|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Nov 9, 2009 5:33:09 GMT -5
money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=928712World revolts against capitalism, BBC survey shows9/11/2009 12:00:00 PM Dissatisfaction with capitalism is widespread around the globe 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall that heralded the demise of European communism, a poll released Monday showed. Only 11 percent of people surveyed across 27 countries thought free market capitalism is working well, while 51 percent believed its problems can be solved with more regulation and reform, the poll said. In only the United States (25 percent) and Pakistan (21 percent), did more than one in five people agree that capitalism works well in its current form, the poll conducted for the BBC World Service said. Comment: Capitalism: The tragic love story that spawned the GFC The survey of 29,033 adults comes after the worst global financial crisis since the 1930s Great Depression and amid celebrations for the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall which abruptly ended the Cold War. "It appears that the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 may not have been the crushing victory for free-market capitalism that it seemed at the time -- particularly after the events of the last 12 months," said Doug Miller, chairman of polling firm GlobeScan which co-conducted the survey. Most people (54 percent across all countries) backed the breakup of the Soviet Union, while 22 percent said it was a "bad thing" and 24 percent did not know. Support was highest in the US (81 percent) and Western Europe, particularly Germany (79 percent), Britain (76 percent) and France (74 percent). But support was divided among former Warsaw Pact countries. Most Russians (61 percent) and Ukrainians (54 percent) said the Soviet breakup was a "bad thing". In contrast, four in five Poles (80 percent) and 63 percent of Czechs felt the disintegration of the USSR was a "good thing". Conducted between June 19 and October 13, the survey was jointly carried out by the University of Maryland's programme on international policy attitudes. An average of 23 percent across all nations said capitalism is fatally flawed, and a new economic system is needed -- including 43 percent in France, 38 percent in Mexico, 35 percent in Brazil and 31 percent in Ukraine. And majorities in 15 out of 27 nations wanted their governments to be more active in owning or directing control of their nation's major industries. Support was highest in the former Soviet states of Russia (77 percent) and Ukraine (75 percent), but also in Brazil (64 percent), Indonesia (65 percent) and France (57 percent.) Furthermore, majorities supported governments distributing wealth more evenly in 22 out of 27 countries, particularly in Central and South America. Some 92 percent backed the idea in Mexico, 91 percent in Chile and 89 percent in Brazil, the survey said. "Some features of socialism, such as government efforts to equalise wealth, continue to appeal to many people around the world," said Steven Kull from the University of Maryland. After the collapse of financial institutions and huge government bailouts, majorities in 17 countries wanted more government regulation of big business. Brazil led the way on 87 percent, followed by Chile on 84 percent, France 76 percent, Spain 73 percent and China 71 percent.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Nov 9, 2009 5:43:03 GMT -5
Lot of this type of stuff flying around lately. I still haven't seen Michael Moores, "Capitalism: a love Story." Has had pretty good reviews...
Personally, I think it is failing. I don't see great happiness. I see a growing gap between rich and poor. I see people stuck in and being controlled by massive personal debt requiring a lifetime of mortgages to pay off a home. I see a lack of moralities and values, or those bad ones driven by capitalism such as greed...
I liked a friends recent analogy she made to me that it is liek ancient Rome. To distract the common people from their poverty and gap in quality of life from the leadership they created the Colosseum for entertainment. Similarly we have TV, Hollywood, sports to disctract us from poor living standards.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 9, 2009 6:04:39 GMT -5
^ You can't fork cash out to losers, you must let them fall because capitalism is a stock market.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 9, 2009 19:46:12 GMT -5
The only thing that failing is Corporatism (significant mix of private business and government sectors). True capitlaism isn't failing.
The only thing the crisis shows is that all mixing between government and private business should be eliminated.
|
|
gavrilo
Amicus
Vi ste svi banane
Posts: 840
|
Post by gavrilo on Nov 9, 2009 19:58:52 GMT -5
^exactly. the west has become over-capitalistic. Big business was unregulated and over leveraged, and we are paying for it today. However, capitalism with the correct type of regulation can be a continous success.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 9, 2009 23:56:14 GMT -5
^exactly. the west has become over-capitalistic. Big business was unregulated and over leveraged, and we are paying for it today. However, capitalism with the correct type of regulation can be a continous success. No the ungodly mixture of capitalism and government sectors was what caused the crisis. The crisis was caused because the imbecile Bush amdinistration wanted to avoid a prolonged recession so they changed the laws after 9/11 regarding the housing market. They changed regulations in such away to get business and alleged leftists to support it. They essentially changed the laws so that government would secure loans that wouldn't exist in a free market (subprime and all that nonsense) and liberals (in reality the same centrist crap as most republicans) backed it udner the guise of helpoing the poor. This is the most ungodly mixture of government and private sector I've ever seen. Oh and the representatives in the US past more legislation making it more appatizing for liberals to talk of helping the needy and for firms to get involved in a market no sane person wood. Regulations harmed the economy. Any regulation combining government and private sector is bad.
|
|
gavrilo
Amicus
Vi ste svi banane
Posts: 840
|
Post by gavrilo on Nov 10, 2009 0:17:20 GMT -5
I diagree. There is a difference between corruption during the bush era (and all the favors he did) and true and honest government intervention. Japan is a good example of this, with both the private sector and the government working hand in hand.
Now I know that Japan has had a sideways economy for some time now, but I believe that their troubles are due to their aging population and mentality more than government intervention. If the American government and the FED exercised the same cooperation and regulation as the Japanese, America's economy would have remained strong.
You have to remember that these economic problems weren't the sole cause of Bush. The bubble in the real estate market was created by Greenspan, not Bernanke. Furthermore, the use of over-leveraging and derivatives were the result of too little regulation from the SEC.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 10, 2009 2:00:39 GMT -5
^ No. The housing crap was caused by Bush (the subprime loans were opposed by greenspan, pushed by Bush). It was the idea of his advisors, not the head of the Federal Reserve (although knowing what Bush was doing and the fact that he couldn't stop it, he could have easily pursued better policies].
Greenspan exasperated the situation. Chances are their would of been a proloned recession after 9/11 given Greenspans policies but not the kind of crap after thanks to the genius policies of Bush. [The CBC in Canada showed some documentaery from PBS where some people said the whole subprime loans idea was exclusively of the Bush executive].
Also. The Japanese regulation are exactly what I said. Japan does not interfere in the private sector that it causes a grotesque merging of the two.
Their is no equivalent for the kind of grotesque monstrous mixtures that exist in America in Japan. Their is no crap like the Mae and Mac companies <-- essentially a dozen or so large corporations whose sole goal is subsidizing markets and products no capitalist would support and shouldn't even exist [i.e. subprime loans and associated crap].
|
|
gavrilo
Amicus
Vi ste svi banane
Posts: 840
|
Post by gavrilo on Nov 10, 2009 9:46:32 GMT -5
Who kept interest rates so low in early 2000's as the housing bubble began to form? Greenspan. He was the FED chairman and he had the power along with the FOMC to hike up rates that directly impacted the housing bubble and credit crisis. He created overiliquidity and the ability (through low interest rates) to help people on $30,000 annual incomes purchase $500,000 houses and 3 cars. Over-capitalistic.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prove my point. They are pure examples of countries becoming overly capitalistic. In this case, the government allowed itself to get inter-mixed.
What I am getting at is Japan's mix of government regulation and freedom of the private sector. They, unlike the US, remained true and honest with the private sector. A good example is the governments actions in helping the Japanese Auto undustry. They devalued the yen so honda and toyota could steal marketshare in the US.
Fannie Mae- overcapitalism.
Devaluing currency to increase exports and help create massive and successful auto companies throughout the world- good capitalism.
I am not defending Bush. I hate the scumbag as much as I hate Clinton. Clinton got off easy because he was the president during a great economic expansion in the 90's. He had little to do with the benefits of the economy, but gets much praise.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 10, 2009 10:34:18 GMT -5
Nice thoughts guys, especially Gavrilo. As long as there are derivatives, short players in the stock markets, computers competing against each other while completely ignoring fundamental parameters of economies, the whole thing cannot be controlled and can collapse any day....(or any night if we take 24x7 computer trading into consideration)
Pure capitalism is about profit, and todays capitalist markets even provide mechanisms and tools via which wealth can be produced even out of loss, even destruction. (I believe, behind the anti-smoking frenzy, there must have been some ppl who bet huge amounts in the fall of the smoke stocks.)
This is not natural, this is 100% paranormal... and we all know the fate of those who go against nature or common sense.
PS, Also it strikes me to see that BBC/CNN are being critic against capitalism and talking about socialism, when just 10-20 years ago, they were committing crimes in the name of neoliberal capitalism. (Yugoslavia was one of their victims, although admittedly a *tough* victim), i mean those guys never advertise an idea, unless they have some plans.. The point here is to reveal, to guess their plans.
One thing i know for sure, is that in many countries, (Greece included) they *own* all major ex-leftist media. So, the day Karadzic was arrested, all leftist media were celebrating against the bad .... butcher, bla bla bla
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 10, 2009 13:43:58 GMT -5
Who kept interest rates so low in early 2000's as the housing bubble began to form? Greenspan. He was the FED chairman and he had the power along with the FOMC to hike up rates that directly impacted the housing bubble and credit crisis. He created overiliquidity and the ability (through low interest rates) to help people on $30,000 annual incomes purchase $500,000 houses and 3 cars. Over-capitalistic. Doesn't change the fact that it was the legislators who created the conditions for the subprime loans crap. It was they who essentially said government will subsidize any losses as a result. Not Greenspan. It was their decisions that made the subprime loans crap possible. If not for these guarantees past by legislators it is doubtful anyone would be involved in "subprime" no matter how low rates are. [Japan had rates as low as 1% for a decade or so and they had no equivalent to this subprime loans crap] <-- There were members of the LDP and opposition who urged such crap, but the corporatist (mixing of the two sector) culture is not like that of the states. No they are pure exmaples of the gross mixing of government and private business - corporatism. In a truly capitalist society there would be no Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and given the way these beasts exist they wouldn't even exist in a socialist society). No NAFTA allowed them to steal marketshare. As soon as NAFTA was signed they opened factories in Canada and Mexico and were able to import cars whoise most significant components were made in Japan because after factoring assembly and unimportant parts, they met thje "70% manufactured in North America rule" and were thus treated as domestic cars throughout North America. More then half of all "Japanese" cars sold in North America are made in Canada and Mexico (the only Japanese firm where this isn't the case is Mazda). This tends to apply to all foreign cars. Fannie Mae - corporatism <-- when the private and government sectors mix. Ex€cept the yen had nothing to do with automobiles, it was more beneficial to electronics. Automobiles had more to do with changes made in foreign investment and import laws in regional trading blocs then with Japanese government policies. [The Automobile industry was to regulated for it to have the impact you speak off].
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 10, 2009 14:04:42 GMT -5
Pure Capitalism is all aobut profit, it is also agaisnt the crap "capitalism" is now. Capitalism is now a bastartized form where private and government secotrs mixed <-- it is Corporatism.
In a capitalist system many of the worst excesses shouldn't exist. Subprime loans, many of the derivatives and other various schemes are only possible because of governments.
There is no pure capitalism, as the vast majority of those succesful in business are opposed to competition. The main aims of big businesses are for there to be no competition and for the govenrment too be involved in the process in such a way that profits are increased (especially in the short term). <-- This goes directly against the idea of competition fundamental to pure capitalism. There is no truly capitalist system, there is only it's bastardized form known as corporatism.
In Jonah Goldergs book, Liberla Fascism: The History of the American Left he mentions this. Anti-smoking frenzy was actually financed to a large degree by the largest tobacco companies. Yes they paid billions in damages but these amounts were paid over a few years and many of the cases dropped. But after a few years there profits were higher then before, no huge drop in smoking rates and there compeition (i.e. smaller tobacco companies) were eliminated from the market.
This is a pure exmaple of how Corporatism work and how anti-capitalist it is. It is a clear case of government and private sector colluding.
This is not natural, this is 100% paranormal... and we all know the fate of those who go against nature or common sense.
They aren't advocating socialism. They used talk of capitalism to push the agenda of corporatism. Now they're going to use socialism in such a way to do the same.
90% of self-declared socialists and capitalists in the west are neither but are corporatists.
A socialist should be ashamed of what the Labour Party in the UK is, the same applies to capitalists/libertarians about the Conservative Party UK.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 11, 2009 2:33:09 GMT -5
Radovic, very interesting, you are 100% right, i'll comment later.
|
|
gavrilo
Amicus
Vi ste svi banane
Posts: 840
|
Post by gavrilo on Nov 11, 2009 18:31:01 GMT -5
radovic, in essence we both agree that there should be free markets. I just believe that because humans are natuarally greedy, a smart type of management (by a responsible government) is needed to control greedy people.
Japan is a good example. It is still the world's second largest economy (excluding eurozone), even with a smaller population.
The US is a bad example of good government.
Regardless I think that it is needed.
Pyrro, you and I both know that bbc and basically all of western media has a slant and is owned by big business. That is what worries me the most. The fact that Rupert Murdock owns Fox news and News Corp shows that extremists can succesfully implement their propanda in the States.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 11, 2009 18:46:47 GMT -5
radovic, in essence we both agree that there should be free markets. I just believe that because humans are natuarally greedy, a smart type of management (by a responsible government) is needed to control greedy people. I believe that because humans are greedy, it is near impossible to have responsible government. Especially in the modern age and especially in America. Being a government officials is nothing more then a way to earn money or establish contacts enabling you to mkae money once you leave public office. The only instiution that I see in the western word and particular the US that hasn't been corrupted is the court system (the court systems greatest threat is the corrupted legislators passing laws weakening the power and impacts of courts). I'd rather have a system where govenrment power (particular with regard to economy) is weakened and that of courts significantly increased. I don't know enoigh of the details on Japan, I have a feeling form what I know that your glorifying to me. [Although in my opinion the only real Corporatism that comes to the monstosities of the US is the Japanese subsidizing of the construction industry <-- most of their major industries are capable of operating without the grotessque mergers of the privaste and government sectors]. So is Japan. (Although with the lose of the LDP, this will hopefully change). BBC is publicly owned. If anything it represents the British govenrments view. But given that in the last 30 years it's been led by Thatcherites and so-called New Labour (pro-business some mostly symbollic leftist helping the needy crap added in), it's as good or even better at saying it's owned by big corporations.
|
|