Is Capitalism the only economy you will accept?

[txlibdem]

Yes, No. And please explain your reasons.

For what it's worth, my answer is NO. I'd accept life under a European Socialist system, but I'd rather see banks and money outlawed.

[ixion]

1. Yes, with a qualifier:

I believe that an open market and a common medium of exchange is the only economic model that actually works. I am, however, an old fashioned capitalist in that I also believe that only real products should be allowed to enter the marketplace. Financial vehicles, like CDO's and CDS's are only fictional products, and shouldn't be allowed, for the reasons we see in the market today.

[MineralMan]

2. No, but it's the only economy I expect.

I don't see it changing to something else here in my lifetime or, frankly, in the lifetime of anyone alive today.

[Marazinia]

3. No

Socialism is the only one I'll accept. Oddly, we live under a form of socialism in American now. We do have regulation, it's just largely insufficient or ignored. Second to that, I'll live under anarchy. It isn't worse than pure capitalism and it's better than corporate fascism. But I'm for a sensible, middle of the road, European socialism such as they have in Norway and Sweden.

[Rabblevox]

4. No, in fact it's one of the last I'd accept. Capitalism has an inherent, fatal flaw...

that few realize or are willing to talk about.

Namely, capitalism is based on continuous growth. Even well-regulated Keynesian capitalism shares this flaw.

And we simply can't (and won't) keep growing over the long haul. We are at a tipping point, and I think within 50 years of a planetary die-back (that number is courtesy of my butt, btw, it could easily happen in 10 or 100 years).

My 1st choice would be a de-centralized version of European socialism, followed by moving to a barter and gifting society.

[AndyTiedye]

15. Capitalism Does Not Require Growth

If it did, it would not survive long periods of economic contraction, which it clearly does.

All that capitalism requires is money to invest. It has to go somewhere.
Investors LIKE growth, but if there is no growth, they will seek stability.

[txlibdem]

30. That post was full of BULL

Without constant growth the current Capitalist system dies. During times of "economic contraction" the tax payers bail out the rich and the corporations and then they start raping and pillaging again. Not before.

Investors seek stability???? What a load of ... you know what. Investors seek a constant upward growth in valuation/stock price -OR- a lucrative dividend. Stability my eye!

[AndyTiedye]

31. You're Forgetting About the BEARS

We already know at least one prominent Republican Congresscritter
is invested in a really bearish ultra-short fund.

That is most likely the tip of the iceberg.
What could be more bearish than this credit default swap stuff?

Investors seek a constant upward growth in valuation/stock price -OR- a lucrative dividend. Stability my eye!

Investors love growth, sure, but they really hate losing their money.
They are likely to be especially concerned about this if they have recently lost a substantial amount.
That is why there is a market for T-bills even at negative yields
when the market is having a really bad time.

The financial houses make money no matter which way the market goes.

Most ordinary investors would not be getting a bailout, unless it's from the FDIC when their bank folds.

[txlibdem]

32. The bears are the ones who sell off stocks and go with dividends

They aren't in it for charity. Buying Treasury Bills at negative yields may be a strategy I haven't heard of but I doubt that the real power players do much of that.

The gist of my desires for the stock market is to see it dismantled and see it permanently outlawed, along with banks and the monetary system. So you can nitpick my Bulls vs Bears and investing strategy all you like. If I were king for a week the whole darn thing would be closed down.

[aquart]

5. European socialism is a regulated capitalist system.

Where did you get the silly idea itm isn't?

[sam11111]

6. regulation is socialism: so they have a mix w/ socialists somewhat on top

BTW Finland has planet's highest

Quality of Life score

Denmark highest in Happiness Survey

last I heard.

[reACTIONary]

7. My thought exactly... there is no advanced, liberal, industrial society...

...that isn't basically capitalistic. I think the "real choice" is between a primarily industrial or agrarian society. And given the world population, agrarian societies are basically obsolete. There isn't really any "real choice".

[Kennah]

8. I guess I disagree with your premise

Capitalism and the European Socialist System don't appear to be mutually exclusive. There are corporations in probably all of the European countries, and there isn't some central planning department, as there was in the old Soviet Union under Stalin, telling them how to make shoes, build cars, etc. Yes, they have consumer protections, standards, rules, and regulations to which they must adhere, just like in the U.S., but they are different is the degree to which they protect.

There are many forms of Capitalism, and most on the Reich seem to be in love with either anarcho-capitalism or minarchism. Best explanation I've heard of our system here in the U.S. would be to say it's a social market economy. We have unemployment insurance, workers comp, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, to name a few.

Now, I will absolutely agree that our safety nets here in the U.S. are way too thin and too narrow. Too many are allowed to fall through, and too many just plain aren't caught. I think that's the real crux of the argument when one speaks out against Capitalism--insufficient regulation and safety.

Some things I would embrace to change it:
- Real universal healthcare, and we have a number of different systems in the OECD countries which could be examined to try and pull together different good ideas to build a better, if not the best, healthcare system
- Repeal the Reagan tax cuts. Thom Hartmann has spoken very eloquently about this point, and he completely obliterates all the bullshit RW talking points that suckered me for a long time. A progressive taxation with top rates in the 70 to 90 percent range, "encourage" the wealthy to reinvest in their companies rather than pulling money out and playing games in the speculative markets. IOW, it reduces volatility.
- Reinstate the full power of Glass-Steagall
- Real tariffs, like we had before Reagan--Fair Trade as Free Trade seems to really mean Unfettered Trade
- Too big to fail means too big to exist, so we start exercising Sherman Anti Trust Act, and the banks and telcos would be my first target. We have 11 U.S. Circuit Courts, 12 if you count the D.C. Court of Appeals. No reason why we can't go back to the Ma Bell breakup era, only perhaps we go with 10 or 12 this time as opposed to just 7. Might keep them apart for a while longer.
- We end private for profit utilities, including ISPs if they are going to be given a monopoly. They should operate as a not-for-profit if they have a monopoly. Now, if the local telco is providing Internet, but a cable provider is an option and turning a profit, I'm perfectly OK with that. No more Aguas del Tunari. No more Ernestine.

I don't see where any of this, and a lot more, can't be done in the context of the social market economy in the U.S.

[txlibdem]

10. I love your bullet list -- everything on yours is on mine as well!

PS, the USSR was State Controlled Capitalism, not Communism or Socialism as some people believe.

[Kennah]

12. Very true

Whether it's an oligarchy like in China or the USSR, or a Corporatocracy like in the U.S., unfettered Capitalism thrives when power is concentrated. Different ways to skin the worker.

I still struggle whenever I hear the terms Communism or Socialism since real forms are quite rare. I suppose Israeli kibbutzim might be one of the best examples.

Recently, Thom Hartmann talked about the odd state of worker owned collectives or cooperatives under the tax code in the U.S., and how a number of states prohibit them outright. Red Scare legacy I guess.

[GliderGuider]

40. In the words of Fran Lebowitz

"In the Soviet Union, Capitalism triumphed over Communism. In this country, Capitalism triumphed over Democracy."

[SanchoPanza]

9. Which capitalism?

Capitalism has more gradations than Christianity. Which is somewhat fitting, since the two most popular books in Western thought that relatively few people have ever actually read are the New Testament and Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations.

The corporate state that exists in national and international economies today looks more like the system Smith both named and criticized (Mercantilism) than what he proposed as the alternative. “Civil government," he wrote, "so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.” Government interference, for Smith, had everything to do with protecting state-charted monopolies from foreign competitors and, in doing so, subjecting the ordinary consumer to the predations of those monopolies. Don't like what the East India Company is charging for its goods? In the immortal words from Goodfellas, "Fuck you, pay me."

The Laissez-Faire fundamentalism that has since come to dominate capitalist discourse is not found within Smith's book or his philosophy. Hell, he dedicated an entire section of The Wealth of Nations to the necessity of banking regulations alone. And neither is the neo-mercantile practices of politically well-connected modern multinationals.

[txlibdem]

11. I meant "Capitalism" in the broadest sense

cap·i·tal·ism
   /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Show IPA
noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism

“History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition.”   —Milton Friedman,

[txlibdem]

13. If I gave you two options

Option A: The current Capitalist system as we have in America, or

Option B: A Socialist system whereby you work a fair days work but receive zero pay. Everything you need (and your family needs) is provided for you for free. That includes food, water, safe and comfortable living quarters, free education, free medical care, freedom to choose your path in life as well. Also Democratic elections to choose the leaders (but as small a government as possible).

Which would you choose?

[AndyTiedye]

16. That Depends

Option A: The current Capitalist system as we have in America, or

Option B: A Socialist system whereby you work a fair days work but receive zero pay. Everything you need (and your family needs) is provided for you for free. That includes food, water, safe and comfortable living quarters, free education, free medical care, freedom to choose your path in life as well. Also Democratic elections to choose the leaders (but as small a government as possible).

Who decides what is a "fair days work" on MY chosen life path?
I'd like to see the "safe, comfortable living quarters" before I decide. That could mean barracks a.la. Mao's Great Leap Forward.
Public housing here tends to turn into The Projects. Faced with either I think I'd put up a tent in the woods.

I'd like to check out the food too. My only experience with government-provided food has been the school cafeteria. :puke:

Our health care system is mostly private, except for some government-provided insurance (Social Security and that special health plan that Congress gets).
The only completely government-provided health care we have experience with here in the US is the Veterans Administration. :scared:

It sorta works with education, but only because education can and does run a bit closer to a gift economy than any of the above.

What you describe above is not so much socialism as it is a gift economy.
It works beautifully as long as everybody loves their work.

[txlibdem]

19. You've described life under Capitalism

[AndyTiedye]

20. You Fail

to explain how your system is going to solve these problems.

Who decides what is a "fair days work" on MY chosen life path?

Under capitalism, the market decides, for better or for worse. Who decides under your system?

I'd like to see the "safe, comfortable living quarters" before I decide. That could mean barracks a.la. Mao's Great Leap Forward.
Public housing here tends to turn into The Projects. Faced with either I think I'd put up a tent in the woods.

I cited two examples of government built, owned, and operated housing: China under Mao, where they bulldozed private homes
and made people live in barracks, and the public housing in our own country.
The Soviet architecture that is being torn down as fast as the wrecking balls can get to it in Eastern Europe might be a third.

Can you at least cite some more positive examples?

The same applies to food and health care. While the government should provide assistance to those who need it in all of these areas,
having the government actually build the housing, produce the food, and provide the health care itself doesn't really work all that well.

You have to be able to make a compelling case that the housing won't be The Projects,
that the food won't be school cafeteria food,
and that the health care won't be like the VA.

[txlibdem]

23. the market decides???

You have been drinking the kook-aide again. When the dullard drugs wear off please return to this conversation... right now you are not in control of your faculties and I wouldn't want to take advantage.

[AndyTiedye]

24. I Was Describing the Current System, Not Endorsing It

For better or for worse, the market DOES decide such things for the most part in our mostly-capitalist economy.

I make no claim for the inherent wisdom of the markets, quite to the contrary, I call for more regulation to bring the necessary wisdom to them.
Government regulation, subsidy, and taxation can bend the markets to better serve the people, and we need to do more of that,
particularly in the financial sector which has turned into the world's biggest crap game
(truely, the casinos in Las Vegas are much better regulated than our financial institutions are).
Despite a tradition of more regulation in Europe, European banks are in trouble too.

Capitalism is far from the ideal system. The perfect system would be a gift economy. Is that what you propose?

You wish to eliminate money and markets entirely (which is something that even Communist societies have been unable to do so far).
How would this work?

[txlibdem]

26. Eliminate money and markets: something that even Communist societies have been unable to do

"Eliminate money and markets entirely (which is something that even Communist societies have been unable to do so far..."

First, there have never been any true Communist societies... only State Controlled Capitalism.

Second, you get the security of knowing that a fireman or police will arrive at your house if you call them. That is a right that is given to you. Only a tiny portion of your taxes goes to fund that. So what is all that different if your rights included food, housing and a fair day's work.

I don't like the term "gift economy." I reject that term. You have a right to certain things guaranteed under the constitution, freedom to assemble, freedom to own a firearm, freedom to petition your government, etc. So if you must label it, I would call it a "Human Rights Economy."

[AndyTiedye]

27. What Taxes? You Have Eliminated Money

Nobody is being paid anything, so how are they going to pay any taxes at all?

If everyone has a right to food and housing, but nobody has any money, how do they get their food and housing?
If the government is to build all the housing and produce all the food and provide all the healthcare itself,
then it is fair to look at their current efforts in those areas.

This also begs the question of how we obtain things that are not food or shelter or healthcare, but are necessary
either for "following our own life path" or at least for our quality of life.

[txlibdem]

28. Under he current system that was supposed to read

Duh!

:dunce:

[txlibdem]

29. You are so frightened that the world might do away with money. Why is that?

Your posts are vicious and rapid in their defense of the status quo. Do you honestly believe you'll be a millionaire some day??? :rofl:

Excuses, excuses, excuses but not a single solution to the problems of the day. I'd say your post is nothing but a gripe session. Hey, how about you become part of the solution and stop being part of the problem???

[AndyTiedye]

33. Actually No, I Am Somewhat Fascinated With the Concept

which is why I have been trying to get you to explain how it is going to work.

Does the government own and operate everything?
If so, how do you reconcile that with your stated desire to keep the government as small as possible?

The latter goal would seem to require something pretty close to a gift economy.

[txlibdem]

35. Your mind is stuck on the thought that everything has to be "OWNED" by someone

Who owns the moon? or a kiss? or a warm summer breeze? -- NOBODY that's who.

The world doesn't have to be sliced up into little squares or rectangles and "owned" by someone or any group of someones. The world belongs to us all - all 7 billion of us... equally.

Again, I reject your idea of "gift economy" -- a gift can only be given if it's OWNED and (see the paragraphs above). Your post is caught in the 1800s. Please come with the rest of us into the 21st century... we'd love to have you with us.

[AndyTiedye]

37. Do You Own Your Own Labor?

I was calling it a gift economy because everyone is gifting their labor.
Nobody is getting paid. If food, shelter, etc., are basic human rights,
then those right apply whether you work or not.

The entire society would be running on volunteer labor, in effect.
If everyone gets to do the work they love, that should be motivation enough,
I know it would be for me.

[bemildred]

25. Correct, the fundmental issue is political, who decides?

If you get to decide, you needs are likely to be better cared for than if somebody else decides for you. Wealth and power are intimately entwined, and the pretense that they are separate is one of the great flapdoodles of US politics. Why do you think that our "leaders" are so anxious that the poor be poorly informed, or even better that they not vote at all?

[golfguru]

34. Name me 2 countries running Option B

I will move there.

[applegrove]

14. All countries in the world are mixed market economies with a mix of capitalism and socialism.

[bemildred]

17. I think the notion of private property needs adjustment.

It needs to be more about stewardship and being a custodian, and less about showing off to the neighbors or indulging your whims.

[txlibdem]

18. Yes, stewardship. Like the 7 generations decision making.

The Great Law of the Iroquois.

[AndyTiedye]

21. Already Happening to Some Extent

A lot of people who can afford to drive anything they want are driving Priuses these days.
Presumably they also made up the entire market for the Tesla Roadster ($109,000+).

You hardly ever see a Hummer anymore. The bigger SUVs have all but disappeared around here
and many of the smaller ones are hybrids.

They are paying local craftsmen to make their stuff, instead of settling for mass-produced junk from China.

They are installing solar panels.

Would this be conspicuous un-consumption?

[txlibdem]

22. It would be great if we could all do that, too

I especially like the idea of hiring local craftsmen and artisans to make our things. We'd end up with some wild looking end tables but it would support a person and not a multi-national conglomerate.

Our family (my wife and I) hires a neighbor to do the odd jobs we can't do: a recent wind storm tore off a few shingles and we hired our neighbor to fix it. He did a great job and we know that our money isn't going to some mega-corp that is sending millions to the GOP/Tea Candidates. Tomorrow, if I get the holes dug fast enough, he is going to put in the fence posts for a long-overdue fence repair. Small jobs like that.

[chunter]

36. We Have Merchantilism, Not Capitalism

Right now, we have government working with big corporations to give them an unfair advantage.
Corporations write the regulations to keep their competition limited. Big corporations get loans at super low interest rates. Corporations get subsidies. And big corporate banks get bailed out.

[GliderGuider]

38. Wrong place... n/t

[GliderGuider]

39. I'd much prefer a gift economy.

Gift economies would take money and "economic growth" out of the equation entirely, getting rid of two pernicious influences simultaneously.

To get there we would need to go through a complete collapse of the current global money-based economy, the devolution of industrial civilization into a more regionalized structure, and a consequential population reduction. Strong medicine, but if we are ever to become an ecologically responsible, truly sustainable species, that's what would need to happen.

It's a low probability occurrence, unfortunately.

[Leftist4Life]

41. No, not by a long shot

I am pretty much a democratic socialist.

The problem with capitalism is that it is inherently undemocratic. Wealth is a form of political power, wealth is distributed unequally in capitalism. In a democracy, political power must be distributed equally. Therefore, capitalism is undemocratic.
t
For those detractors of socialism or Marxism who point to the Soviet Union or China, neither country was actually socialist or Marxist. The both countries were essentially state-capitalist, where the party heads and the state controlled the means of production.