to the GDP per capita of Tanzania today. Or would you argue that all that growth occurred under Attlee and Callaghan?

Point two: You have not presented any arguments in favour of socialism. You have, however, presented arguments in favour of universal education and national healthcare. Both are compatible with capitalist systems. Or would you define post-Thatcherite England as socialist?

I might add, by the way, that "sending people to their deaths" and supporting policies which (in your view) restrict literacy are not really the same thing.

 

[JerichoHill]

The facts you posted at the beginning of the thread, as pointed out by both myself and others, have many causes, and cannot be said to be a direct causation of capitalism.

Africa has its problems due to mercantilsm and imperialism in centuries past.

In addition, that most countries whose populations are starving have as their government predatory style governments (governments which extract resources for their own short-term gain, and these governments are typified by their short-duration and violent overthrow by yet another predatory regime)... than they do with capitalism as an economic system.

For facts backing that up, the following papers are useful. These are all found on jstor.org

Scientific Progress and the Evolution of Capitalism
George W. Edwards
The Scientific Monthly > Vol. 51, No. 1 (Jul., 1940), pp. 65-73

Capitalism and Democracy
Gabriel A. Almond
PS: Political Science and Politics > Vol. 24, No. 3 (Sep., 1991), pp. 467-474
Stable URL:

Wage Inequality and Varieties of Capitalism
David Rueda; Jonas Pontusson
World Politics, Vol. 52, No. 3. (Apr., 2000), pp. 350-383.


The above 3 pieces will demonstrate that capitalism was seen to have faults, but that democractic socialism offers no better solution to the problem, and in fact that since capitalism has some element of dynamic change associated with it, likely remains to be better able to adapt and survive.

 

[happy_Alex]

The facts you posted at the beginning of the thread, as pointed out by both myself and others, have many causes, and cannot be said to be a direct causation of capitalism.

Africa has its problems due to mercantilsm and imperialism in centuries past.

In addition, that most countries whose populations are starving have as their government predatory style governments (governments which extract resources for their own short-term gain, and these governments are typified by their short-duration and violent overthrow by yet another predatory regime)... than they do with capitalism as an economic system.

Capitalism serves the interests of a wealthy minority while exploiting the majority.

"The richest 50m people, huddled in Europe and North America, have the same income as 2.7bn poor people. The slice of the cake taken by 1% is the same size as that handed to the poorest 57%"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/debt/Story/0,2763,636624,00.html

(based on “True world income distribution, 1988 and 1993: First calculation based on household
surveys alone”, The Economic Journal, vol. 112, No. 476, January 2002, BRANKO MILANOVIC)

Is this inequality of wealth only down to corrupt regimes?

 

[JerichoHill]

The first sentence is not proven by the second. All it proves is that there is an unequal distribution of resources.

It cannot follow, from the quote selected and the statement above, than one exploits the other.

Does it happen? Of course. But I think the most labor exploitation tends to take place in industrizing developing economies, and not the developed economics.

Are resources equally abundant?
What about historical reasons for the disparity?

Did you read any of the articles?


What I've learned from dealing with statistics is that any statistic can be used by anyone to prove any point.

The art of the science is using stats appropriately.

 

[happy_Alex]

It dosen't prove that there is an unequal distribution of wealth?

 

[JerichoHill]

Umm...

All it proves is that there is an unequal distribution of resources.

resources - economist speak for wealth (more generalized, wealth is one of many resources)

Also, can we define unequal?

By unequal, do you mean strictly unequal, or rather...

Let's say you have 10% of the worlds production capability in the world, and you produce 10% of the worlds wealth? vs. a country with 1% of worlds production capability getting .01% of the world's wealth?

What about technological differences between countries? (Some countries are simply more advanced than others)
What about cultural differences?
(Some countries have different cultural values than other that might impact their economic production)
What about institutional differences between countries?
(Some countries have different governmental instituations than others, which affect economic production)
What about location differences?
(Some countries locations play critical roles in their current economy, and the development of their economy)

The question I would ask, as an economist, is

Ceteris Paribus, How would a completely capitalistic country differ from (insert economic system here) in 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?

The best natural experiment (between capitalism and socialism) is to look at the difference between eastern european countries that were either under NATO or the Iron Curtain. It's not perfect, but its the best we have. Designing a counter-factual experiment would be very difficult.

 

[Impaler[WrG]]

"The richest 50m people, huddled in Europe and North America, have the same income as 2.7bn poor people. The slice of the cake taken by 1% is the same size as that handed to the poorest 57%"

The classic pie quote reveals your bias, you belive wealth/resorces simply exist Ex-nilo to be divided among the population. Any un-even distribution thus constitutes greed on the part of thouse with greater resorces. Like life were a birthday party 20 people were all invited too and one guy eating 57% of the cake.

In reality resorces exist only when they are created by someone, even "Natural Resorces" must be converted to usable forms before they become wealth. Nations with greater productivity have citizens that are highly productive and waste is keept down. Poor nations have low productivity on average and a large percent of the population is negativly productive (wars, crime, parasitism).

If one wishes to argue that it is our moral duty to help others and lift up other economys to be like our own thats one thing. But attacking capitalism as simply a system of theft whial blatantly ignoring productivity differences will get you noware.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I am out of this thread, but for those especially interested, my PM-box is always open.
But I am amazed that nobody has adressed this gem:

Africa has its problems due to mercantilsm and imperialism in centuries past.

And a substantial part of this imperialism is capitalist imperialism. I think anybody who ever opened a history book can easily convince themselves about that imperialism has been and is important component of modern capitalism. If one denies this, very well, stay in the bubble.
But don't expect to be taken seriously in these matters.
And for those of you who think that this is a thing of the past; ponder over this quote from "globalization"-guru Thomas Friedman:"The hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist—McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."
Or look up recent events in Iraq...

Finally, some more food for thought, assorted links about the wonderful world of capitailsm. I leave it to anybody to decide whether they think this is a worthy system or not:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/indexinq.htm

On a final note I can just conclude that my initial observations is verified time and again.

 

[JerichoHill]

Umm,

Capitalism wasn't around when Europe was carving up and enslaving indigneous Africans. You can say the capitalist mindset started with Adam Smith (1776)

I'll believe scientific journalistic research over policy sites any day of the week.

 

[Rambuchan]

Umm,

Capitalism wasn't around when Europe was carving up and enslaving indigneous Africans. You can say the capitalist mindset started with Adam Smith (1776)

Europe was carving up Africa in the 19th century, and the activity intensified as that century reached its end.

EDIT: Looks like I missed out on a great thread here. I notice that the statisticians have been at work, from their ivory towers. If you guys took your head out of your models and stats and went to the third world you'd see that all of what you are posting is a load of tripe. Academic to the point of inflating your ego and not much else. This is exactly why I told Atropos that Ricardo was irrelevant, because you guys are all posting from within the capitalist mindset and stable of arguments. You're using their language itself. This language means one thing for the developing world - poverty - for that is relative to our ever increasing, disporportionate wealth.

 

[JerichoHill]

Was that due to imperialism or capitalism? Are you saying that because capitalism was nascent in that period that it must be the cause of imperialism, notwithstanding the fact that the European powers had been imperialistic for centuries beforehand?

Nay, I think not.

(I would like to say that I am not calling other's posts loads of tripe. I'm trying to debate facts). If you (and other posters) wish to continue to insult my profession, accuse me of inflating my ego that's your choice, but I'm not going to be part of a that kind of debate.

Kindly debate the issue, not the personalities of the people posting.

 

[happy_Alex]

Umm...

All it proves is that there is an unequal distribution of resources.

resources - economist speak for wealth (more generalized, wealth is one of many resources)

Also, can we define unequal?

By unequal, do you mean strictly unequal, or rather...

Let's say you have 10% of the worlds production capability in the world, and you produce 10% of the worlds wealth? vs. a country with 1% of worlds production capability getting .01% of the world's wealth?

There are two problems with this. Firstly this statement assumes that the initial comparison was made country by country and then added together.

Secondly, are assuming that all these factors which affect production (culture, government etc) are not profoundly influenced by the most powerful countries and organisations on the planet? A look at the role of the US in maintaining dictatorships in the last century should disabuse you of that notion. Youi seriously believe that Global organisations, some more wealthy and powerfull than countries themselves, do not interfere politcally and socially in countries, to create conditions which are favourable to their profit making?

There is a diference in democratic socialism and communism, so comparisons to comunism are entirely futile. For one, socialists believe that markets and organisations must be run in the interests of the people, and without representation, such societies cannot be called socialist.

Many succesful socialist concepts have been successfull enough to have become axioms, for example the concept that democratic government should act in the interests of the majority of the franchise and not a wealthy elite. The mixed economy is and effect of socialism (as opposed to market laissez faire 19th century economies).

 

[jonatas]

Was that due to imperialism or capitalism? Are you saying that because capitalism was nascent in that period that it must be the cause of imperialism, notwithstanding the fact that the European powers had been imperialistic for centuries beforehand?

Nay, I think not.

Rambuchan is right in separating the Slave trade and the carving up of Africa. The former starts in 16th C, though you could say it began even in the 15th C in embryo form. The carving up of Africa is a later phenomenon, definitely 19th C.

Also the Imperialism of the 15th C and 16th C's is very primitive and limited in scope when compared to the 19th C British Empire, especially with regard to Africa in terms of actual exploration and control of the interior, setting boundary lines, and establishing power.

edited: 19th C

 

[JerichoHill]

if the carving up took place in the 18th century when capitalism as a form of economics was not widely used until the 19th century, does that mean that capitalism is the cause of the plight of Africa. Or am I correct this imperialism was ongoing before capitalism became the dominant form of economy in the major world powers?

 

[Rambuchan]

Was that due to imperialism or capitalism? Are you saying that because capitalism was nascent in that period that it must be the cause of imperialism, notwithstanding the fact that the European powers had been imperialistic for centuries beforehand?

Nay, I think not.

Capitalism. Imperialism didn't achieve the shocking imbalances in wealth until Capitalism was added to the mix. The impetus to engage in Imperialism just wasn't the same without it (or Mercantilism). In fact, the carving up of Africa was specifically brought about by a Bismark keen to delineate the territories which would then be ripe for capitalist exploitation without any European conflicts, (they were all developed capitalist nations by this point.). By that I mean the draining of wealth at the expense (which is ongoing) of those Local people, who benefitted disproportionately from the interraction. It was profit, pure and simple, with extraordinary margins, and it was driven by an insatiable banking industry which had not previously been extant to exert such pressures. So your African example is a fine one ideed!

(I would like to say that I am not calling other's posts loads of tripe. I'm trying to debate facts). If you (and other posters) wish to continue to insult my profession, accuse me of inflating my ego that's your choice, but I'm not going to be part of a that kind of debate.

Kindly debate the issue, not the personalities of the people posting.

Didn't you read my post? I'm trying to tell you that the whole mode from which you're debating is leading your thinking. Just ask yourself whose benefit your work is for? It all assumes that it is within a capitalist structure that the solutions are to be found, whilst ignoring the fact that the gap between rich and poor has increased during all this time. It's like trying to find a good word in German, by only speaking French. The language is all wrong. That to me is tripe. I'd refer you to a point someone made earlier in the thread, that it's the socialist criticisms of capitalism that have brought about the positive change (conditions, pay, other terms) which so many trumpet today as being heralded by do-gooding capitalists. Isn't that nonsense?

If you find that insulting then there's not a lot I can do about that.

 

[jonatas]

Sorry I was thinking 19th C with regard to the British Empire in Africa. Silly error on my part. As for analyzing how related Capitalism was to Imperialism at this stage, I don't feel qualified to do that.

 

[JerichoHill]

@@Alex

There are two problems with this. Firstly this statement assumes that the initial comparison was made country by country and then added together.
--huh? I'm lost here

Secondly, are assuming that all these factors which affect production (culture, government etc) are not profoundly influenced by the most powerful countries and organisations on the planet? A look at the role of the US in maintaining dictatorships in the last century should disabuse you of that notion. Youi seriously believe that Global organisations, some more wealthy and powerfull than countries themselves, do not interfere politcally and socially in countries, to create conditions which are favourable to their profit making?
--Okay, please do not put words or thoughts into my mouth. I really dislike it when one assumes that they know what I think. Yes, global organizations attempt to manipulate their environs to be favorable to them. So do coutnries. Though I fail to see global corporations being more powerful than most countries (excluding the terribly run and dirt poor countries).

There is a diference in democratic socialism and communism, so comparisons to comunism are entirely futile. For one, socialists believe that markets and organisations must be run in the interests of the people, and without representation, such societies cannot be called socialist.
--Is not socialism defined as "Socialism is a political philosophy advocating an economic system in which the means of production are owned and controlled collectively." I fail to see how people can better infer all available information than the market mechanism. Theoretically, this is an impossibility. Perhaps if the market mechanism was so horribly warped that a socialist style government would allocate resources in a manner that was more like how a properly functioning market would work, that would be a case for socialism to a degree, but I contend that the market mechanism is not warped enough to consider that option.

Many succesful socialist concepts have been successfull enough to have become axioms, for example the concept that democratic government should act in the interests of the majority of the franchise and not a wealthy elite. The mixed economy is and effect of socialism (as opposed to market laissez faire 19th century economies).
--In the other thread, I would like to note that I agree that laissez faire (without regulation of some form) tends to produce market abuses. The question though, is how much. At some point, regulation will choke the life out of a capitalistic system (and in my opinion, make it function like a socialist system would).

--There is research that has been done for psychology journals about experimenting with purely capitalistic vs. purely socialistic systems on a small scale. The evidence from these experiments is that socialistic systems tend to devolve into inefficiency faster the more agents there are in the system. Capitalism (with its market mechanism) tends to do better the more agents there are in the system. In a curiously interesting finding in one experiment, the university team noted that "trustworthy" agents (peers considered them trustworthy) acted in a pseudo-regulatory fashion within the capitalist experiment.

 

[JerichoHill]

@@Ram

Then why include such wordings as "inflating your ego?" See, that's my problem, because that is charging, and that charges me with an act of ego inflation. That is NOT what I'm after here.


Also, I work for my own benefit. But I do try to help enforce our American laws. If a better paying job came long, with better benefits and conditions, I'd be gone in a heartbeat.