Do you think capitalism will continue to work in the future?

http://www.alternet.org/story/146509/the_financial_terrorists_who_destroyed_our_economy_will_pay_zero_in_taxes_--_and_get_$33_billion_in_refunds?page=1

The inequality of wealth in the United States between the economic top 0.5% and the remaining 99.5% of the population is now at an all-time high. The economic top 1% of the population now controls a record 70% of all financial assets. The point here is that while the economic crisis has been devastating for 99% of America, the Wall Street elite are awash in record breaking profits. The most profitable firm in Wall Street history, Goldman Sachs, just had their most profitable quarter in their 140-year history and Wall Street firms issued an all-time record breaking amount in bonuses.

I just don't understand how this system can continue.. The above quote boggles the mind and it's as if capitalism was setup so that the rich get richer. I mean, it clearly isn't working if every government is running a big deficit and most of their populations are in personal debt.. It's survives on a debt structure of P+I that by it's own definition can never be paid off.

Reset Button anyone?

Michaelrsh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91kdwxFsthI

^^^^^
Did these guys last?

landsleaving

Deleted User wrote: »

I just don't understand how this system can continue.. The above quote boggles the mind and it's as if capitalism was setup so that the rich get richer. I mean, it clearly isn't working if every government running a big deficit and most of their populations are in personal debt.. It's survives on a debt structure of P+I that by it's own definition can never be paid off.

We need a Reset Button.

Nailed it right there.

starbelgrade

I don't know what a tracker mortgage is.

starbelgrade

Michaelrsh wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91kdwxFsthI

^^^^^
Did these guys last?

Yes. And one of them owns Chelsea.

Michaelrsh

Michaelrsh wrote: »

^^^^^
Did these guys last?

Tell me, how did they fall? My sister in law grew up in a communist country and says it was brilliant.. Not one person left uncared for.

dceire

Do you think capitalism will continue to work in the future?

Has it worked in the past?

Son Of A Vidic

Capitalism is certainly not working now and it's supposed to be officially working. Were screwed when it is actually declared to be officially not working. How bad will things be at that stage?

Michaelrsh

Deleted User wrote: »

Tell me, how did they fall? My sister in law grew up in a communist country and says it was brilliant.. Not one person left uncared for.

I have loads of Eastern European friends; mainly from Hungry and Poland. They hated it. The father of one of them was a member of the solidarity movement in Poland. She told me how he was taken out of his house in the middle of the night by the secret police and question for two days.

The_Kew_Tour

Michaelrsh wrote: »

I have loads of Eastern European friends; mainly from Hungry and Poland. They hated it. The father of one of them was a member of the solidarity movement in Poland. She told me how he was taken out of his house in the middle of the night by the secret police and question for two days.

No fear that will ever happen here though.

they be more likely get bonus.

dceire

dceire wrote: »

Do you think capitalism will continue to work in the future?

Has it worked in the past?

Well I wouldn't deny that it's capitalism that drove us forward to where we are today in terms of technology and international relations in Europe etc.
That is separate though to the spiral of debt which can never be paid off and the inequalities in the likes of America.. So much worse than here and for that we're lucky.

degausserxo

Karl Marx is probably having a great lol at us all right now.

m@cc@

Capitalism will continue to work as long as there as no realistic or viable alternatives.

Michaelrsh

degausserxo wrote: »

Karl Marx is probably having a great lol at us all right now.

Well nearly every interpretation of the ideas of Karl Marx has been by dictatorial and freedom hating regimes. Even though dictatorships or lack of civil rights weren't the original ideas of Marx (the communist manifesto was almost purely an economic plan), it's still strange how most countries who adopted his ideas turned out kinda evil.

MikeC101

Deleted User wrote: »

Tell me, how did they fall?

Rigid central economic planning that just didn't work, and refused to adapt when it was clear it wasn't working; based on a flawed philopsophy that crushes the individuals liberties and happiness for the "good of the state"; repressive governments that slaughtered their own citizens wholesale, and so on...I don't think that capitalism is necessarily ideal, but I've yet to see anyone come up with a real workable alternative.

Deleted User wrote: »

My sister in law grew up in a communist country and says it was brilliant.. Not one person left uncared for.

Which one?

MikeC101

MikeC101 wrote: »

Rigid central economic planning that just didn't work, and refused to adapt when it was clear it wasn't working; based on a flawed philopsophy that crushes the individuals liberties and happiness for the "good of the state"; repressive governments that slaughtered their own citizens wholesale, and so on...I don't think that capitalism is necessarily ideal, but I've yet to see anyone come up with a real workable alternative.

I don't really care about what the alternative is.. I'm just asking people if they think it will work. The money system is so fundamentally flawed and that's the problem..

Which one?

Ukraine.

The_Minister

OP, can you provide a more credible cite for those figures?

Last time I checked the recession destroyed 40% of the world's wealth and disproportionately affected the richest.

OutlawPete

"You know what capitalism is?

.. getting fucked."

landsleaving

Michaelrsh wrote: »

Well nearly every interpretation of the ideas of Karl Marx has been by dictatorial and freedom hating regimes. Even though dictatorships or lack of civil rights weren't the original ideas of Marx (the communist manifesto was almost purely an economic plan), it's still strange how most countries who adopted his ideas turned out kinda evil.

All that proves is that people are horribly flawed. No matter how wonderful the idea, in the end it comes down to people, and the ones who gain power, want power, and power corrupts. Capitalism is no different. Just look at our government.

I'm sure Karl Marx and Adam Smith both had lovely intentions, but neither of their theories can stand up against the flaws of mankind.

Communism to be fair, only fails when those who gain power move away from communism to a dictatorship. Capitalism is inherently flawed, it encourages inequality and coupled with the debt-centric society we live in today, the system collapses. Communism is flawed in that it assumes people won't lust for more money, material things, etc. but they will, it's in our nature. It would be a beautiful world were it not.

The_Minister

Deleted User wrote: »

Tell me, how did they fall? My sister in law grew up in a communist country and says it was brilliant.. Not one person left uncared for.

You'll get flamed for that by anyone with any knowledge of previous communist countries, but you aren't entirely wrong.

The bottom 10-20% did fairly well under communism (providing they weren't killed), but the problem is that the rest of the country endured a much lower standard of living then they otherwise would have.

Is it right that 80-90% of the country should have their standard of living severely limited in order to aid the bottom 10-20%?

m@cc@

Deleted User wrote: »

Ukraine.

The Ukraine's progression to capitalism has been pretty shambolic. They had one of the highest living standards in the Soviet Union but now it's something like you'd expect in Africa.

Corruption is rife there now but it's as much the people in power as the economic system. The Ukraine is a black eye to those who defend capitalism though.

The_Minister

The_Minister wrote: »

OP, can you provide a more credible cite for those figures?

Last time I checked the recession destroyed 40% of the world's wealth and disproportionately affected the richest.

I'm going to sleep now so maybe tomorrow.. The figures are hardly the most important thing about the thread though in fairness. I should have made more of a point of the debt issue and left out the piece where people like yourself can pick holes at and take away from the actual discussion.

PM would have worked even better Mister Mod.

m@cc@ wrote: »

The Ukraine's progression to capitalism has been pretty shambolic. They had one of the highest living standards in the Soviet Union but now it's something like you'd expect in Africa.

As I say, she grew up in and thought it was great.. She said everyone around her did. Now she's gone from it and will never live there again.

The_Minister wrote: »

The bottom 10-20% did fairly well under communism (providing they weren't killed), but the problem is that the rest of the country endured a much lower standard of living then they otherwise would have.

Is it right that 80-90% of the country should have their standard of living severely limited in order to aid the bottom 10-20%?

I'm not suggesting Communism is the answer in any way shape or form. If the bottom 10-20% are in poverty though, there's something wrong with the system..

MikeC101

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't really care about what the alternative is..

You may not care, but to be honest, what it boils down to is that in the absence of any alternative, then yes, it will probably work. The trappings might change, but the fundamentals will remain, barring a huge shift in human behaviour.

I'm just asking people if they think it will work. The money system is so fundamentally flawed and that's the problem..

What do you mean exactly by the money system being flawed? Because to a certain extent, I think the various mechanisms financial institutions are using to manipulate money and turn a profit have gotten so complicated and intertwined that very few people understand them (I know I don't!) and it's kind of shocking how one event can have such huge knock on effects.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ukraine.

I don't know much about modern Ukraine, but millions died in famine due to Stalinist policies in the 30s, I don't know that it's exactly a good example. I suppose if you're willing to give up your freedoms, and you'd prefer the majority have a much lower standard of living while the very poorest have a slightly higher one, then it might be worth it.

DazMarz

Other systems (communism being a main contender) work in theory, but not in practice.

Capitalism is unfortunately the only system that will work, due to providing the right incentives to people (ie: work hard and rewards will come; if you create something important, you will reap bigger rewards etc.)

Under Communism et al, these incentives were not there, and people had no reason to be creative or innovative. So it did not work.

Pity, really.

The_Minister

landsleaving wrote: »

Communism to be fair, only fails when those who gain power move away from communism to a dictatorship.

With respect, I believe that there is something fundamental in Communism that pushes it towards a dictatorship.

People are fundamentally unequal in intelligence, talent, ability and drive - Communism tries to enforce a false equality on everyone by largely equalising rewards (and if you don't equalise rewards, you get inequality) and requiring, as you noted a huge amount of goodwill.
People resent working when others don't, and resent it if they do more but get the same as others. There are some people who will happily freeload off society, and leech off the work of others. The more people freeload, the more people who will freeload, until you are forcing people to work against their will, because you have no choice.
A system that requires people to work for nothing or nearly nothing has no choice but to take control of the actors within it and force them into roles by violence and law, which capitalism forces them into by need.

Michaelrsh

Communism and socialism have the potential to make people lazy and create a bland society. Capitalism is different. It makes people ambitious and willing to fight. Take Britain at the end of the 80's :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

MikeC101

MikeC101 wrote: »

What do you mean exactly by the money system being flawed? Because to a certain extent, I think the various mechanisms financial institutions are using to manipulate money and turn a profit have gotten so complicated and intertwined that very few people understand them (I know I don't!) and it's kind of shocking how one event can have such huge knock on effects.

This is well worth the watch..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43X8vzX1F6c

epgc3fyqirnbsx

I'm not too qualified to comment tbh but I often find the people bitching about capitalism are the ones who benefit from it the most.
I went to college in galway, crusty central, and spent manys the delightful afternoon down at the arch having a great time with everyone, many of whom were crusty socialists who were sure that the only reason pure socialist states haven't thrived was because of the 'corporations' and the fact that they didn't have enough time.
I have two major issues with this

Number 1 : Human nature, we are greedy bastards and always will be. Socialism can never work

Number 2 : These very 'socialists' have travelled to every socialist mecca on the planet, such airtravel being, realistically, impossible without large scale socialism. That and the no visa agreements with EU, Us, Aus and NZ and so on. Internet too.
****s sake, we wouldn't be half as smart and savvy were it not for capitalism.

And for thos who want to 'stall it back a notch', times change, they always have and always will. You can't stop progress. And maybe capitalism may evolve to something but it wont be far off the original ideal. More money for me.

But its nice to be idealistic, you might get to write an interesting book out of it

landsleaving

The_Minister wrote: »

With respect, I believe that there is something fundamental in Communism that pushes it towards a dictatorship.

People are fundamentally unequal in intelligence, talent, ability and drive - Communism tries to enforce a false equality on everyone by largely equalising rewards (and if you don't equalise rewards, you get inequality) and requiring, as you noted a huge amount of goodwill.
People resent working when others don't, and resent it if they do more but get the same as others. There are some people who will happily freeload off society, and leech off the work of others. The more people freeload, the more people who will freeload, until you are forcing people to work against their will, because you have no choice.
A system that requires people to work for nothing or nearly nothing has no choice but to take control of the actors within it and force them into roles by violence and law, which capitalism forces them into by need.

I don't disagree with that, ideally everyone should work for the system to work, but they don't and it doesn't. It's still people who are the problem.

I kind of contradicted myself looking back at my post. Take the word 'only' away from the quoted sentence and I think we're on the same page (a similar one anyway)

Rothmans

Capatalism has been around since, well . . . since time began. Thusfar its served us well. We have seen the failures of Communism and Socialism. The governments just collapse.
Capaitalism incentiveses people to make there own way in life whereas socialism just collapses because people invariably adopt an attitude of, as Homer Simpson would put it 'Can't someone else do it?' => socialism doesn't work.
Look at how Russia and all other European countries failed within 85 years or so. Compare communist N Korea to capitalist S Korea. Famine in the North, relative prosperity in the South. All other modern communist countries are failing. China is beggining to prosper because guess what? they are adopting capitalist policies!

I have been told once that communism is an ultra-extreme form of capitalism in that the people at the very top are extremely wealthy (i.e the national leaders/politicians) while the average Joe-Soap is dirt poor.

Rothmans

Its amazing how socialist societies seem to crumble within decades of their establishment whilst capitalist countries last for centuries (if not millenia!) - eg the United Kingdom

Rothmans

Rothmans wrote: »

Compare communist N Korea to capitalist S Korea. Famine in the North, relative prosperity in the South.

Can you really say "prosperity" when it's debt though?
http://en.ce.cn/subject/financialcrisis/financialcrisisln/200903/31/t20090331_18670336.shtml

Ostrom

Rothmans wrote: »

Capatalism has been around since, well . . . since time began.

...no it hasn't....

Rothmans

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you really say "prosperity" when it's debt though?
http://en.ce.cn/subject/financialcrisis/financialcrisisln/200903/31/t20090331_18670336.shtml

The people are better off. note the term 'relative' in my original post please

Rothmans

efla wrote: »

...no it hasn't....

. . . . . yes it has . . . .

landsleaving

Rothmans wrote: »

Its amazing how socialist societies seem to crumble within decades of their establishment whilst capitalist countries last for centuries (if not millenia!) - eg the United Kingdom

Actually feudalism dominated until fairly recently, historically speaking. Capitalism isn't all that old.

Rothmans

Rothmans wrote: »

The people are better off. note the term 'relative' in my original post please

I know the people are better off.. Note the term "continue to work" in my original title please.

Ostrom

Rothmans wrote: »

. . . . . yes it has . . . .

You're missing a few millenia of pastoralism and subsistence agriculture

Rothmans

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you really say "prosperity" when it's debt though?
http://en.ce.cn/subject/financialcrisis/financialcrisisln/200903/31/t20090331_18670336.shtml

Loans 'which the government aims to gradually reduce'. Seems sensible enough capitalist policy to me. Loans create wealth - that is their purpose.

landsleaving

Rothmans wrote: »

Loans 'which the government aims to gradually reduce'. Seems sensible enough capitalist policy to me. Loans create wealth - that is their purpose.

Loans don't create anything other than the false illusion of wealth. Unless you mean for the people who provide them, then they create lots of wealth.

Their purpose is to allow people to get the things they want before they've earned the money for them, thus creating less wealth in the long run as they are forced to pay interest, which they would have avoided without a loan.

I'm not arguing that they aren't necessary, one needs a place to live, but they most certainly do not create wealth.

Rothmans

Rothmans wrote: »

Loans 'which the government aims to gradually reduce'. Seems sensible enough capitalist policy to me. Loans create wealth - that is their purpose.

So does all this ever return to zero?
http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/

Is it even possible to reduce it when we look at the P+I basis for it? Once it's lent in the first place, it can't be paid back.. That's the discussion I meant to base this thread on but it got side tracked.

Rothmans

Deleted User wrote: »

I know the people are better off.. Note the term "continue to work" in my original title please.

LOL - Communism doesn't work and it cannot 'continue to work' if communist governments and societies collapse before before they even get a chance to 'continue to work'.

In other words, they cannot 'continue to work' if they don't work in the beggining.

With regard to Captitalist societies ability to continue to work, capitalist countries like S Korea have being 'continuing' to work, so to speak, since capitalism began ( that's a poor way of phrasing btw but im very tired)

Rothmans

Rothmans wrote: »

LOL - Communism doesn't work and it cannot 'continue to work' if communist governments and societies collapse before before they even get a chance to 'continue to work'.

In other words, they cannot 'continue to work' if they don't work in the beggining.

My original title is called "Do you think capitalism will continue to work in the future?" What are you on about?
That was my point, at the moment, it's all gravy but in the future, it might not be..

Rothmans

landsleaving wrote: »

Actually feudalism dominated until fairly recently, historically speaking. Capitalism isn't all that old.

Fuedilism is capitalism, only in smaller circles (again, please forgive the poor phrasing-im very tired)

Rothmans

efla wrote: »

You're missing a few millenia of pastoralism and subsistence agriculture

To what exactly are you refering. Basic farming?

Ostrom

Yes

Rothmans

landsleaving wrote: »

Loans don't create anything other than the false illusion of wealth. Unless you mean for the people who provide them, then they create lots of wealth.

Their purpose is to allow people to get the things they want before they've earned the money for them, thus creating less wealth in the long run as they are forced to pay interest, which they would have avoided without a loan.

I'm not arguing that they aren't necessary, one needs a place to live, but they most certainly do not create wealth.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics -I'm stating that the primary function of loans is to CREATE wealth and not merely to provide wealth

Liam Byrne

I'd hope that people would realise that it won't work, and that they'd also realise the difference between communism and true socialism.

Unfortunately, I fear that the answer is that it will continue to "work", in the sense that "money talks" so it will work for those with money and lobbying power, while the rest of us get screwed over.

The worst aspect of the current bastardisation of capitalism is the socialising of the losses while those who siphoned off millions and billions during the boom years get to keep those billions that those paying now never saw, and will never see.

Rothmans

efla wrote: »

Yes

How is that not capitalism - the farmer grows produce and is rewarded for = capitalism, no?

Rothmans

Deleted User wrote: »

So does all this ever return to zero?
http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/

I should hope not. If it did then our banking system, and capitalism could collapse

Ostrom

Rothmans wrote: »

How is that not capitalism - the farmer grows produce and is rewarded for = capitalism, no?

No. Farmer consumes his own produce, travels with grazing livestock, labours in kind for his feudal lord, meets his needs by barter many centuries before he trades labour for monied wage