Look where out-of-control capitalism got us.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

There are many different ideas or systems of how an economy should be run. The two most common are capitalism and socialism. They are very different in how they view who runs the economy. Most economies have ideas from both systems, but tend to be more of one than the other.

Capitalism is the economic system based on private or corporate ownership of, production and distribution of goods. It has always existed to some extent in all civilizations but was written about formally by Adam Smith in his book "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776. Capitalists favor a system of free enterprise which means the government should not interfere in the economy - that the laws of supply and demand will make sure that the ecnomy runs most efficiently in meeting people's needs. Capitalism is characterized by competition in which there is rivalry in supplying or getting an economic service or good. Sellers compete with other sellers, and buyers with other buyers. The buyers seek the best possible deal in purchasing goods and the sellers look to make the best possible sale allowing them the most profit.

Socialism is an economic theory or idea that states that the government or the state should be in charge of economic planning, production and distribution of goods. This contrasts with capitalism where free markets predonimate and property is privately owned. Socielism tends to favor cooperation whereas capitalism is characterized by competition.

The theories of socialism first arose in the late eighteenth century in response to the Industrial Revolution where factory owners were becoming wealthy and the workers impoverished. Thus, workers wanted a greater share in the wealth that factories were making. Later a form of socialism called communism sprang up based on the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Communism advocates class struggle and revolution to establish a society of cooperation with strong government control. Communism predominated in the former Soviet Union and much of Eastern Europe at one time. Today it predominates in China and Cuba, but its influence has lessened.

From time to time in human history, there occur events of seismic significance, when one orthodoxy is overthrown and another takes its place. Today, the scale of the global financial crisis demands that we re-evaluate the economic policy and philosophy that brought us to this point.

George Soros has said that "the salient feature of the current financial crisis is that it was not caused by some external shock. ... The crisis was generated by the system itself." He is right. The current crisis is the culmination of a 30-year domination of economic policy by a free-market ideology that has been variously called neo-liberalism, economic liberalism or economic fundamentalism. The central thrust of this ideology has been that government activity should be constrained, and ultimately replaced, by market forces. In the past year, we have seen how unchecked market forces have brought capitalism to the precipice.

Instead of distributing risk throughout the world, the global financial system has intensified it. Neo-liberal orthodoxy held that global financial markets would ultimately self-correct - the invisible hand of unfettered market forces finding their own equilibrium. But as economist Joseph Stiglitz has caustically observed: "The reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is not there."

Just as it fell to Franklin Roosevelt to rebuild American capitalism after the Depression, and to the American Democrats, strongly influenced by John Maynard Keynes, to rebuild postwar domestic demand, to engineer the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and to set in place the Bretton Woods system to govern international economic engagement, so it falls to a new generation to reflect on and rebuild our national and international economic systems.

If centrist governments are to save capitalism, they must face three challenges. First is to use the agency of the state to reconstitute properly regulated markets and to rebuild domestic and global demand. With the demise of neo-liberalism, the role of the state has once more been recognized as fundamental. The state has been the primary actor in responding to three clear areas of the current crisis: in rescuing the private financial system from collapse; in providing direct stimulus to the real economy because of the collapse in private demand; and in the design of a national and global regulatory regime in which government has ultimate responsibility to determine and enforce the rules of the system.

The second challenge for social democrats is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As the global financial crisis unfolds and the hard impact on jobs is felt by families across the world, the pressure will be great to retreat to some model of an all-providing state and to abandon altogether the cause of open, competitive markets both at home and abroad. Protectionism has already begun to make itself felt, albeit in softer and more subtle forms than the crudity of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. Soft or hard, protectionism is a surefire way of turning recession into depression, as it exacerbates the collapse in global demand. Social democracy's continuing philosophical claim to political legitimacy is its capacity to balance the private and the public, profit and wages, the market and the state. That philosophy once again speaks with clarity and cogency to the challenges of our time.

A further challenge for governments in dealing with the current crisis is its almost unprecedented global dimensions. Governments must craft consistent global financial regulations to prevent a race to the bottom, where capital leaks out to the areas of the global economy with the weakest regulation. We must establish stronger global disclosure standards for systemically important financial institutions. We must also build stronger supervisory frameworks to provide incentives for more responsible corporate conduct, including executive remuneration.

The world has turned to co-ordinated governmental action through the Group of 20: to help provide immediate liquidity to the global financial system; to co-ordinate sufficient fiscal stimulus to respond to the growth gap arising from the global recession; to redesign global regulatory rules for the future; to reform the existing global public institutions - especially the International Monetary Fund - to provide them with the powers and resources necessary for the demands of the 21st century.

The IMF's governance arrangements must be reformed. It is only reasonable that, if we expect fast-growing developing economies such as that of China to make a greater contribution to multilateral institutions such as the IMF, they should also gain a stronger decision-making voice in these forums.

The longer-term challenge for governments is to address the imbalances that have helped to destabilize the global economy in the past decade: in particular, the imbalances between large surplus economies such as that of China, Japan and the oil-exporting nations, and large debtor nations such as America.

The magnitude of the crisis and its impact across the world means that minor tweakings of long-established orthodoxies will not do. Two unassailable truths have already been established: that financial markets are not always self-correcting or self-regulating, and that government can never abdicate responsibility for maintaining economic stability.

For governments, it is critical that we get it right - not just to save the system of open markets from self-destruction, but also to rebuild confidence in properly regulated markets, so as to prevent extreme reactions from the far left or the far right taking hold.

Governments must get it right because the stakes are so high: There are the economic and social costs of long-term unemployment; poverty once again expanding its grim reach across the developing world; and the impact on long-term power structures within the existing international political and strategic order. Success is not optional. Too much now rides on our ability to prevail.

How do the Pubs turn Gustav into a political advantage? We already see them shameless working all the angles and considering their options, but let's face it. They need all the help they can get now that Gustav has blow the wind out of the sails of their copy-cat showcase celebrity VP pick. It's just as well. A 48-hour ride on that boat was just about all the excitement JM could stand at one time.

Any political capital the RNC is trying to get out of Gustav is doomed to fail. What's a party to do? The collective sigh of relief they all are breathing over the Bush and Cheney speech cancellations to go put on their compassionate conservative hats and polish up their leadership image is producing wind gusts up to a Category 10. How can they celebrate the debut of their golden girl on a split screen they share with the drowning of New Orleans Part II and hold their collective breaths at the same time and pray those levies don't break again? One would think they would have the sense to postpone the event until all the ruckus dies down, but if they did that, people might actually start expecting the Prez and VP to deliver their speeches again. They can't have that, now can they?

The dems will not be too worried about Bush/Cheney speech cancellations one way or the other. The RNC opening night and the leadership image role down south are equal opportunities for Bush and Cheney to show their true colors and there is no way the media is going to be polite enough not to be reminding us all about the screw ups last time around, no matter how presidential they try to appear. It's a lose/lose situation no matter how you look at it.

Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, and Paulson's baby. They're the ones who calls the shots on how this money is to be given out and used. They were the ones with the first bright idea for this bailout.

Even yesterday, Frank decided he would give the automakers $25K with governments ownships of the automakers. Yet last night, I hear it's only a loan to them to be paid back. So, which is it?

Yeah.....an 825 billion dollar stimulus package that won't really work....sounds like spending is under control to me. Holy crow people! Nothing like adding that to our huge deficit now and how many days as he been in office? Is that like a new record of making the deficit shoot up so fast within the first month of a presidency. Impressive....NOT.

My, read nothing about it in our newspapers around here. Please pay attention to the paragraphs following these:

His feelings about House Bill 375 are the same, according to his Philadelphia office manager, Joe Evangelista.

Similar to House Bill 375, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois in January introduced Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.

supports abstinence-only education in schools, but she has also said she does not support tax payer dollars to distribute birth control in schools. She is a member of Feminists for Life, which is an pro-life group.

Feminist for Life is a pro-life group that has had its positions distorted to show that they are against birth control. Palin critics (including many in the media) have cherry picked in order to smear Gov. Palin.

or better yet, never had control. I actually like McCain to a certain extent. I don't like his policies, but I do like his ability to get some things done. I think McCain's real pick for VP would have been Leiberman. I think he knew he would have to run a *middle of the road* campaign after Bush, but I think he was overruled by the pub party. This is evidenced by the fact that Palin seemed to be running a completely different campaign than McCain. McCain also voiced disagreement with other activities such as robo-calls. McCain has been on the ugly side of a campaign before, and I really didn't get the impression that he was happy with the way things were going. This makes me think he had no control.

Who the master mind behind the Palin pick was, I don't know yet, but I'm sure it'll come out sooner or later. Another possibility is that the pub party knew they couldn't win this election so they pretty much used McCain, and in the meantime tried to show some versatility by choosing Palin -- that didn't work out as planned I'm sure.

Either way, I don't think McCain is at fault for the Palin pick. A major concern during the election was that he had exhibited bad judgment by picking her. I tend to believe that the real problem was that he didn't have any control of the situation and wouldn't have had control as pres.

Look where out-of-control capitalism got us.

What government must do to save capitalism

Related Articles