Is modern Capitalism on it's last legs?

An interesting piece on the BBC yesterday:-

Has Western capitalism failed?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><o:p></o:p>
Twenty years ago, the fall of communism in Eastern Europe seemed to prove the triumph of capitalism. But was that an illusion? Constant shocks to the world's financial system over the past few years prompted the BBC World Service's Business Daily programme to ask leading figures whether they thought Western capitalism had failed.<o:p></o:p>
Angel Gurria: Secretary General, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD):-<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
My answer to this question would be no. But I also wonder whether capitalism should be answering to the prosecution. <o:p></o:p>
We failed as regulators, we failed as supervisors, we failed as corporate governance managers, we failed as risk managers, and we also failed in the allocation of roles and responsibilities for international economic organisations. <o:p></o:p>
Some international organisations saw the crisis coming. Some even managed to put out some warnings, but they did not co-ordinate their assessments, they did not speak with one strong voice. <o:p></o:p>
It is very important to send clear signals of how we are going to address this debt problem without sacrificing growth and employment”<o:p></o:p>
Thus, they were ignored in an atmosphere of great prosperity where everybody was making a lot of money and everybody thought that innovation was the name of the game - and by warning that something could go wrong, you would look like you were holding progress back.<o:p></o:p>
There was also the philosophy that markets needed to function with the least possible government intervention. But that did not mean that they could work without any intervention at all, nor did it necessarily mean that the intervention could be such a light touch that you were not able to identify risks. <o:p></o:p>
So the crisis left a dire legacy. A legacy of high unemployment, enormous fiscal deficits which we are still struggling to control, and an accumulated public debt which has already reached 100% of GDP on average in the OECD countries. <o:p></o:p>
It is very important to send clear signals of how we are going to address this debt problem without sacrificing growth and employment. <o:p></o:p>
Reforms to product and labour markets, education, innovation, green growth, competition, taxes, health - they are the things that should be the object of our primary focus in the context of a long-term strategy to restore sustained growth. <o:p></o:p>
This will create jobs and help to tackle debt. <o:p></o:p>
We also need to "go social" and focus on innovative policies to protect the most vulnerable.<o:p></o:p>
Ken Ofori Atta: Executive chairman and co-founder of Databank Financial Services (Ghana):-<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The 20 years prior to the recent credit crisis could be described as capitalism as its best, with global wealth accelerating at ever increasing rates. <o:p></o:p>
Since 1990, when we left Wall Street and founded Databank to offer the first investment banking services in Ghana, we were able to capitalise significantly on the boom years,<o:p></o:p>
We have also observed and embraced how some of that capitalism-fuelled wealth has found its way into funding education, innovation and creativity, all in pursuit of a better life and hopefully a better world. <o:p></o:p>
What went awry among the frenzy for growth in more mature markets was people losing sight of the fact that someone somewhere has to work hard”<o:p></o:p>
All too recently this notion was challenged. The spark that ignited the crisis led to a conflagration of adverse effects. These spread like a virus across North America, Europe and right down into Asia. <o:p></o:p>
While our counterparts dealing on the historically more developed markets were taking increasing amounts of risk, employing complicated financial instruments to make returns from increasingly complex derivatives, Ghana - and Africa as a whole - was focused largely on helping to fund a growth in enterprise. <o:p></o:p>
We were not so widely exposed to toxic assets so we weathered the storm well. And we did so employing the techniques the Databank founders learnt on Wall Street: Western capitalism in its truest form.<o:p></o:p>
From this Ghanaian's perspective, no talk of capitalism could be made without mentioning Dr JB Danquah, the father of this philosophy in the then Gold Coast. Danquah's vision was to create an environment in which individuals would be able to set up and run enterprises that would in turn create wealth for themselves and their households. <o:p></o:p>
Citizens would therefore be in the position to acquire and own properties that could be used as collateral for credit to enhance their businesses and expand wealth to benefit more families. <o:p></o:p>
This thesis not only allows many people to create wealth, but stimulates initiatives, making people more independent for their own good and also for the good of the nation. <o:p></o:p>
What went awry among the frenzy for growth in more mature markets was people losing sight of the fact that someone somewhere has to work hard to make a market and build a business to create real enduring value that goes beyond the bottom line. <o:p></o:p>
Chandran Nair: Founder of Hong-Kong based think tank Global Institute For Tomorrow (GIFT):-<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The extreme form of capitalism which has permeated the world, particularly in the last 30-40 years, is in deep trouble and we are in denial. <o:p></o:p>
It is important to understand that fundamental principles of capitalism - that human beings are rational and markets behave rationally, and that markets will assign prices - are flawed.<o:p></o:p>
It is also important to understand the roots of modern capitalism.<o:p></o:p>
You could argue that slavery was the first attempt to under-price resources. When slavery came to an end there was colonisation, which was again an attempt by the capitalist model to use resources cheaply. With the end of colonies, we had the globalisation argument of economic growth and then the globalisation of finance.<o:p></o:p>
Capitalism has essentially hit a wall and a very different conversation needs to take place”<o:p></o:p>
When I speak about this in Europe, they say there has been 30 years of over-leverage, but I say they should multiply that by 10 and look at 300 years of essentially exploited growth. <o:p></o:p>
What we need to recognise now is that the world is a very different place from what it was 100 years ago when we had one billion people. <o:p></o:p>
With a current population approaching seven billion, things will have to change.<o:p></o:p>
A fundamental issue that the world will have to recognise, and which Western capitalism has conveniently ignored, is that the goods and services which companies and economies seem to thrive on are based on under-pricing resources and externalising costs. <o:p></o:p>
That game is over and we need a fundamental restructuring - essentially about how people will live, and we need to move beyond simple notions about growth to more sophisticated, nuanced discussions about human progress.<o:p></o:p>
That is not the same as suggesting that economic growth will be able to deliver i-toys and cars to everyone. This is not possible and that is where capitalism has essentially hit a wall and a very different conversation needs to take place. <o:p></o:p>
Professor Tim Jackson: Author of Prosperity without Growth - economics for a finite planet:- <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Every society clings to a myth by which it lives. <o:p></o:p>
Ours is the myth of economic growth. For the last five decades, the pursuit of growth has been the single most important policy goal across the world. The global economy is five times the size it was half a century ago. If it continues to grow at the same rate it will be 80 times that size by the year 2100. <o:p></o:p>
This extraordinary ramping up of global economic activity is without historical precedent. It is totally at odds with the finite resource base and the fragile ecology on which we depend for survival. <o:p></o:p>
Most of the time, we avoid the stark reality of these numbers. Growth must go on, we insist.<o:p></o:p>
The days of spending money we do not have on things we do not need to impress people we do not care about are over”<o:p></o:p>
The reasons for this collective blindness are easy enough to find. <o:p></o:p>
Western capitalism is structurally reliant on growth for its stability. When growth falters - as it has done recently - politicians panic. Businesses struggle to survive. People lose their jobs and sometimes their homes. <o:p></o:p>
Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries. <o:p></o:p>
Yet question it we must. The myth of growth has failed us. It has failed the two billion people who still live on less than $2 a day. It has failed the fragile ecological systems on which we depend for survival. <o:p></o:p>
But economic crisis presents us with a unique opportunity to invest in change. To sweep away the short-term thinking that has plagued society for decades. To engage, for instance, in a radical overhaul of dysfunctional capital markets. <o:p></o:p>
Untrammelled speculation in commodities and financial derivatives brought the financial world to the brink of collapse just three years ago. It needs to be replaced by a longer, slower sense of capital. <o:p></o:p>
Fixing the economy is only part of the battle. We also have to confront the convoluted logic of consumerism. The days of spending money we do not have on things we do not need to impress people we do not care about are over. <o:p></o:p>
Living well is about good nutrition, decent homes, access to good quality services, stable communities, satisfying employment. <o:p></o:p>
Prosperity, in any meaningful sense of the word, transcends material concerns. It resides in our love for our families, the support of our friends, the strength of our communities, our ability to participate fully in the life of society, a sense of meaning and purpose in our lives. <o:p></o:p>
Lord Desai: Member of the House of Lords, emeritus professor at the London School of Economics:-<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Capitalism is alive and well, but not in the Western countries - it has migrated eastwards. <o:p></o:p>
Russian capitalism is somewhat old and in need of urgent repair, but the spirit of capitalism - risk-taking, saving, investing, hard work - all those virtues have now migrated and are happily ensconced in China, India, Indonesia, Korea and Japan - the countries which we never thought would ever get out of poverty.<o:p></o:p>
Western capitalism probably had half a century of over-indulgence - continued prosperity, full employment, almost guaranteed growth - and that in its turn meant that our costs went up and manufacturing industry migrated abroad, while finance has proved to be a fickle friend. <o:p></o:p>
We have to do something to get ourselves out this crisis but that will have to be in the spirit of capitalism, not against it”<o:p></o:p>
We will have to rethink our model, our values, we will have to acquire old-fashioned virtues, because capitalism is not going to go any time fast. <o:p></o:p>
If Asia has vigorous energetic capitalism and we have tired old capitalism, we will end up paying a huge price and we will trade our prosperity for their prosperity. <o:p></o:p>
Socialism died 20 years ago - capitalism lives on. <o:p></o:p>
It changes its form, it migrates, it is fully global. Now we at last understand what globalisation means - it means we are just as important as anyone else. If we don't work very hard, we will lose our importance. <o:p></o:p>
That is the lesson of the contemporary world.<o:p></o:p>
Capitalism lives through crisis. That is how it renews and invigorates itself.<o:p></o:p>
For our bad luck, capitalism has renewed itself by migrating eastwards. We are left with the debris and we have to do something to get ourselves out this crisis but that will have to be in the spirit of capitalism, not against it.<o:p></o:p>
 

Keith

Moderator
I have not read any of your post Graham but was drawn to the title. The piece looks a little complex to me with some long words.

I was thinking about this just yesterday and came to the conclusion that what passed as the ultimate expression of Capitalism reached it's apogee just prior to the banking collapse.

It occurs to me that it was Capitalism that brought us here today at lightning speed and under it's most extreme rules has been exploited by the greedy to the detriment of the needy. In fact the growing quantity of needy is in direct proportion to the rapid expansion of the greedy.

Globalisation is the face of the enemy that makes us Global enemies.

Therefore, I hypothesise that in order to bring the whole shebang to an even and fairer keel, that ultra capitalism such as we have seen for the past 1/4 century should be outlawed, as it only favours a small elite of corpse climbers, both leaving and creating hopeless human detritus in it's wake.

It cannot continue as it is because it represents the ultimate Law of Diminishing Returns and that something in the middle is called for; fairer, more fun and certainly more productive instead of the totally insular 'snouts in the trough' philosophy we have now.

You cannot deny that we are angrier, lacking in faith or spirituality and yet paradoxically better off financially than we have ever been, and the huge cost of it all has been the loss of our individual and national humanity.

I would like to hear others opinions on this important subject, but i beg of members on both sides of the ditch to keep any debate civilized. This is not black & white like David's puddings, it's a vast and complex subject that concerns us all.

PS The above comments are entirely my own. I have not even read Grahams post and have not been influenced by any other debate or reading on this subject. I honestly thought about this in detail just yesterday without any prompting.
 
I would like to hear others opinions on this important subject, [/I]

Keith,

FWIW, no comment from me, I have nothing to add that would improve on what you have said. I'd vote for you and in all sincerity for me these days that is a big deal, where do I sign up. :thumbsup:
 
Keith and Nick,

The crux of the piece is pretty much what you have said Keith, and something that I subscribe to. There are too many people on a small planet now that are without the most basic of human dignity. There is NO reason for this.

Snouts in the trough is correct. I am fortunate to run my own small business, and have no problem with "profit". I do however have an issue with profit if it has a detremental effect on others. This is the ultimate form of capitalism that has been practiced since the second world war in the round.

There is enough resource in the world to go around. There is probably enough food in the world to go around, but the trouble is, there's no "profit" in that...

Why do we not build large scale public services anymore, of the people and for the people - because there is no "profit" in it.

Personally, I find the level of capitalism that we have served up to be quite despicable from the "loadsamoney" culture of the eighties to the big corporation "fuck you" of today. Why is the price of oil so high? because some bright spark worked out that they had the average punter over a barrel (pun intended) and there was nothing we can do about it. Why does the cost of our services keep rising? For exactly the same reason.

I appreciate that many on here consider governments to be ill equipped to deal with money, and so they have proved, but it's seriously time for a change.

If a resource is needed by all, then re-nationalise it. Of the people and for the people, by the people...

Loony left? Not really. You notice I mention infrastructure that is needed by all, nowt else.

Roads, Rail, Power. All these things can be delivered to the general public as a service, without the need to service money grubbing shareholders.

BAE is about to shed some 3,500 jobs in our defence industry. They are considering splitting from their American partners as to quote "It will return greater shareholder value". Cunts! What about the 3,500 people whose lives have just been put on hold at best...

I appreciate that this is an altruistic view, but it doesn't make it wrong. Why can't we all take a moment of pause before doing something that may affect others and consider them as well as ourselves before taking action. let's call it Compassionate Conservatism?

Over to you guys....
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
I can only add that "Modern Capitalism" is alive and well, here in the Liberal Capital of America, Silicon Valley!
 
Keith - I have to agree with your comments 100%

The old adage went from "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class gets bigger" to "the rich get richer, the rest get poorer". I think back to what my father earned 30 years ago, and I earn about the same. The difference - he had 4 kids, a house that cost $75K, and two cars that were all under $10K. I have 3 kids, a house that cost $495K, a car that cost $18K, and an SUV that we bought used (it was a year old) for $25K (and would run about $45K to replace). Not to mention all of the other costs that have gone up.

A major adjustment is needed, capitalism has run its course. I am not saying socialism is the correct path, but something new - a hybrid of capitalism, socialism and others. Something that still leaves room for growth, but can sustain a healthy environment for everyone within reason. Obviously there will still be the rich, and I don't think it will ever be possible to eliminate all of the poor.

Ian
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
Excellent post Keith1.

"Extremes", one way or another are never sustainable. From my humble point of view, I see "extremes" arising when individual interests take priority of group interests, which appears to be happening now, and as I've stated before, the law of entropy, as applied to economics or social affairs, is inevitable.
 
Snouts in the trough is correct. I am fortunate to run my own small business, and have no problem with "profit". I do however have an issue with profit if it has a detremental effect on others. This is the ultimate form of capitalism that has been practiced since the second world war in the round.

Personally, I find the level of capitalism that we have served up to be quite despicable from the "loadsamoney" culture of the eighties to the big corporation "fuck you" of today. BAE is about to shed some 3,500 jobs in our defence industry. They are considering splitting from their American partners as to quote "It will return greater shareholder value". Cunts! What about the 3,500 people whose lives have just been put on hold at best...

I appreciate that this is an altruistic view, but it doesn't make it wrong. Why can't we all take a moment of pause before doing something that may affect others and consider them as well as ourselves before taking action. let's call it Compassionate Conservatism?

Over to you guys....

2009

BAE's profits surge to £2.2bn despite fineFrancesca Steele
BAE Systems, Europe’s largest defence company, reported a surge in profits for 2009 today, just weeks after agreeing to pay a £30 million fine to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

2010

Defence giant BAE Systems said profits had been torpedoed by the loss of a key US contract and hefty fines to settle bribery allegations.

The loss of a major deal to build trucks for the US Army - confirmed earlier this week - meant a £973m write-off at its Armor Holdings business bought in 2007.

The firm is also paying £278m and pleading guilty to two charges after a probe of its activities in several countries by the US Department of Justice and the Serious Fraud Office.

Although BAE enjoyed a one-off pension gain in the US, operating profits for 2009 slumped to £982m from £1.72bn the previous year.

2011

Not a good morning for BAE Systems; its shares fell 3.5% after the defence company produced some fairly lacklustre end-of-year results: its underlying profits inched up a measly 0.8% to £2.21bn. You might think that’s not too bad for a company that’s suffering from the big defence budget cuts both in the UK and the US. But with no sign of things looking up this year, we can’t see BAE staging a celebratory Harrier fly-past any time soon (even if that’s probably all they’re good for these days).

Although revenues were up for the group as a whole, to £22.

So a bad year for them is a measly £2.21 bn profit meaning they have to make thousands redundent.
 
Last edited:

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
I can only add that "Modern Capitalism" is alive and well, here in the Liberal Capital of America, Silicon Valley!

Your walking on thin ice here by enticing some lonesome individual to pick up the gauntlet and turn this string into crisp, blackened, and smoky remains of a seemingly intelligent conversation.
 
Capitalism works better than any of the alternatives. Like all the other alternatives, it is flawed by the greed, and unethical and unrestrained urges of some within the civilized populace. Enter regulation stage left...we need it because there's always plenty who choose to abuse the basic principles of free markets.

The screw ups of places like Countrywide Mortgage, AIG, Tyco, Enron, etc. shake the foundation of capitalism. The concept is solid. What's flawed is the fact of certain people who cannot act in a reasonable (and legal) manner.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Capitalism works better than any of the alternatives. Like all the other alternatives, it is flawed by the greed, and unethical and unrestrained urges of some within the civilized populace. Enter regulation stage left...we need it because there's always plenty who choose to abuse the basic principles of free markets.

The screw ups of places like Countrywide Mortgage, AIG, Tyco, Enron, etc. shake the foundation of capitalism. The concept is solid. What's flawed is the fact of certain people who cannot act in a reasonable (and legal) manner.

Cliff,

I agree with what you say. This is nothing new, Capitalism has gone through up and down trends for hundreds of years.

Back in the 1800's the disparity between the rich and poor was even greater than today.

In the early 1900's middle and lower class workers were treated so poorly that unions formed, to try and protect the working class.

Government set up programs to help the low and middle class workers, Social Security, Workmans comp, unemployment insurance, minimum wage......................things got much better for the middle class.

Today these worker protections are slowly being eroded. What we get is the rich will get richer and the poor and middle class will get poorer, work harder for less $.

What I find so hard to understand is that the "red" states, where the highest poverty rates and the poorest workers live are the ones voting for the folks who will erode their minimum pay, benifits and rights in favor of the rich.

They say do not tax the rich, do not have minimum wage, cut Social Security, cut unemployment insurance...........

How does this happen?
 
Now boys, play fair...

The whole point of my thread is to decide whether our current form of capitalism is fundamentally flawed or as to whether it can rise up from the ashes that we have allowed it to become...

Yes, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer and the middle ground is being squeezed into taxation hell...

But how do we fix it?

Read my last post, and try to see beyond partisan beliefs and look for a common sense approach. Maggie Thatcher was wrong for selling the crown jewels, Tony Blair was wrong for pandering to the middle ground and ignoring the impoverished.

You see, it's about common sense guys. Let's try and focus on what needs to be changed, rather than blaming someone for what has gone before. trust me, this will be the new Zeitgeist.....
 
Capitalism works better than any of the alternatives. Like all the other alternatives, it is flawed by the greed, and unethical and unrestrained urges of some within the civilized populace. Enter regulation stage left...we need it because there's always plenty who choose to abuse the basic principles of free markets.

The screw ups of places like Countrywide Mortgage, AIG, Tyco, Enron, etc. shake the foundation of capitalism. The concept is solid. What's flawed is the fact of certain people who cannot act in a reasonable (and legal) manner.

You're bang on the money there Cliff.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Graham,

I am trying to play fair, I really feel that we need to go back to a more regulated form of Capitalism. It was only when the US government eased lending regulations that this most recent real estate loan disaster happened. It has helped to drag down the whole World's Economy.

When folks were required to put down say.....20% and actually have enough income to make the payments we had very little problems with bad loans.

As hard as it is to think that we need the Govenment regulating most things, without it folks just run amuk! As much as I hate to say it, the answere is more regulation.

There have been times when there has been too much regulation and times with too little, its a balancing act. Right now we need a little more.
 
Last edited:
Graham,

I am trying to play fair, I really feel that we need to go back to a more regulated form of Capitalism. It was only when the US government eased lending regulations that this most recent real estate loan disaster happened. It has helped to drag down the whole World's Economy.

When folks were required to put down say.....20% and actually have enough income to make the payments we had very little problems with bad loans.

As hard as it is to think that we need the Govenment regulating most things, without it folks just run amuk! As much as I hate to say it, the answere is more regulation.

There have been times when there has been too much regulation and times with too little, its a balancing act. Right now we need a little more.


Jim, I know you are trying to play fair. Mybe it's the timezone difference (i'm not very clever), but I'm waiting for a response from the guys who drink on the right hand side of the bar, if you know what I mean. I wonder.......
 

Keith

Moderator
I too think you make a very fair point Cliff. What I want to know is how long are we supposed to be feeding the greed before a sense of responsibility takes precedent over the desire to acquire.

And this is the nub. There really is nowt wrong with the 'system' but there is a lot wrong with the way it's used and abused. Governments are not in control - corporations are. It's about time Government worked for the 'People' (which incidentally includes the so called 'Captains of Industry')

It can be done, it was always done! This is not about Socialism or Conservatism - some of you guys have been totally diverted by the Divide & Rule mad fringes which dominate our/your lives & debate.

Time to get wise. Time to join up and demand of our elected representatives: Fuck the lobby, sort this out else you will go down in history as the representatives of goverments that destroyed our freedom for a buck.

I am not kidding...
 
Back
Top