Global capitalism is failing

[warpus]

I surely sympathise with the problem, but I disagree with your hypothesis.

Rather we need to analyse what works is the successful part of the world and make it happen in the poorer parts.

Won't work - the world's rich depend on the existance of lots and lots of poor people.

There is only so much wealth to go around - if you have 3 people who are worth billions of dollars, that'll mean that you'll have to have millions of people worth a couple dollars each.

If you want to make the poor richer, you'll have to make the rich poorer - and most people in the West are too selfish to spread the wealth around.

 

[Xanikk999]

Oh and to the OPs title.

Capatalism is not failing right now. If anything its succeeding greatly.

Just look at china, south korea, japan, and the united states.

Can you say they have bad economies?

The United States economy is only a little bad short term but not long term and i dont want to divert the thread.

 

[Xanikk999]

Won't work - the world's rich depend on the existance of lots and lots of poor people.

There is only so much wealth to go around - if you have 3 people who are worth billions of dollars, that'll mean that you'll have to have millions of people worth a couple dollars each.

If you want to make the poor richer, you'll have to make the rich poorer - and most people in the West are too selfish to spread the wealth around.

Lol what do you suggest we do? Forcibly take money from rich people in large amounts? Sure we can tax them, but it has to be a fair tax and not one extremely high directed at only high income people.

 

[Mulholland]

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

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

Going to have disagree with you on that one. Apples and oranges. Slavery was arguably inequal and exploitative and has caused nothing but resentment, discord and violence whcih still reverberates today in American society. Nevermind the resentment still felt by the former Colonies toward whites ie Zimbabwe. Perpetuating extremely exploitive systems will leave these poor huddled masses with no course of action other than to boycott them. i.e most if South America.

 

[warpus]

Lol what do you suggest we do? Forcibly take money from rich people in large amounts? Sure we can tax them, but it has to be a fair tax and not one extremely high directed at only high income people.

I'm not suggesting we do anything - I'm just saying that the whole world can't be "rich", as in, as rich as the West is.

The 'wealth' of the world is slowly increasing, sure, but the population of this planet is exploding. The wealth has to be distributed somehow - right now a small % of people control most of the wealth. If you want the poor to be richer, you'd have to take some of this wealth away from the rich.

 

[Urederra]

No they don't live in the west.

Then, they should adopt western practices, such as, capitalism. And what El Machinae said.

At the expense of poor nations and people.

How come? prove it.

I think your problem is that you cannot accept that wealth can be generated. Let's see, two examples;

-You have seeds, you plant them, let them grow, they give you fruits, and you eat them or sell them.
-You have logs, or you buy them for, lets say $1, you build a chair and you buy it for $10 dollars.

The aim of a capitalist corporation is to generate profit.

Of course... but, is not what you claim socialism can do better?

It our current scenario it does this at the cost of human life.

How come? In our current scenario we have millions of people migrating illegally from not capitalistic countries to capitalistic countries because in the non capitalistic countries they are not allowed to generate enough wealth to subsist.

Why do you think people from Bolivia or Ecuador come to the US or Spain to make a living, Because they like to travel around? Because they hate their mothers-in-law? No, because the governments IN THEIR OWN countries don't allow them to progress.

And, no, Evo Morales is not a muppet of the US government, neither of the Spanish one.

Maybe thats why it causes the most carbon emissions

So, what is your solution? The Pol-Pot one? Kill the unfit, burn the cities and sent the population of the whole country to work at the countryside? And then blame capitalism because there is a billion people who cannot read a book whitout saying why those people cannot read a book?

Or is the USSR/1984 way?, Publish everywhere that, since socialism is at power in the world, global warming has dissapeared?

The two most important ecological catastrophes in the world occured in the USSR. Chernobyl and the Aral sea death. Both of them were denied by the USSR government in first instance, until they couldn't cover the real truth.,

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

Oh, man, then, are you working to put someone else as a world leader? I thought you were wiser than that.

 

[Mulholland]

Correct. It is not.



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.

I agree with you. In and of itself throwing money at a problem won't make it go away. The fact remains these people need money to get off the ground, hence redistribution is necessary. I've heard of the MDP and I think it's a brilliant idea that uses money as a carrot for countries making democratic reforms. Holistic developpment what a novel idea.

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.

Agreed but where does government incom come from? Only the people. I don't imagine the income tax on the the average Chineese wage earner will be enough to pay for the massive infrastructure needs that comes with devellopment.

Sorry I gtg right now
.

 

[happy_Alex]

@ urederra. You miss my point. I am not stating that capitalism fails at a national level, though of course there is substantial poverty an illeteracy in developed countries, which capitalism intrinsically has no interest in challenging.

My point is that the answer is not to extraploate capitlistic practices of the west to undeveloped nations because the luxury of developed nations is dependant on the poverty of the majority of the worlds population.

 

[El_Machinae]

Is this why you donate 30% of your income to third world nations?

 

[Urederra]

My point is that the answer is not to extraploate capitlistic practices of the west to undeveloped nations because the luxury of developed nations is dependant on the poverty of the majority of the worlds population.

that is why I gave you two examples to say that wealth can be generated. I don't think the luxury of developed nations is dependant on the poverty of the rest of the world. In other words, We are not stealing the corn that belongs to the world, We are producing corn, and we are very good at it, we produce so much than we have enough for us and we can even sell the rest.

How does our productivity makes other poorer? Because they can't sell corn to us? But they have never sold corn to us in first place.

they could sell us corn, if they can produce it cheaper than we do, or more expensive but higher quality (they are markets for organic stuff). So, if they sell it to us, they would be richer. But, hey, wouldn't that be a capitalistic approach?

Maybe our increase in productivity make other people feel poorer when you compare them with us. That is the trick behind many of those statistics. Like the one that says "in the wealthiest country there is the largest gap between the richest and the poorest". Of course, but they don't say anything about the economic capabilities of the poorest. I recall other statistics that said some 20 years ago that the average polish could afford less than a typical unemployed french citizen. That's what communism achieved, to make everybody equally pauper.

 

[JerichoHill]

Which countries are developed and capitalistic? Are they having problems?

The countries with these problems are underdeveloped, mostly dictatorships or predatory governments. I hardly see capitalism to be at fault in countries that do not practice it.

But hell, WHAT could I possibly know

::looks at sig::

 

[JerichoHill]

lol, how about not enough capitalism?

BINGO! Excellent reply.

 

[JerichoHill]

There's a reason why Frederick Von Hayek wrote "The Road To Serfdom"

Socialism is not the answer. Socialism destroys the incentives that drive human innovation forward.

Are there problems with capitalism? Sure. But the track record of capitalism speaks volumes. Look at history.

Socialism is a theoretical concept which rests on the denial of man's wants. So long as man is a selfish creature, which it necessarily is (survival mechanism) It has no place in reality outside a very small circle of close friends/family.

If you'd like to know more about Von Hayek, the failure of socialism, or the history of how capitalism has helped (and hurt the world) might I suggest posing such questions in the "Ask an Economist" Thread?

 

[blackheart]

happy_alex, have you visited developing countries where capitalism has brought industry? If more than anything, global capitalism is gaining and the impoverished are grateful for the jobs it brings.

 

[happy_Alex]

that is why I gave you two examples to say that wealth can be generated. I don't think the luxury of developed nations is dependant on the poverty of the rest of the world. In other words, We are not stealing the corn that belongs to the world, We are producing corn, and we are very good at it, we produce so much than we have enough for us and we can even sell the rest.

How does our productivity makes other poorer? Because they can't sell corn to us? But they have never sold corn to us in first place.

they could sell us corn, if they can produce it cheaper than we do, or more expensive but higher quality (they are markets for organic stuff). So, if they sell it to us, they would be richer. But, hey, wouldn't that be a capitalistic approach?

Maybe our increase in productivity make other people feel poorer when you compare them with us. That is the trick behind many of those statistics. Like the one that says "in the wealthiest country there is the largest gap between the richest and the poorest". Of course, but they don't say anything about the economic capabilities of the poorest. I recall other statistics that said some 20 years ago that the average polish could afford less than a typical unemployed french citizen. That's what communism achieved, to make everybody equally pauper.

We sell them corn, they cant sell us corn, and if they starve to death well that's okay, coz they had an equal chance under the system right?

Equal opportunity dosn't equate to equality of outcome (we all have a chance to play the lottery, but we are not all going to win...)

If 'you' can sell corn cheaper it's because of farming subsidies which as I said earlier exceed US aid budget. This keeps families in poverty, and is a product of global capitalism. Well maybe you are happy with that. I'm not.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

• 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.

Even if one accepts these problems, it doesn't follow that socialism solves them.

 

[Inqvisitor]

Yes, capitalism is failing and is leading us all to the Servile State. Truly an evil system from its conception. But socialism is definitely not the solution; it is in fact worse in its injustice.

 

[Zamecnik]

Wow, can't believe anyone actual uses Hayek anymore. I think its more useful to think of Hayek as the ideologue of neoliberal economics in its purest form. However, like most ideology, the actual practices of its practitioners. It may be useful for you to do some research on neoliberalism and the class power restoration project that it actually entails. Hayek and the crew were regarded as quacks, justifiably so, right up until the late 60's. Around this point, regarding the radicalism that surrounded the era, a class project formed using Hayek's idea as its ideological basis. After this, corporate money began flowing to right-wing thinktanks such as the Heritage Foundation, for a small example. Essentially, a full-scale ideological attack began on Keynesianism (and the power check it provided against elite interests and the overaccumulation of wealth) backed by certain elites. Amazingly, this project worked and thus the current neoliberal hegemony.

I bring this up because there is a close correlation between the Keynesian development policy followed by postcolonial states that brought remarkable developments, the subsequent switch to neoliberalism in power centers such as the United States and the fostering of these ideals onto developing countries and the subsequent disaster. Regarded this way, it isn't capitalism that failed but a certain vision of it, which does indeed rely the economic subjugation of developing countries for profits.

Hayek, Friedman and the rest of that crew made a massive (intentional or unintentional) mistake when they took the political out of the "political economy" (as economics was known for quite some time). There is nothing objective about economics or the so-called "free-market," it is a social construction that serves certain interests. In the case of neoliberalism, it is obvious whose interests it serves, primarily the elite of the global North. Of course, since economics has increasingly been posed as some sort of objective science much of the masses that have taken an Econ 101 class have swallowed its ideology hook, line and sinker.

There's a reason why Frederick Von Hayek wrote "The Road To Serfdom"

Socialism is not the answer. Socialism destroys the incentives that drive human innovation forward.

Are there problems with capitalism? Sure. But the track record of capitalism speaks volumes. Look at history.

Socialism is a theoretical concept which rests on the denial of man's wants. So long as man is a selfish creature, which it necessarily is (survival mechanism) It has no place in reality outside a very small circle of close friends/family.

If you'd like to know more about Von Hayek, the failure of socialism, or the history of how capitalism has helped (and hurt the world) might I suggest posing such questions in the "Ask an Economist" Thread?

 

[happy_Alex]

happy_alex, have you visited developing countries where capitalism has brought industry? If more than anything, global capitalism is gaining and the impoverished are grateful for the jobs it brings.

@ no I haven't. I'm sure those people are working hard each day to provide for the needs of themselves and their families. But if there were no poverty and related deaths then we would not be having this discussion.

 

[Kozmos]

happy_alex, have you visited developing countries where capitalism has brought industry? If more than anything, global capitalism is gaining and the impoverished are grateful for the jobs it brings.

Its also brought massive corruption,some poverty and an ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor.You either have or you dont.The middle class is being wiped out.

Not that I'm advocating KAUMINISM1!!1!!!!11 but capitalism needs some changes.