Potential Alternatives to the Capitalist System

failures???? Please name the most obvious one.

 

yes so the issue is still which is better capitalism or socialism. Ans: capitalism since it just eliminated 40% of the worlds poverty in China while socialism slowly starved 60 million there. And there is East/West Germany. Cuba/Florida and 132 other examples. Now do you understand?

 

False dichotomy fallacy.

Do you understand?

China is not capitalist.

Do you understand?

Capitalism has slowly starved billions. Just not in one big bunch.

I understand you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I guess you're right. In reality East Germany did better than West Germany and so we should copy East Germany as closely as possible!!

- - - Updated - - -

if so why so afraid to name the best example?? What does your fear teach you?

 

The reality of everything is we are working with human beings, there is no perfect solution and never will be. Lots of things to admire about capitalism, it has brought us many things. It has improved our lives like no other economic system could have possibly imagined. It has also likely ruined and destroyed many others lives. There is nothing inherently wrong with capitalism, but it has its weaknesses, mostly due to human nature. If capitalist humans had better hearts and were less selfish, then maybe it would be the perfect system, but alas it is not.

 

Of course if true you would not be so afraid to present your best example for the whole world to see.

 

Originally Posted by Drago

<<<It [capitalism] has also likely ruined and destroyed many others lives.>>>

Ted wants examples. There are many:

Capitalism's business cycles always claim many victims. Also, banks using depositors money in complex derivative trades, sometimes resulting in huge losses for those depositors, as occurred in the GFC, is unacceptable.

Capitalism fuels greed in a spectacular fashion, as shown in 'Wolf of Wall-Street, and 'The Big Short'.

BTW. the whole process in which banks were writing 'subprime' loans is indicative of capitalism's search to make a buck in ways that often have nothing to do with the real economy. It certainly is a mistake to blaim the GFC on 'liberal' policies.

Capitalism's permanent pool of unemployed workers, destroying the lives of the long- term unemployed; and high youth unemployment partly as a result of older workers having to stay in the workforce longer because governments are increasingly unable to fund pensions, after having been forced to bail-out the private sector in the GFC.

In the area of international trade, capitalism becomes very messy, characterised by trade and currency wars, often resolved in the past by actual wars.

Capitalism's unregulated, competitive free-trade claims many victims, sometimes whole cities (eg, Detroit), whole nations, eg Spain, Ireland, Greece, even Finland which is in recession due to Nokia's eclipse by Apple and Samsung, not to mention the entire global economy currently languishing in sub-par growth.

It's a totally unacceptable situation. I've put forward my solution, namely, intelligent management of capitalism's strengths, by an IMF charged with this task. BTW, the IMF could actually -. starting tomorrow - fund the education of every child on the planet. The extra demand on phyiscal resources would be minimal (avoiding inflation), and in fact would spur growth in a flagging world economy; not to mention the increase in efficiency enabled by a reduction of taxation on the private sector.

Does reform of the UN, and elimination of war as a legal means of dispute resolution, have to happen before the IMF is instituted to oversee a policy of co-operative, global economic development, while maintaining those capitalist processes that result in the most efficient production of goods and services?

Time will tell.

 

thats your best example????

1)capitalism does not produce business cycles, liberal interference with economy does

2) communism produced cycles that slowly starved 120 million to death.

what is stupid and genocidal capitalism or communism?

 

thats your second best example of capitalism killing 120 million as communism did?? In fact it was illegal to use depositors money for what you describe!!!
So what is better genocidal communism or capitalism which just eliminated 40% of the poverty on the entire planet when China just switched to it.

 

Ted asks: <<<thats your best example????>>>

No I saved my best examples till last, namely, the permanent pool of unemployment associated with capitalism, and unresolved international trade tensions.

Re tthe former, I note many countries are currently considering the concept of a guaranteed basic income (BIG); I believe Finland will introduce an experimental scheme in 2017. Why? Because capitalism is associated with socially unacceptable consequences of unemployment. (Personally I see too many problems with BIG, eg, the money is just as likely to contribute to criminal activity as to healthy individual development). The US solution seems to be to arm everyone against their neighbours!

You refer to the disasters that accompanied the attempts to establish communism, but ignore the social conditions that gave rise to the theory of communism in the first place, namely, slavery, extreme poverty, oppression, denial of education and health care to the masses.

Re international trade, I have already mentioned Keynes (whom you dismissed as "stupid")- one of the eminent economists with a seat at the Bretton Woods conference, tasked with designing a new post-war global financial system. The Americans dismissed his scheme to promote mutually beneficial trade between all nations, regardless of their current resources, because at the start of the cold war the contest between capitalism and commumism had yet to be played out. The consequences of that rejection are still with us; I note Sarah Palin's present plans for a trade war with China!

(The USSR, despite tremendous losses in WW2, and an economy 1/3 the size of the US in 1945, achieved much including the rapid transformation from an agrarian to an industrial society, first satellite in orbit and first man in space).

You persist in flogging the dead horse of capitalist purity, no doubt barring a contribution from you re solutions to present day economic ills.

 

thats your best example of capitalism killing millions like the 120 million that libsocialism slowly starved to death in USSR and Red China????????????????? Please think before you post!!!

 

Associated with capitalism? Regardless of the economic system I would say population growth, or the supply of people needing employment exceeding the needs of production is our greatest unsolvable problem.

 

don't be completely silly. the number of jobs and the number of people is always equal!!!! This is why 95% have jobs in the USA and China despite the number of people growing from nothing to 330 million ib the USA and 1.2 billion in China respectively.

 

dear, China just switched to capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of the entire planets poverty. How is that for a solution to present day ills???????????

 

Ndividual wrote:

<<<Associated with capitalism? Regardless of the economic system I would say population growth, or the supply of people needing employment exceeding the needs of production is our greatest unsolvable problem.>>>

It certainly is a huge problem; the the Swiss voted on (and rejected) a scheme last weekend to deal with, among other things, the problem of increasing automation and consequent loss of employment. Any half-decent economic system needs to guarantee participation by all, consistent with individual ability, at acceptable minimum wages.

But it is not unsolvable. I have outlined Keynesian-like interventionist policies in previous recent posts, and the historical reasons why such policies were rejected at the time of the Bretton Woods conference (1944). Ted's only comment so far is that Keynes, one of the eminent economists of the 20th century, was "stupid".

Re population itself, population growth tends to stabilize naturally as living standards (and in particular the education of women) increase, so issues of sustainable economic growth can be managed. Sustainable, non-polluting inexpensive energy is another requirement, the achievement of which is on the horizon.

[I notice in a subsequent post Ted claims the number of people always equals the number of jobs; I have worked out that Ted is coming from some abstruse, arcane, ideologically pure position regarding capitalism that defies debate; in other words he will not (or is unable to) enter into serious debate].

 

yes, under capitalism this is true. Its called the law of supply and demand. If you don't understand it why not ask questions in order to learn the most fundamental concept of capitalism?

- - - Updated - - -

of course he was stupid but if you disagree please say why

 

Ted wrote:

<<<If you don't understand (the law of supply and demand) why not ask questions in order to learn the most fundamental concept of capitalism?>>>

Capitalism's concept of 'supply' and 'demand'? That's the very reason why we need to reject capitalism!

For example, demand increases, prices rise; in the case of food, the result is starvation among the poor. Supply increases, prices fall, resulting in bankruptcies among farmers and less competitive companies (eg General Motors, requiring a very 'socialist' rescue by the US government).

Let's look at a commonsense view of supply and demand.

Individuals have basic needs for goods eg, food, clothing,housing - and services - eg, education, healthcare, infrastructure. These basic needs represent the real, *unchanging*, basic 'demand' in an economy (for a stated population).

'Supply' of these goods and services is best achieved through maximum participation of individuals in the economy, with wages at least matching the basic 'demand/needs' of those individuals.

As automation procedes apace, the excess of 'supply' of labour over 'demand' for labour (as opposed to the basic needs of those workers) will result in mass poverty (through collapse in wages), but automation can potentially make virtual millionaires of all of us, with intelligent management of resources at the the macro level by a reformed IMF.

BTW, I heard some politicians today blaming the IMF for the local economic disasters resulting from despised "free-trade" agreements. Politics makes strange bedfellows, with both the right and the left condemning free trade as an IMF plot!

Keynes was stupid? I'll let others judge the wisdom of that statement.

 

False dichotomy fallacy. I oppose socialism even more than capitalism.

My fear?

LOL! You picked the wrong guy.

Best example? That's hard to say. Slavery would be near the top of the list. But the current global death toll of poverty caused by capitalism -- when slavery has been rendered a comparatively minor issue -- is 12-15M/yr, mostly children. That's two Holocausts EVERY YEAR.

 

then why so afraid to say what you support and why?????? What do you learn from your fear?

 

No, that's just uninformed garbage. The business cycle is caused by private banks' issuance of debt money, which implies an inherently unstable positive feedback mechanism. The "liberal" interference in the economy, such as by the Fed, is to damp the resulting cycles.

It was actually pretty quickly, but "only" about 80M.

Both. Please get off your false dichotomy hobby horse.

 

actually China just switched to capitalism and eliminated 40% of all the poverty on earth and saved another 60 million from slowly starving to death under socialism. Do you understand? 1+1=2

 

Because honest advocacy of liberty, justice, and truth has got me banned from many forums.

That caution is not fear.

 

Wrong. China did not switch to capitalism, as its land is all still publicly owned. Capitalism requires private ownership of land, as in Bangladesh, the Philippines, Guatemala, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, etc.

Private ownership of land ensures that the condition of the landless is indistinguishable from that of slaves, as proved by the slave-like condition of the landless in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY where private property in land has been well established, but government has not intervened massively in the economy to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners.

Unlike you, I understand that like Hong Kong, China is not capitalist but geoist (privately owned capital, publicly owned land).

Do you understand yet?

 

LOL! That is far beyond silly. It is so obviously and grotesquely wrong, so absurd, that it is hard to understand it as even being grammatical English.

False.

Of course employment grows with population. That doesn't mean they are equal, any more than a child's age and weight are equal, though they both tend to increase together.

 

1) capitalism does not require ownership of private land, pure capitalism would I suppose

2) China's land ownership laws are moving toward western laws and are mostly there now!!

Wiki:
Socialist values vs acceptance of free-market economy[edit]
With the passing of the Property Law, a number of local legislators fear that "while the new property law would undoubtedly increase protection for home owners and prevent land seizures, it would also erode China&#8217;s socialist principles."[50] The insistence on socialist values among some of the Chinese ruling elite raises questions on whether China &#8211; an emerging world superpower &#8211; intends to open its doors fully to the Western world and ideas of free-market liberalism, or whether it will continue to differentiate itself in such matters.

Abuse by the government through a catch-all phrase of "Public Interest"[edit]
The Chinese government, while liberalizing its property laws, has still preserved its right to reclaim any property from an individual, as long as there is a public policy consideration