Revolution of Capitalism

[007fair]

Just read the BBC article 'A point of View: The Revolution of Capitalism'

So should capitalism be replaced entirely or modified ?
Or should it be left as is and we just accept there will be downsides and wait for next upside?

Is capitalism the root of our current financial problems or is it Human nature's fault (Greed)?

 

[Theseus]

No
Yes
No

 

[007fair]

No
Yes
No

Rule book chapter 7 paragraph 3 line 6 states that when answering either / or type questions the answer cannot be just 'No' or 'Yes'

 

[Theseus]

Rule book chapter 7 paragraph 3 line 6 states that when answering either / or type questions the answer cannot be just 'No' or 'Yes'

Why?

 

[Yellow Fang]

I heard that yesterday morning. I thought it was very good. Especially the bit where he said that the debt cannot be paid off so it's just going to be inflated away.

 

[buddha]

After we dump capitalism, can we also put a ban on economists/analysts or whatever they call themselves.

Maybe they can be put to use doing something useful - like filling potholes

 

[marzjennings]

Rule book chapter 7 paragraph 3 line 6 states that when answering either / or type questions the answer cannot be just 'No' or 'Yes'

Yes/No works just fine if the answer to either alternative is the same. As my kid will ask," So can I have a piece of chocolate or a piece of cake?"...No.

 

[MacB]

I heard that yesterday morning. I thought it was very good. Especially the bit where he said that the debt cannot be paid off so it's just going to be inflated away.

There is an argument, or a salient point, that goes along the lines of - that was always the case and was well known by those in control, they just wanted the debt shifted to the public purse, and assets to private hands, before allowing it to be inflated away. A bit like 'a good day to bury bad news' this was a good time to asset strip. Loosely transalted that means:-

bailouts to support the 'too big to fail', propaganda to drive home the 'we're all in it together' message, tough talk to back it up but no real intent to follow through on that tough talk...witness the many examples of the guilty brought to book over 2008

asset transfers into private hands, generally under the guise of essential austerity and 'savings', like the NHS, I was unsurprised to read that the government has been in consultation with global private players over the running of hospitals and trusts. Southern Cross appears to be getting limited coverage

debt transfer on to all of us and play heavily on peoples fears, ensure a job shortage to reinforce this by avoiding real stimulus investment in job creation

some vicious inflation to bring the debts under control, not get rid of them, just enough to allow another cycle to commence

back to business as usual, only even more of the worlds assets will be controlled/owned by the people that really 'matter'. It's not a conspiracy they're just doing what they do.

 

[007fair]

Yes/No works just fine if the answer to either alternative is the same. As my kid will ask," So can I have a piece of chocolate or a piece of cake?"...No.

Accepted for the first question but not the latter! If the problem was not Capitalism OR greed then what is it ?

 

[Rapples]

Yes/No works just fine if the answer to either alternative is the same. As my kid will ask," So can I have a piece of chocolate or a piece of cake?"...No.

Works for me, the meaning is clear, that the answer is neither

 

[Archie_tect]

Why?

The first time I met M-in-Law she asked me, "Would you like a cup of tea or a cup of coffee?"

I misheard and replied, "Yes please".

You don't do that twice.

That's why!

 

[Monsieur Remings]

Capitalism will eventually fail, it is showing signs of doing so already and whilst it has the ability to innovate, there is only so far that dog eat dog can sustain itself. When the big fish eat the little fish, there are eventually very few fish left, surprisingly enough. So good luck to Tesco's and McDonalds or should I say good luck to us, the consumer, with only a few choices left as the 'natural' conclusion to the laissez-faire.

Like a scientific theory left in place because it can't be disproved, Marx will never be disproved because he understood the volatility of a system that relies on aggressive competition as its premise.

It's very easy for the apologists of capitalism to speak of human greed but this in itself is a construct and not a natural state. The natural state that implies the survival of the fittest is the survival of the community, not the individual - the individual is nothing on his own, any more than the company/corporation/cartel alone can sustain the notion of the free market alone, when they are the only players left.

 

[ASC1951]

It's very easy for the apologists of capitalism to speak of human greed but this in itself is a construct and not a natural state. The natural state that implies the survival of the fittest is the survival of the community, not the individual

Don't project your analysis of human societies onto the wider natural world. In evolutionary terms you're simply wrong.

[You are wrong about capitalism as well - it is Marxism that is the short-lived aberration - but that is a different argument.]

 

[Monsieur Remings]

Don't project your analysis of human societies onto the wider natural world. In evolutionary terms you're simply wrong.

[You are wrong about capitalism as well - it is Marxism that is the short-lived aberration - but that is a different argument.]

Excellent reply, well explained with much food for further thought. At least I know I'm wrong because you say so, with a strong argument to back up your assertion.

 

[007fair]

Capitalism will eventually fail, it is showing signs of doing so already and whilst it has the ability to innovate, there is only so far that dog eat dog can sustain itself. When the big fish eat the little fish, there are eventually very few fish left, surprisingly enough. So good luck to Tesco's and McDonalds or should I say good luck to us, the consumer, with only a few choices left as the 'natural' conclusion to the laissez-faire.

Like a scientific theory left in place because it can't be disproved, Marx will never be disproved because he understood the volatility of a system that relies on aggressive competition as its premise.

It's very easy for the apologists of capitalism to speak of human greed but this in itself is a construct and not a natural state. The natural state that implies the survival of the fittest is the survival of the community, not the individual - the individual is nothing on his own, any more than the company/corporation/cartel alone can sustain the notion of the free market alone, when they are the only players left.

You say Capitalism will fail So what will replace it ?
I agree it will fail - it already has! But as Churchill said it seems to be the best option

Why is it such a bad thing for TESCO to get so big? Economically speaking I mean They will still have competition via other super markets and smaller villages will still have local business

Tesco's increase the competitive edge and drive down costs which benefits the consumer - Downside is this will squeeze profits of producers and mean there is less money in the system
Tesco's create Jobs albeit at the expense of some others(local business) - but overall can you argue that there would be more jobs around if Tesco were not there?

If the below could be sorted capitalism could work
Some way to get the super rich AND the super rich companies to plough their profits back into the system that will benefit everyone
Plus some way of reducing the risk taking displayed by the banks and limiting the amount of debt at all levels in society