Capitalism has run its course-expect collapse

[+DieChecker]

I'm not trying to compare the US to NZ. I'm telling you that the US isn't all that it's cracked up to be if it's being beaten by a tiny nation like ours and that a mix of laissez-faire capitalism coupled to a welfare state produces some fairly good results.

One problem is that laissez faire capitalism and welfare state would be implemented and managed differently in the US then in NZ.

Our government agencies would mess it up and call it improvement.

[questionmark]

One problem is that laissez faire capitalism and welfare state would be implemented and managed differently in the US then in NZ.

Our government agencies would mess it up and call it improvement.

The problem is much more that what one has build up with his hands the next dumps with his behind with every political turn. It is not that capitalism is bad, that even Manchester capitalism is bad or that social capitalism is bad. It is the lack of consequence that messes it up.

[Guest]

The problem is much more that what one has build up with his hands the next dumps with his behind with every political turn. It is not that capitalism is bad, that even Manchester capitalism is bad or that social capitalism is bad. It is the lack of consequence that messes it up.

Infact you have hit it right on the head - the whole object of capitalism as currently constituted is to defer the consequences to someone else - preferably someone in the dim distant future.

As I always say - Capitalism eats its own children.

There is a huge amount of work been carried out at Government level to attempt to internalise all the costs of doing business to the business, rather than the state - and the response which the business community has come up with is to lobby hard and fast to have all regulation removed from their backs. This is a symptom of a system which can see no further than the next years balance sheet and which will destroy everything in its path in pursuit of profit.

Until the concept of sustainability into an infinite future is internalised to the system in which we function - we are all ultimately doomed to perpetuate infanticide on the generations to come. There is no mechanism in Capitalism to allow this to happen and so either capitalism goes or we ultimately go.

Let it be said that you could quite easily substitute Socialism or materialism into that statement and the consequences would be exactly the same. Ultimately it is a whole new paradigm shift which is required and what shape that might ultimately take is difficult for us as children of materialist capitalism/socialism to imagine. I say we better start putting our thinking heads on before it is all to late.

Br Cornelius

Edited December 27, 2011 by Guest

[H.H. Holmes]

Since when were illegal immigrants relevant to the discussion? They aren't. We have no problems with illegal immigrants.

Here's some of the rankings to prove my case before your brought the immigrants in:

Ease of Doing Business: New Zealand: 3rd. United States: 4th.

Press Freedom: New Zealand: 8th. United States: 20th.

Global Peace Index: New Zealand: 2nd. United States: 82nd.

Corruption Perception Index: New Zealand: 1st. United States: 24th.

Economic Freedom: New Zealand: 3rd. United States: 10th.

Life Expectancy Ranking: New Zealand: 13th. United States: 36th.

And that's only the few I can find.

I'm not trying to compare the US to NZ. I'm telling you that the US isn't all that it's cracked up to be if it's being beaten by a tiny nation like ours and that a mix of laissez-faire capitalism coupled to a welfare state produces some fairly good results.

Ha, nice cherrypicking there. You passed up the stats that really matter like:

% of men circumcised: United States: 80%> New Zealand: <20%

Gun Ownership Rates: United States: 1st. New Zealand: 7th.

Number of Nobel Prizes per Country: United States: 1st. New Zealand: 19th.

Big Mac Index Ranking: United States: 27th. New Zealand: 28th.

Cellular Phone Use: United States: 3rd. New Zealand: 99th. (LOL)

So there you have it, the U.S. has less foreskin, more guns, more nobel prizes, cheaper Big Macs, and more mobile phones than New Zealand.

[Mr Right Wing]

Infact you have hit it right on the head - the whole object of capitalism as currently constituted is to defer the consequences to someone else - preferably someone in the dim distant future.

As I always say - Capitalism eats its own children.

There is a huge amount of work been carried out at Government level to attempt to internalise all the costs of doing business to the business, rather than the state - and the response which the business community has come up with is to lobby hard and fast to have all regulation removed from their backs. This is a symptom of a system which can see no further than the next years balance sheet and which will destroy everything in its path in pursuit of profit.

Until the concept of sustainability into an infinite future is internalised to the system in which we function - we are all ultimately doomed to perpetuate infanticide on the generations to come. There is no mechanism in Capitalism to allow this to happen and so either capitalism goes or we ultimately go.

Let it be said that you could quite easily substitute Socialism or materialism into that statement and the consequences would be exactly the same. Ultimately it is a whole new paradigm shift which is required and what shape that might ultimately take is difficult for us as children of materialist capitalism/socialism to imagine. I say we better start putting our thinking heads on before it is all to late.

Br Cornelius

You've been exposed to anti-capitalist propaganda.

Business Study Degrees teach people Stakeholder Theory, Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Ethics. They are three things a professional manager doesnt ignore because they are vital to the success of a business. A large corporation isnt a backstreet micky mouse outfit with shady business practices.

I will pick Shell as an example - http://www.shell.co.uk/home/content/gbr/environment_society/

As an oil company Shell is a threat to certain stakeholders which are the enviromentalists and communities near their operations. Therefore their CSR is to invest in environmental technologies and supply local communitys with the energy they require for development. They tell you about that on their website and the purpose of these programs are to offset the damage they do.

They dont rape the land and leave the damage for future generations.

[Guest]

You've been exposed to anti-capitalist propaganda.

Business Study Degrees teach people Stakeholder Theory, Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Ethics. They are three things a professional manager doesnt ignore because they are vital to the success of a business. A large corporation isnt a backstreet micky mouse outfit with shady business practices.

I will pick Shell as an example - http://www.shell.co.uk/home/content/gbr/environment_society/

As an oil company Shell is a threat to certain stakeholders which are the enviromentalists and communities near their operations. Therefore their CSR is to invest in environmental technologies and supply local communitys with the energy they require for development. They tell you about that on their website and the purpose of these programs are to offset the damage they do.

They dont rape the land and leave the damage for future generations.

As is typical - you seem to have bought into the marketing hype rather uncritically. regarding shells activities in the Niga delta;

See also: Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People and Ken Saro-Wiwa

Ogoniland is a 404-square-mile (1,050 km2) region in the southeast of the Niger Delta basin. Economically viable petroleum was discovered in Ogoniland in 1957, just one year after the discovery of Nigeria's first commercial petroleum deposit, with Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron Corporation setting up shop throughout the next two decades. The Ogoni people, a minority ethnic group of about half a million people who call Ogoniland home, and other ethnic groups in the region attest that during this time, the government began forcing them to abandon their land to oil companies without consultation, and offering negligible compensation. This is further supported by a 1979 constitutional addition which afforded the federal government full ownership and rights to all Nigerian territory and also decided that all compensation for land would "be based on the value of the crops on the land at the time of its acquisition, not on the value of the land itself." The Nigerian government could now distribute the land to oil companies as it deemed fit.[9]

The 1970s and 1980s saw the government's empty promises of benefits for the Niger Delta peoples fall through, with the Ogoni growing increasing dissatisfied and their environmental, social, and economic apparatus rapidly deteriorating. The Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) was formed in 1992. MOSOP, spearheaded by Ogoni playwright and author Ken Saro-Wiwa, became the major campaigning organization representing the Ogoni people in their struggle for ethnic and environmental rights. Its primary targets, and at times adversaries, have been the Nigerian government and Royal Dutch Shell.

Ogoni Flag created by Ken Saro-Wiwa

Beginning in December 1992, the conflict between Ogonis and the oil infrastructure escalated to a level of greater seriousness and intensity on both sides. Both parties began carrying out acts of violence and MOSOP issued an ultimatum to the oil companies (Shell, Chevron, and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation) which demanded some $10 billion in accumulated royalties, damages and compensation, and "immediate stoppage of environmental degradation", and negotiations for mutual agreement on all future drilling.[10]

The Ogonis threatened to embark on mass action to disrupt their operation if the companies failed to comply. By this act, the Ogoni shifted the focus of their actions from an unresponsive federal government to the oil companies engaged in their own region. The rationale for this assignment of responsibility were the benefits accrued by the oil companies from extracting the natural wealth of the Ogoni homeland, and neglect from central government.

The government responded by banning public gatherings and declaring that disturbances of oil production were acts of treason. Oil extraction from the territory had slowed to a trickle of 10,000 barrels per day (1,600 m3/d) (.5% of the national total).

Military repression escalated in May 1994. On May 21, soldiers and mobile policemen appeared in most Ogoni villages. On that day, four Ogoni chiefs (all on the conservative side of a schism within MOSOP over strategy) were brutally murdered. Saro-Wiwa, head of the opposing faction, had been denied entry to Ogoniland on the day of the murders, but he was detained in connection with the killings. The occupying forces, led by Major Paul Okuntimo of Rivers State Internal Security, claimed to be 'searching for those directly responsible for the killings of the four Ogonis.' However, witnesses say that they engaged in terror operations against the general Ogoni population. Amnesty International characterized the policy as deliberate terrorism. By mid-June, the security forces had razed 30 villages, detained 600 people and killed at least 40. This figure eventually rose to 2,000 civilian deaths and the displacement of around 100,000 internal refugees.[11]

In May 1994, nine activists from the movement who would become known as 'The Ogoni Nine', among them Ken Saro-Wiwa, were arrested and accused of incitement to murder following the deaths of four Ogoni elders. Saro-Wiwa and his comrades denied the charges, but were imprisoned for over a year before being found guilty and sentenced to death by a specially convened tribunal, hand-selected by General Sani Abacha, on 10 November 1995. The activists were denied due process and upon being found guilty, were hanged by the Nigerian state.[12]

The executions were met with an immediate international response. The trial was widely criticised by human rights organisations and the governments of other states, who condemned the Nigerian government's long history of detaining their critics, mainly pro-democracy and other political activists. The Commonwealth of Nations, which had also plead for clemency, suspended Nigeria's membership in response. The United States, the United Kingdom, and the EU all implemented sanctions, but not on petroleum (Nigeria's main export).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_in_the_Niger_Delta

If that is what you call corporate responsibility then may I suggest that you go and live in the Niga delta and see what it feels like on the ground.

As I pointed out before to you - that all happened on the watch of one of the nicest CEO's that Shell has ever had.

That is just one of the more glaring examples of where corporations have exploited local environments and peoples in pursuit of profits. It still goes on across the globe.

Ultimately it misses the point - which is that almost all corporations which currently operate relies on cheap and finite resource bases to remain competitive, and that is ultimately where their real destructive influence lies.

How about the many transnational mining operations which set up shell companies so that when their operations are finished - they can fold the shell's and walk away from their clean up liabilities - throwing them onto the state.

How about the most glaring and obvious example been the investments banks which have run up trillions of dollars worth of debts, strong armed the national governments into nationalising those debts and then went on to operate as if nothing had happened - leaving the whole world on the knife edge of financial ruin.

You see its standard operating procedure to externalise your losses - in whatever business you operate - and it is only through strong regulation by governments that this unsavoury practice has been somewhat rained in over the last 30yrs.

Maybe you would like to explain why Corporate America has been lobbying the Republican party to gut the EPA and remove most of the environmental legislation if they are so keen on been environmentally responsible. Your arguments just don't stack up to the weight of contrary evidence.

Br Cornelius

Edited December 27, 2011 by Guest

[Damrod]

You've been exposed to anti-capitalist propaganda.

Business Study Degrees teach people Stakeholder Theory, Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Ethics. They are three things a professional manager doesnt ignore because they are vital to the success of a business. A large corporation isnt a backstreet micky mouse outfit with shady business practices.

I will pick Shell as an example - http://www.shell.co.uk/home/content/gbr/environment_society/

As an oil company Shell is a threat to certain stakeholders which are the enviromentalists and communities near their operations. Therefore their CSR is to invest in environmental technologies and supply local communitys with the energy they require for development. They tell you about that on their website and the purpose of these programs are to offset the damage they do.

They dont rape the land and leave the damage for future generations.

You've obviously never been to or seen the news footage of the "Mountain top removal" strip mines in the mountains of West Virginia...I live near them...I have...and let me tell you my friend...(with all due respect to your optimism that capitalism and greed is good)...These people are seriously "raping the land" and the people are desperately trying to fight to preserve the surrounding countryside and are losing because of big mining lobbyist...they have little to no voice against the corporate behemoths...

[Guest]

When people try to sell the old bull line that capitalism is a perfect expression of the natural order, where the strongest survive by natural selection. Maybe they should actually look at nature to see how it really works;

- a perfect closed system where everything is constantly recycled with no need for any inputs other than the sun

- a system where everything and every individual organism has a function within the greater system

- look to the symbiotic relationships between man and the E.coli bacteria in his gut - without which he would die in a matter of days

There are lessons to be learnt from nature - but it is not the ideological lessons of social-Darwinism which is nothing but a perversion of the natural order, distorted to reflect the disfunctions of capitalist ideologies .

Br Cornelius

Edited December 27, 2011 by Guest

[MichaelW]

One problem is that laissez faire capitalism and welfare state would be implemented and managed differently in the US then in NZ.

Our government agencies would mess it up and call it improvement.

You'd have to get past the republicans first. At least we have the benefit of all our lunatics in the extreme left or right wings and not in any of the mainstream parties.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Is socialism the same as Communism?

[Mr_Snstr]

Is socialism the same as Communism?

Sort of like quadrilaterals and squares. Socialism being a broad definition(quadrilateral) and communism being a slightly more specific flavour of it(square).

[Damrod]

Is socialism the same as Communism?

Not really though a lot of people have been kind of intentionally mis-informed (brainwashed?) to they think they are. The best and most successful examples of "Socialism" are referred to as "the Nordic examples" and that is Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Contrary to what some think, you can own real property, you can own your own business and you can be a very wealthy multi-millionaire. The socialist part is really involved in maintaining a standard of life for all citizens, healthcare, housing, food, etc...you can choose to raise above this if you want...the Government is involved in these things and taxes are derived on the need to furnish these things...if you notice from those examples, none of them are gigantic military powers bent on influencing the world that have to spend vast resources into defense to defend themselves from the people they p*** off by meddling in everyone else's business...

In communism...the state literally "owns" everything...you get a place to live and a wage based on your usefulness in the job they tell you that you are going to do and at anytime, they can take all those things away...

There is a monumental difference actually between Socialism and Communism...in one you still have personal freedom and the right to own property and make lots of money (just pay higher taxes)...in the other you don't.

Also, per capita...the Nordic examples have the largest percentages of millionaires of any country...including the USA and...year after year, citizen polls and psychological studies show they are the happiest and most content people on the planet...they do not suffer from the same stress and anxiety that many more "dog eat dog" or "might makes right-end justifies the means-survival of the strongest" systems and societies endure.

However, all that being said...I am no expert by any stretch...I just know it's the people that reap the most reward from capitalism that fear, loathe and rail against the idea of socialism the loudest...also, where people actually live "IN" successful socialism (aka...Nordic examples)...they generally seem to like it just fine.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Damrod

[questionmark]

Not really though a lot of people have been kind of intentionally mis-informed (brainwashed?) to they think they are. The best and most successful examples of "Socialism" are referred to as "the Nordic examples" and that is Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Contrary to what some think, you can own real property, you can own your own business and you can be a very wealthy multi-millionaire.

In fact, there are more billionaires per inhabitant in Sweden then there are in the USA... despite a 59% income tax rate for millionaires.

[conspiracybeliever]

Our system is rigged. It's not survival of the strongest or smartest. All I have to do is take a look around me to see that. The system, or the people controlling the money, are creating numbers that work in their favor.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Ahhh ok thanks, well that makes sense as the economies are doing fine in the Nordic countries

[Mr_Snstr]

Our system is rigged. It's not survival of the strongest or smartest. All I have to do is take a look around me to see that. The system, or the people controlling the money, are creating numbers that work in their favor.

Our system can hardly even be called captialism anymore.

At best it's some kind of economic oligarchy. It's some weird bastardized system where money directly translates into power and influence. Ever since the banking system and the government started colluding as a matter of policy, capitalism ceased to exist in function; and only continued in name.

So those of you who are decrying, or defending capitalism; you may want to take note of that. What you're sticking up for or putting down hasn't existed here in a while.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Mr_Snstr

[kaptn k]

Like any other system, 'Capitalism' is not the problem - it is how human beings work the system that is the issue.

This is true. Our capitalist system may not be perfect but would have served us better for far longer had it not gotten corrupted by greedy corporations and greed on wall street. Those two things alone were/are enough to kill it. (IMO) the government could have prevented this by keeping corporations from becoming 'to big to fail' had they (mostly congress) not been bought and sold by a corrupted system. Now politicians only look for way to keep their big corp. friends a)appeased and b)contributing to their bank accounts (aka, re-election funds)....Had our founding fathers been wise enough to fore see this sad turn of events they might have put some kind of law for elected officials to be held accountable to............oh wait, they did. It's called the constitution. And congress continually ignores it with each new amendment.

Other than all that, capitalism could have thrived for a very long and healthy existence but, absolute power corrupts absolute. On the brighter side of it all, when the dollar craps out completely even the wealthiest of the corrupted are gonna be penniless. They also, will have a more difficult time living without all their toys and servants.

This is all, my opinion/view point, of course.

[Mr_Snstr]

Ahhh ok thanks, well that makes sense as the economies are doing fine in the Nordic countries

Really though. Any system, even bats**t crazy ones can work just fine. Provided; 1 the majority of the people operating within it actually have a basic understanding of the system; and 2 understand that it's better for everyone to win a little than for one to win allot.

Both of those things are rare these days. The first one being rarer than the second. How could anyone understand it these day? The people who have the most direct influence over it have an abundance of 1, and seem to utterly lack 2.

All the while no one want's to come to the real conclusion. That is; that money is too important, literally money is over-inflated. It's meant to be a means of exchange of goods or resources; real capital. The means of exchange have long eclipsed real capital in terms of importance for many people. This is a problem; and is not exclusive to capitalistic leaning systems.

[Guest]

Really though. Any system, even bats**t crazy ones can work just fine. Provided; 1 the majority of the people operating within it actually have a basic understanding of the system; and 2 understand that it's better for everyone to win a little than for one to win allot.

Both of those things are rare these days. The first one being rarer than the second. How could anyone understand it these day? The people who have the most direct influence over it have an abundance of 1, and seem to utterly lack 2.

All the while no one want's to come to the real conclusion. That is; that money is too important, literally money is over-inflated. It's meant to be a means of exchange of goods or resources; real capital. The means of exchange have long eclipsed real capital in terms of importance for many people. This is a problem; and is not exclusive to capitalistic leaning systems.

And this is why we can still only consider ourselves dumb apes for confusing the map for the territory - with terrible consequences for all.

As my daughter would say Shiny Shiny.

Br Cornelius

[Mr_Snstr]

And this is why we can still only consider ourselves dumb apes for confusing the map for the territory - with terrible consequences for all.

As my daughter would say Shiny Shiny.

Br Cornelius

I'm going to find myself using that analogy; the map for territory that is.

From one of my favorite movies:

"I like money."

Edited December 28, 2011 by Mr_Snstr

[lightly]

I think the word itself is interesting. Capitalism. It translates as ONE ism? Dog eat dog ism. Which is sort of fair, until government becomes unfairly controlled by the biggest dogs at the expense of all the little dogs, which sort of describes our current situation? I would rather that the social construct of "government" be controlled by and more effectively serve the many, rather than the few.

capitalism |ˈkapətlˌizəm|

noun

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

per capita |pər ˈkapitə|

adverb & adjective

for each person; in relation to people taken individually : [as adv. ] the state had fewer banks per capita than elsewhere | [as adj. ] per capita spending.

ORIGIN late 17th cent.: Latin, literally ‘by heads.’

[+DieChecker]

Infact you have hit it right on the head - the whole object of capitalism as currently constituted is to defer the consequences to someone else - preferably someone in the dim distant future.

Isn't that actually how most Socialist and supposed Communist countries also work? They defer one thing or another to the future. Dictatorships defer human rights to the future, and populist socialist states defer their debt to the future. Look at the strongly socialist states of Ireland, Portugal and Greece. Being socialist did not save them from future ruin.

In fact, there are more billionaires per inhabitant in Sweden then there are in the USA... despite a 59% income tax rate for millionaires.

I've read the exact opposite, that in Scandenavia there are less millionares and less billionares per capita, but that could very well have been from a bias source.

[Damrod]

Isn't that actually how most Socialist and supposed Communist countries also work? They defer one thing or another to the future. Dictatorships defer human rights to the future, and populist socialist states defer their debt to the future. Look at the strongly socialist states of Ireland, Portugal and Greece. Being socialist did not save them from future ruin.

I've read the exact opposite, that in Scandenavia there are less millionares and less billionares per capita, but that could very well have been from a bias source.

rotflmao...I have also read that if you step on a crack you break your mother's back...derp-derp dude...you read biased and falsified information....the Nordic examples are alive and well and very happy (and successful)...while we are clustered,confused and dissatisfied...go figure...

[Mr_Snstr]

Isn't that actually how most Socialist and supposed Communist countries also work? They defer one thing or another to the future. Dictatorships defer human rights to the future, and populist socialist states defer their debt to the future. Look at the strongly socialist states of Ireland, Portugal and Greece. Being socialist did not save them from future ruin.

Defering one thing or another can be a facet of any type of governance. That is; any type that is ran poorly. It's not exclusive to anyone form or another.

[Guest]

Isn't that actually how most Socialist and supposed Communist countries also work? They defer one thing or another to the future. Dictatorships defer human rights to the future, and populist socialist states defer their debt to the future. Look at the strongly socialist states of Ireland, Portugal and Greece. Being socialist did not save them from future ruin.

I've read the exact opposite, that in Scandenavia there are less millionares and less billionares per capita, but that could very well have been from a bias source.

Where did you get the bizarre notion that Ireland is strongly socialist, it has been one of the strongest adherents to Neo-Liberal Chicargo school free market dogmatism in Europe. It has a similar health insurance system to America. It failed because it allowed its markets to much freedom to invest in overinflated commodities which eventually collapsed in value. Your analysis is totally wrong.

As I have said repeatedly - there is no material difference between capitalism and socialism on the macro level - they are both flawed expressions of a particular general ideology. They are both the problem and seeking to point fingers at either in isolation is missing the point entirely.

Br Cornelius