Can Capitalism be positive for the public?

[Jairzinho]

What a bizarre comment.

 

No. It's bizarre that there are still people that engage with you on here in any meaningful conversation to do with politics or economics.

[Strontium]

Yes, it is a human problem.

 

Do you agree that a blend of systems that leans left of where we are today, and requires the state, it better equipped to provide equality of opportunity to break free of poverty, through investment in healthcare and education?

 

If not, how do we get there down a different path?

 

I'm not sure what "leans left of where we are" means in practice. "More left" tends to mean a bigger state, and I'm less convinced that that is what we need, as opposed to a state that does things a bit differently.

 

I would say we clearly need a robust state that (i) acts as a fair referee in the marketplace and (ii) helps to redress the imbalances in wealth, opportunity etc that would arise from a wholly unchecked market.

 

I always felt that a state that dictates a little less and enables a little more was the key to unlocking the boundless potential within humanity.

[Strontium]

No. It's bizarre that there are still people that engage with you on here in any meaningful conversation to do with politics or economics.

 

As ever, I remain open to good arguments that are supported by evidence, irrespective of whether they concur entirely with my own beliefs.

 

Fortunately most folk seem to have more to offer than the empty criticisms that are your stock in trade.

[Jairzinho]

As ever, I remain open to good arguments that are supported by evidence, irrespective of whether they concur entirely with my own beliefs.

 

Fortunately most folk seem to have more to offer than the empty criticisms that are your stock in trade.

 

Yes, that is fortunate.

[Stu Monty]

I'm not sure what "leans left of where we are" means in practice. "More left" tends to mean a bigger state, and I'm less convinced that that is what we need, as opposed to a state that does things a bit differently.

 

I would say we clearly need a robust state that (i) acts as a fair referee in the marketplace and (ii) helps to redress the imbalances in wealth, opportunity etc that would arise from a wholly unchecked market.

 

I always felt that a state that dictates a little less and enables a little more was the key to unlocking the boundless potential within humanity.

And do you see a path of how that happens from here?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

 

People have been in poverty for a lot longer than capitalism has been around. Surely capitalism at least provides a framework for many people to escape that poverty?

.

Not really. In many cases it makes the situation far worse, for example, by forcing farmers who could otherwise grow a variety of foodstuffs into a system of monoculture, which leaves them at the mercy of the vagaries of commodity markets and degrades their land.

 

You know this.

[SasaS]

I agree, but thankfully that isn't neoliberalism!

 

OK, paleoliberalism then. It has to be some kind of liberalism. 

[Jairzinho]

OK, paleoliberalism then. It has to be some kind of liberalism.

Yep, proper liberalism. Of which I would much prefer to neoliberalism.

 

The ideals of Adam Smith are more progressive than the current system.

[Stu Monty]

Yep, proper liberalism. Of which I would much prefer to neoliberalism.

 

The ideals of Adam Smith are more progressive than the current system.

 

Pretty sure Adam Smith said you needed strong controls on markets.

[Jairzinho]

Pretty sure Adam Smith said you needed strong controls on markets.

 

He did, to prevent the sort of monopolies we have now. He'd find neoliberalism an abomination.

[Strontium]

I find the term neoliberalism to be an abomination, not least because nobody can seem to explain what it's supposed to mean, or what relation it has to liberalism.

 

But yes, nigh on every serious economist, Smith included, while recognising that the market is the best way of allocating resources, would advocate strong controls, especially to prevent monopolies and cartels.

[SasaS]

He was very much against government intervention / regulation preventing free competition, as far as I recall.

[dennis tooth]

I find the term neoliberalism to be an abomination, not least because nobody can seem to explain what it's supposed to mean, or what relation it has to liberalism.

 

But yes, nigh on every serious economist, Smith included, while recognising that the market is the best way of allocating resources, would advocate strong controls, especially to prevent monopolies and cartels.

No surprise you don't have a grasp of it you're an idiot.

Neolib is just market liberalism.

Nothing to do with individual rights.

Happy to help.

[dennis tooth]

He was very much against government intervention / regulation preventing free competition, as far as I recall.

Cognitive dissonance for you.

[Section_31]

Didn't Smith believe man's innate goodness/god would rein in the worst excesses of capitalism?

[Stu Monty]

I find the term neoliberalism to be an abomination, not least because nobody can seem to explain what it's supposed to mean, or what relation it has to liberalism.

 

But yes, nigh on every serious economist, Smith included, while recognising that the market is the best way of allocating resources, would advocate strong controls, especially to prevent monopolies and cartels.

 

What? It's commonly understood term for a specific economic doctrine, namely the one pushed by the Chicago school in the early eighties onwards. You might as well call communism, capitalism, liberalism or socialism an abomination that nobody understands.

 

I'd imagine all serious economists might say that an informed market is the best way to allocate resources. None would say a situation where capital can control both supply and demand in a market through information inequality is a good system.

 

I'm genuinely still interested in anyone's opinion on how you get this strong regulation from the point we are now where democracy, law and culture is owned by capital.

[Stu Monty]

For a discussion of the deep problems with the global economy at the moment, and the possible solutions to it, I found Paul Mason's lecture at the Hay festival this week quite interesting.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/events/edzbp6/acts/axwqwh#p03xcnxz

[Strontium]

What? It's commonly understood term for a specific economic doctrine, namely the one pushed by the Chicago school in the early eighties onwards. You might as well call communism, capitalism, liberalism or socialism an abomination that nobody understands.

 

So why not just use the accepted term laissez-faire instead of commandeering a pre-existing term that originally meant something else?

 

I'd imagine all serious economists might say that an informed market is the best way to allocate resources. None would say a situation where capital can control both supply and demand in a market through information inequality is a good system.

 

I'm genuinely still interested in anyone's opinion on how you get this strong regulation from the point we are now where democracy, law and culture is owned by capital.

 

I think you overstate the extent to which we are controlled by corporations like zombie ants.

[Jose Jones]

What? It's commonly understood term for a specific economic doctrine, namely the one pushed by the Chicago school in the early eighties onwards. You might as well call communism, capitalism, liberalism or socialism an abomination that nobody understands.

 

I'd imagine all serious economists might say that an informed market is the best way to allocate resources. None would say a situation where capital can control both supply and demand in a market through information inequality is a good system.

 

I'm genuinely still interested in anyone's opinion on how you get this strong regulation from the point we are now where democracy, law and culture is owned by capital.

I guess the hope is that enough people get pissed off so that left of centre politicians like Sanders, Corbyn and perhaps Hollande or the Syriza guys before they got hooked in that have become popular get elected and can make gradual changes.

 

Marx would say it's impossible and that the capitalist economies will collapse and people turn to communism.

 

The worry is the appeal of authoritarian right wingers and fascists.

[FanchesterCity]

So why not just use the accepted term laissez-faire instead of commandeering a pre-existing term that originally meant something else?

 

 

 

I think you overstate the extent to which we are controlled by corporations like zombie ants.

 

I suspect we are, although not necessarily deliberately on the part of the corporations (though in some cases, definitely deliberately).

You could turn the tables and say the population underestimates the extent to which it's manipulated.

'Controlled' is a tricky word too - control can range from influence right through to dictatorship. In that regard, I'd say most of our lives are 'controlled' by corporations on the whole. From mortgage lenders to workplace to advertising and media we are (in my opinion) very sheep like. But it seems most of us are happy to be sheep as long as we're not slaughtered.

[Anubis]

Don't know if this is the right thread for this, but what are people's views on this universal basic income idea which just flopped at a Swiss referendum? Is this the future or the total pipe dream with immigration and all? Would this in theory allow people who want to continue with the accumulation of wealth dedicate their lives to it, whilst those who would rather opt out of the rat race could be free to chose when and what work to do or even if they want to work for free, for a cause they believe in.

I think it's an interesting idea that would be hard to sell. No doubt we'd end up with the Murdoch press banging on about the something for nothing culture.

 

What attracted me to it is the idea that it would allow people who wanted to try something different work-wise to do so, while still providing them with a decent safety net.

[Moctezuma]

I think it's an interesting idea that would be hard to sell. No doubt we'd end up with the Murdoch press banging on about the something for nothing culture.

 

What attracted me to it is the idea that it would allow people who wanted to try something different work-wise to do so, while still providing them with a decent safety net.

 

Agreed it's an interesting idea, but isn't part of it the removal of any state support i.e. no healthcare and education, so that the consumer then buys education provision for the children and purchases health insurance. The latter of those has not worked particularly well in the United States as can be seen by the Commonwealth Funds ranking table below.

 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

 

If healthcare and education aren't provided the disparity between services that people can afford will grow considerably. Of course there will be those who say it allows people greater choice, but people often make short term economic decisions (i.e. buying a cheaper healthcare plan) that can have significant negative repercussions later (for example they are diagnosed with a disease not covered by their plan).

[dennis tooth]

It's worked very well for some.

[Rotpeter]

What? It's commonly understood term for a specific economic doctrine, namely the one pushed by the Chicago school in the early eighties onwards. You might as well call communism, capitalism, liberalism or socialism an abomination that nobody understands.

 

I'd imagine all serious economists might say that an informed market is the best way to allocate resources. None would say a situation where capital can control both supply and demand in a market through information inequality is a good system.

 

I'm genuinely still interested in anyone's opinion on how you get this strong regulation from the point we are now where democracy, law and culture is owned by capital.

Reformulate the problem of getting google to pay tax in terms of their "ownership of democracy, law and culture" to make sure I understand what you're proposing.

[SasaS]

I suspect we are, although not necessarily deliberately on the part of the corporations (though in some cases, definitely deliberately).

You could turn the tables and say the population underestimates the extent to which it's manipulated.

'Controlled' is a tricky word too - control can range from influence right through to dictatorship. In that regard, I'd say most of our lives are 'controlled' by corporations on the whole. From mortgage lenders to workplace to advertising and media we are (in my opinion) very sheep like. But it seems most of us are happy to be sheep as long as we're not slaughtered.

There is a great quote in Sons of Anarchy (which is otherwise a bit shit) that "people don't want to be free, people want to be comfortable".