E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSCapitalism, you aren’t as popular as you used to be.
The economic doldrums of the last five years has eroded the global popularity of the economic institution of the free market economy, a new report from Pew Research Center finds.
Americans are slightly less likely to support capitalism than they were five years ago. The report found that 67 percent of people completely or mostly agreed that most people are better off in a free market economy even though some people are rich and some people are poor.
That’s down from 70 percent in 2007, the year the U.S. economy officially fell into recession.
But capitalism’s reputation has really tanked in places like Italy, Spain, Poland, Britain and Pakistan.
Just 50 percent of Italians agree that people are better off in a free market economy, down 23 percentage points from 2007. In Spain, less than half of those surveyed agreed people were better off in a free market. Both countries have been plagued by economic problems in recent years.
Related: Do you make $30,000 a year or less? We want to hear from you
In Poland, where citizens are relative newcomers to free market ideals, 53 percent of respondents said people were better off in the free market system, down 15 percentage points from 2007.
The free market economy also isn’t winning any popularity contests in Pakistan and Japan, where the Pew report found that less than half of those surveyed thought people are better off with the system.
Capitalism did gain a few fans in Germany and France. Leaders from both those countries have been shouldering much of the burden of dealing with the financial problems dogging the European Union.
The survey of 26,000 people in 21 countries was conducted between March and April of 2012.
Leave a Comment:
Unbridled capitalism is not the complete and only answer, and that is where some on the right have a problem when it comes to reining things in with some needed regulation.
Constructive discussion on this issue would go a long way to bringing things back on track and getting Congress out of their dysfunctional funk they are in right now.
Mark
When you have John Kerry hiding yachts to beat taxes in his own state and Charlie Rangel not reporting his income from rental property to beat taxes and John Corzine misplacing $billions, why do you bring up the "right" as being the bad guys? Capitalism works great when everyone plays fair.
JH-479998,
It's conservatives who vote to make it easier for the wealthy to get those advantages. You think capitalism is unpopular now? All America needs to do is keep voting conservative for another 20 years and there's going to be no level of deception to hide what is causing the extreme inequality and economic collapse.
I have a question.
Why do the banks and Wall Street get all the socialism and the rest of us get stuck with decaying capitalism?
"Capitalism works great when everyone plays fair."
But Capitalism encourages people to NOT play fair, so it intrinsically unstable without regulation.
"Capitalism works great when everyone plays fair".
Yea, tell that to countries like Haiti and other capitalist third world s**t holes.
Mike Davis
It is liberals who vote to tax everything that they can and then try to avoid paying the taxes themselves. Take a good look around and you will see that liberal politicians generally get their wealth from tax payers because they aren't smart enough to make it in the real world of capitalism.
I gave you some examples of liberals who cheat on their taxes and you come back with "conservatives" take advantage of the system?
Capitalism is NEVER the problem, it is when it is screwed with that causes the problems.
Nobody screws up capitalism more than big government and Wall Street!
They take trillions of dollars of wealth and produce nothing!
No one understands what 'capitalism' means anymore. Free enterprise - free markets - ARE NOT CAPITALISM.
Capitalism is the mechanism to CREATE wealth. All economies CREATE wealth the same way.
What we are arguing about is mechanisms to GENERATE wealth - not CREATE wealth. Free enterprise - free markets - GENERATE wealth. Wealth can be GENERATED in two ways.
Wealth can be produced by combining resources and labor.
Wealth can be plundered by redistributing wealth from those that create it to those that do not.
The raiders, traders, profiteers, and artificially successful in our economy ARE NOT PRODUCING WEALTH. They prosper by plundering wealth.
A statement that 'only the strongest survive and prosper' is the basis of plundering wealth from others. Our economic gurus and artificially successful are pirates - not capitalist.
Real FREE MARKETS are the answer. The USA is NOT a Free Market System. Major corporations control every major industry and they do so through the REGULATORY system by which the revolving door of regulators and former employees of these same regulations lobby congress for rules that benefit them and limit competition.
This is not free markets and sadly most people have no clue.
JH-479998,
Do you see what you are writing? "...liberals who vote to tax everything that they can and then try to avoid paying the taxes themselves". What kind of logic is that? Don't you see it would be just easier to vote to cut taxes if that's what you wanted? Do you see how they've got you thinking so that they can justify their concentration of money and power into private hands. It's not complicated - the more you regulate mega-corporations, the fairer our competition will be. The more you tax the wealthy and use that to create equal opportunity, the fairer our society will be. We're still battling the remnants of feudalism. Feudalism was when kings and queens owned all the private property and passed it to their children. The revolutions ended this. Now kings and queens are finding their way back. Things have gotten less equal over the last 40 years as we've followed policies which allow concentration of wealth int the hands of the few. This will always decrease the opportunities that we have. Either learn about this or plan on becoming a serf. Our democracy can save us, if only you give it the power it needs. Vote to keep corporate money out of politics. Help push for a constitutional amendment which limits money donations.
Mike, you are scary. The proper capitalistic way to take money from the rich is have them pay more for their labor and services to the worker, not tax them more and send the money to the kings and queens in D.C. for them to pass out to the serfs after their 90% handling fee.
lvingbarefoot,
Yes, that would be nice. And how do you get our new kings and queens of industry to pay more to us serfs?
Yes, but if they won't pay it to the worker and they OWN the government, what can we do? THE CORPORATE DEATH PENALTY. These corporations are getting away literally with MURDER (coal companies for example). When they KILL someone, they should LOSE THEIR CORPORATE CHARTER and have all their assets sold off to pay reparations.
SRS-798254,
We take back our democracy. We need a constitutional amendment which limits political contributions to coming from actual people and to only a small percent of average incomes. We can't take back our democracy when we're talking apocalyptic over health insurance that we already have. Everyone agrees we need to limit campaign money. Guess who has the most money? Why can't we get this done? The new kings and queens have us divided and conquered.
Mike, just enforce our immigration laws and every worker gets a raise.
lvingbarefoot,
You are divided and conquered. You ask for more government when they tell you to, and cry like you're in a dictatorship when you are required to buy the health insurance which you already have. If small-business wants those workers why can't they have them? You want the government to shrink the workforce now?
Mike there is a proper role of government which our founders put in place, learn it and then get back to me.
I own a small business and would love to pay my employees more, it is much better than them receiving low compensation from me and the rest from the government. How you live here and don't grasp this is real scary and a major problem we are facing.
People looking to their government for existence when the government needs the people for its existence. I guess if you were hungry, you would eat all of your body parts to survive.
Unregulated and extreme capitalism turns into monopolies, price fixing and gouging, tax evasion, corporate controlled governments, uneven wealth distribution, Off shoring job and assets, Discrimination etc.
The list goes on forever, This is the GOP and corporate puppet masters economic plan for us all. Has been since Regan sold us out.
@lvingbarefoot -- The role of government is to counterbalance the excesses that occur in the private sector. Yes, government does redistribute a portion of wealth that is created - but - that is no different than the portions of the private sector that prosper from redistributing wealth.
The problem with government is that it is not obtaining its revenue from the portion of the private sector that prospers from redistribution of wealth. The government is no longer acting as a counterbalance to non-productive redistribution of wealth by the private sector.
That is why the burden is greater on productive businesses engaged in creating wealth in the economy. The government has adopted a policy of favoring 'free enterprise' instead of favoring capitalism.
Businesses that actually create wealth in our economy are being bled dry by both the government AND the non-productive parts of the private sector.
The government is now collecting revenue from the productive parts of the economy and redistributing that revenue to the non-productive parts of the economy. That is what bank bailouts, subsidizing financial investments, and supporting insurance instead of service has accomplished.
Capitalism is a natural system. Life exists because of it and can not exist with out it.
@bobyoung: Yea, they said the same thing about feudalism (as an economic system) and that too was eventually replaced.
The Chinese benefit very well with capitalism. So no one can really argue capitalism doesn't work. I just don't believe the US is ready for a communist government. Hard to believe this subject was even brought up, but we do have that freedom at present.
The worst economic disaster we faced was before Glass-Stegal and the second was after it was repealed. Clinton's realestate dealing had him in hot water during most of his term. His policies have us in hot water after his term. I hope he struck it rich before the meltdown. No one in government seems to find the will to address this issue.
Ken, presidents dont write legislation, look into it a little and you will see that sen. Phil Gramm was responsible for it, not Clinton.
Congress frequently writes legislation at the presidents request or direction....Why would you think otherwise?
You must be nuts, Clinton didn't request that bill, Citi demanded it and Gramm responded.......................
Clinton supported it and the Senate voted for it 90 to 8. That sure seems like a lot of dem support. Now, who is the nut?
Capitalism is not perfect but it sure beats Socialism. Just have a look at Europe. Cannot blame Capitalism there becasue it is the Socialist component of their goverments that is dragging them down. The hand out state cannot sustain itself.
Then how do you explain Communist China? ;-)
Todd the Navy vet
Funny how people like you can only think in black-and-white. Apparently you have no clue as to what caused Ireland's problems. I doubt you have any idea as to what socialism even is. Simple minds like yours have been programmed to only think "Socialism = bad" and "capitalism = good" and that's about the extent of your thought process.
Todd- the problem isn't socialism in Europe. Look at Germany,Sweden,Norway...many are doing just fine. The problem is unregulated banks and governments that believe, as The Dick Cheney said," deficits don't matter." Well, the sure as hell do. But the problem isn't social programs of national healthcare. It's greedy unregulated banks and poor governance.
Eb Goode - The Chinese shoot corrupt politicians and industrialists in the back of the head. America, on the other hand rewards banks and car companies that run themselves off the cliff and subsequently do nothing for those affected. Had we just let GM, Goldman, MS, Citi all fail the long term would have been FAR BETTER companies.
China is easy to explain. Slave labor to support the beast.
Our President does support slave labor here also, so you may get your wish, we can become as "successful" as China if we don't kick him out of office.
There is something called Buddhist economics which makes sense to me. For an economic enterprise to succeed it must make a profit, that is a given. But if in doing so it becomes obvious that the environment which sustains us all is put in risk or becomes damaged, then it is not viable. If it succeeds and makes it profits at the expense of human suffering, then it is not viable. It must not damage the environment or the quality of human life. Sometimes this will not be known until the enterprise is put into action, so a retrospective analysis is sometimes needed. One good example might be a plastic toy manufacturer. The dangers to the environment of using vast amount of petroleum products to only serve making a child momentarily happy (before the toy soon gets dumped into the land-fill) are, in the long run, not worth the profit made by the capitalist. Not picking on the kiddies of the world, but it is such an obvious example. Everywhere you look one can find prime examples, probably better than the one I just used.
Capitalism is not inherently bad. In fact there are many different types of capitalism. I just feel that it has to be put into a larger perspective.
Capitalism is about allocating resources--- eventually. It makes progress DESPITE greed and stupidity because failures are allowed to fail. Its not about creating a stagnant equality. Its about rapid change.
Just because you support capitalism doesnt mean you're a capitalist. Not everybody who liked gladatorial games were gladiators. They were spectators and they knew their role. If they jumped in the ring, they'd get slaughtered. This is what happened when "consumers" went up against "capitalists." The gladiators just enjoyed the easy kill.
Capitalism is the tool that keeps greed in check. The left thinks it is greed and that is why their view of it is so skewed.
A good balance is required. "Socialism" or workers banding together to reach a common goal, is best for many things. Utilities are best run as a "socialist" entity. Why do we need to make a profit on electricity? Co-ops have been supplying it for a century in many places. Water utilities and even the internet would best be run by a cooperative enterprise instead of a large corporation. Likewise health care. Private providers, certainly, but a single payer system. That would reduce health care cost by AT LEAST 20%.
Socialism 101---- Businesses take all the profits taxpayers cover all losses.
So capitalist pigs shorting the euro had nothing to do with it huh??
Well Nerm_L, it looks like you're just making your own definitions up... Capitalism is definitely free enterprise/free markets... reward based on effort.... it definitely has to have some controls... mostly due to human weakness... but it's way better than a system that steals from those who work and gives to those who don't..... being equal means equal opportunity, not equal results.... which is why lazy people don't tend to be millionaires...
@Fed Up-2683606 -- Absolutely not - you are wrong in your assertions.
Capitalism is the mechanism for CREATING wealth. Wealth is created by adding labor to resources to create something of greater value. ALL economies create wealth in exactly the same way. ALL economies are based on capitalism.
Socialism, communism, free enterprise, free markets - are mechanisms to distribute created wealth within an economy. The Soviet Union created wealth exactly the same way that the United States created wealth - by combining resources and labor. The Soviet Union utilized a different mechanism to DISTRIBUTE (or redistribute) that wealth.
Free enterprise - free markets - are based on generating PROFITS. Profits are generated by hiring the fewest workers possible, by paying the lowest wages possible, by providing the fewest benefits possible, by circulating the least amount of money in the economy. Profits are a mechanism to redistribute wealth that is created by labor to the profiteer.
Speculative investment siphons a portion of wealth created by labor to generate returns on those speculative investments. The labor created the wealth - the speculative investment redistributed a portion of that wealth.
Stock trading, derivatives, speculative investing - DOES NOT CREATE WEALTH. Too much of our economic assets are being directed toward activities that REDISTRIBUTE wealth - through free enterprise - from those that create wealth to those that do not.
Plotinus, your heart is in the right place; however, what you propose requires regulation, and as soon as regulations are mandated, the outcries about restriction of "freedom" start.
I know Buddhists who came to the US and haunt every Thrift store in their area. Their mindset is exactly the same as others who come to a materially abundant society from a society with scarcity; this same mindset exists in "first world" peoples who were raised poor, and then got access to Credit. They 'want' stuff that they couldn't have before. It takes a LOT of Meditation to break that "pleasure cycle" in the brain.
It seems to me that a lot of the youth of today that are "calling out" Corporations about 'Branding' and selling every imaginable thing that creative minds think up, rather than letting people use their imagination and make their own stuff are youth that came from balanced homes, where they had enough, but not so much that their egos were bound up in "Signifying".
After all the first job of Capitalism is to create a desire in peoples mind for "stuff" they don't really need. The next step, since the invention of the Credit Card, is to see that Banks provide the mechanism for the worker to "sell their soul", to get their (temporary) hearts desire.
I am so heartened at all the balanced comments from people who voted in favor of Capitalism. Capitalism with responsibility is fine with me too. I just don't see any way to disconnect the modern Capitalist System from the "greed" that it MUST create in people to keep shoving unneeded products down peoples throats.
Some of the Buddhists get around this by saying, "it's OK to have 'stuff', you just shouldn't be attached to your 'stuff'!" Hypocrisy with a Buddhist accent!
QueZen,
I agree. BTW, Zen to me is the mind of the Tibetan Buddhism body.
All my life I have had a healthy distrust for "salesmen" for just the reason you stated. In order to make a living they must create a desire for something, often very unneeded. But that's painting with too broad a stroke. There obviously are needed products or services that we can only obtain through a salesman, so in our economy they turn out to be very essential.
One part of capitalism that I have always wondered about was the need for perpetual "growth", expanding markets, more sales, more production, etc. etc. In my mind anything that grows without some limits or bounds is called a cancer and always ends up killing it's host, in this case the environment. Back in my youth when I studied communism there was a lady who nailed that one. She said it would be the death of capitalism. She might have been right. I think her name was Rosa Luxemberg, and she was executed in Germany.
What it comes down to for me is a personal awakening of who we are, what our relationship to others and the whole is. Once that happens we naturally will try not to cause harm to others or the planet.
How many people want their socialist, communist, communtal, mutual etc., public utilities turned over to the so called "free market"?
Truth is, utilities are socialist. A little mutual water system is mutual, because it is owned collectively. Socialist. So are parks, power, wastewater, the freeway system, etc.
Utilities are socialist and for the most part, people do not want to turn over their socialist utilities to "GoldmanSachs". Why? because deep down we know that human greed will NOT help the community when it comes to utilities. We want local control and the lie of free market price drops doesn't work when there are cartel monopolies with few choices.
Having said that, the proper function of banks is to match economic of the community. This function is utilitarian. Banks are not equal to car companies. They don't offer innovation like electronic companies. Their main innovations have been new fine print contracts designed to target and steal from the poor. We need public banking utilities not "free market" thieving places we call banks today.
@sutter99 -- You illustrate part of the problem with the language being used. Actually, public utilities ARE capitalist because they engage in creating wealth by adding labor to resources.
The product is sold on a public market - and - the industry is regulated to benefit both the public market and the public utility. Do not confuse the regulation of an industry to benefit both the public market and the public utility as socialism.
A captive industry that operates for public benefit does not define socialism - it does define regulated capitalism.
Socialism is the mechanism to distribute (or redistribute) wealth created by capitalism. The wealth created by a public utility is not redistributed - public utilities are allowed to make a profit and retain that profit.
I don't think it's an either/or proposition.
You can't fund Socialism without capitalism and conservatism, so your main engine needs to be the the last two.
Why? Just for the sake of discussion...what about an employee owned company?
Too many chiefs and not enough Indians.
Liberalism and Democrat philosophies would work in a Vulcan society, the problem is that is just a fantasy.
Even in an EOC, the employees will elect their own leaders and hold them accountable for results. This IS proper socialism-- widest possible nbr of people in control. What govt does is centralize control into the smallest possible group of people and this is the distinction that makes it communism. Proper socialism can only work at the lowest levels because it doesnt require a level of trust and sacrifice that only exists within small groups. Nobody will trust and sacrifice for people they dont know. Just ask germany about greece.
lvingbarefoot - No...you would still have "chiefs" and "indians," with wage differentials depending on position. And, you would still have managerial discipline. Only basic difference would be "ownership." which would be "equal," allowing major decisions to be decided by vote. If someone were fired, there would be an appellate route, but then if the firing held up, the "shares" would be purchased by the company and be distributed to the replacement, with the total number of shares remaining static, but increasing oe decreasing with company performance.
I'm not necessarily suggesting this...just for discussion.
peanutGalleryTheater - Germany and Greece have very different cultures. Many large German corporations have union representatives sitting on their boards, resulting in overall better management-labor relations.
Stone, it takes capital to start a business, meaning every worker would have to pony up some money to be an owner. When terminated, what is your compensation? Just too many potential unsolvable problems.
I do like mutual insurance companies though.
When terminated, you would receive the current value of your stock. And, would it really be that more complex than some of the "free market" derivative bets?
The shift into "financial services" appears to me to have added a great deal of unnecessary complexity in capital markets, simply as an excuse for fees and commissions, in which "churn" becomes the principal goal, rather than sound, long term investment.
When what (IMO) was intended to be "market facilitation," becomes the "market maker" we have lost much of the positive attributes of capitalism. I am concerned that this, in my opine ion, distortion of free markets, will "kill the goode that laid the golden egg."
Livingbarefoot, you just pointed out the Achilles heel of Socialism... when the productive finally get tired of being fleeced by the deadbeats.... and THEY finally go on strike.... then the jig will be up.... just like Drs going on strike would end Obamacare tomorrow.... the amoral deadbeats are counting on our complicity to help them fleece us
Every individual values themselves high when it come to their job performance. Who decides who is worth what? What if I disagree? What if the board shows favortism?
In a vacuum, your, Socialist and big government would work, just not in real life.
There is nothing in the rules preventing people from doing what you want to do. If you want to find out the true answer, it would have to be tried.
By the by - if socialism is such an epic fail, why is Germany doing OK? Why is Canada doing OK?
This isn't a Socialist/Capitalist issue - it's a deregulated Banking issue. Bring back Glass-Steagall as a start...
The issue is that by making the financiers of industry beholden to stock prices and unreasonable return expectations (what, 7%, 10% isn't good enough? You gotta make 25% a quarter?!?) - we're encouraging them to do what's NOT in their companies' long-term best interests.
If laws were passed that penalized such behavior - we'd be much better off without having "true" socialist control of the economy (e.g. wear a seatbelt, and we don't need to give you a ticket).
Now how to structure such legislation: I don't have a frikkin clue. Maybe regulate what investment banks can invest in (or how much at what time) - maybe eliminate the riskiest investment types (default swaps, certain currency hedges) - maybe just limit how often people can trade a stock (to encourage dividend based investment - not pump-n-dump based investment)...
But SOME regulation is clearly needed. I mean, hell - if we fully deregulated, we'd have bank runs like we did in the 1920s again...
Europe and Canada have capitalist economies overlain with social democracies. It is a very effective system if you get the balance right.
and we're not a democracy, we're a republic which creates a corruptable layer between us and govt power. Accountability is much lower. And it does make a difference.
Capitalism is the driving force at the core of almost all successful economies, but you have to have regulation and social justice measures to nake a livable society. The free market doesn't anticipate the future very well, either.
It is never capitalism that fails you, like in health care, our government completely obliterated capitalism and then wonders why it is a bloated mess.
Stupid! Apply capitalism to lower cost so we can afford to help our truly needy.
Two excellent posts,Jock. I would add,however, that there is no such thing as a free market, or at least not for long. If a market is truly free, the players in it will figure out how to work together to mnopolize it as the oil companies did in the 70's and thus, it is no longer a free market. It is a controlled and manipulated market. Price fixing. Does Enron come to mind?
We can already afford to help our own-- if we didnt have to launder our surplus through an inefficient and corrupt govt (taxes). How about a 100% tax credit on donations and let people fund better ways to take of the poor? I bet we'd see less "give a man a fish" and more "teach him to fish" since we wouldnt benefit from funding long-term dependents.
Ebeneezer Goode, just give China time. It's government will too implode. Just like the USSR did. Eventually, it won't be able to sustain the weight of it's social policies as it's manufacturing costs rise. And the manufacturing prices will rise. One has to remember, first all you saw in stores was "Made in Japan", then it was "Made in Tawan", then it was "Made in Korea", now it's "Made in China", and even more recent "Made in India". So history shows that the Chinese economy will not continue to be as robust as it is now. That is when it will implode.
JH - you forgot to name Mitt Romney and all his secretive bank accounts.
Sally want a cracker?
@Sally...
Like what?? It's illegal or something to have bank accounts?? We all know Romney is extreamly rich.. you jealous or something?? If you'd socked cash away when you were younger... you'd have a million or more in the bank... that's what I did..
If Romney had a good run by closing businesses and destroying jobs when he was the head of Bain, he doesn't deserve to be elected.
It is good to see that a majority of the folks don't like capitalism.
That fact will make it a lot easier for the president to complete our conversion to socialism.
In the January to March period of 2009, he could probably have "nationalized" the banks, had he chosen to do so. At that point, even Alan Greenspan was suggesting that. Instead we "loaned" taxpayer money to them, and charged interest.
Hardly a "socialist solution."
Most of those banks didnt want the money. They were forced to take it so that nobody would figure out the citibank was going down next. Then they were prevented from paying it back early. Thats partial nationalization in my book.
True...it was to avoid a run on the banks that DID need the loan. But, I don't see that as "nationalization." It was to preserve capitalism. Most of the money has been repaid with interest.
There is such a thing as "cutting off your nose to spite your face," which is what we would have been doing without the temporary (and, strictly speaking, probably illegal) intervention of the State. That was the essence of the "too big to fail" problem, no?
IMO, one should never place ideology over the practical needs of the society. The "greatest good, for the greatest number," isn't all that bad a political philosophy (I would add certain basic minority rights).
I think most economists would agree that had the "intervention" not taken place, the banks would have fallen like dominos, leading to a deep global depression and imposing even more widespread pain and suffering than we have had.
I suspect that the combination of capitalism and democracy came very, very close to failure during the last quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009. This, of course, cannot be admitted by those largely responsible for the fiasco, whose only response to failure is to "double down."
Avoiding a global depression is something the Obama Administration gets virtually zero credit for among those on the right.
Capitalism is each of us getting to make our own choices at the store. Socialism is the government requiring you work the factory even though you are better skilled as an artist and then making you buy the ugly shirt from the government store you just made in the government factory.
Why is it so hard for some people to use their own brains and understand that if you want something all you have to do is make it.
Capitalism fails when it is subjugated with social Justice which is code for stealing money from the producers and give it to the lazy because we can not stand to see someone starve even at their own hands.
LaVall- you're in desperate need of cracking a few books. Just like most Americans, you don't have a clue as to what socialism is. What you described is communism, more or less, and a totalitarian state at that. Socialism is simply having programs in place to help the society as a whole where it's needed. For instance, Social Security. Our schools system is a social program for education. Medicare is a social program. You're embarassing yourself,pal. Read a little and then post. Oh, and stop listening to Glenn and Rush. Canada, Sweden, Norway, Germany are all socialistic countries and doing just fine with an excellent standard of living. The thing that has really helped them, though, is that they aren't owned, lock,stock, and barrel, by a war-making cartel that convinces their citizenry that they constantly need to be at war. Even with all of bushco's debacles, if he ahd simply not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan we would not be in nearly as dire straits today with our deficit.
I'll also remind you of a bush quote:" A dictatorship would be okay as long as I'm the dictator." I don't think Obama has ever espoused the desire to be king. The GOP has. Most poor people WANT TO WORK.
Blue is right. Socialism = maximum nbr of people in REAL control. Democracy is the mechanism. Our republic doesnt really count as REAL control since we can elect a POTUS with as little as 20% support of voters. It also doesnt work well in really large group because the required trust and sacrifice just isnt there.
Communism = minimal nbr of people in (centralized) control.
In a strict definition of each term one could hold your position as of what socialism and communism is. However today those two terms are interchangeable. Yes in socialism the business is not directly owned by the government but it is not free either. No socialism is NOT just a few social programs to support everyone. And the only poor people that want to work are those that know that capitalism is the only way an individual can be free. They also know if the government would stop trying to control the people the work would be available.
Oh and I don't listen to Glenn or Rush. I watch and read and observe and understand. I do not just take what others say as true.
Bushes wars add little to the problem we have now. It ALL rests on government interference with home loans. This "social" idea that everyone has the right to a home and thus no bank should turn someone down even if they don't have the means to repay. That is what has killed our economy.
The only system that will work, and it worked great in Hong Kong until China took it back, is capitalism as a base and all social activity handle NOT by the government but by individuals.
IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE CARE OF ANYONE. The government should only be protecting our rights and nothing more.
They are not interchangeable. It's two very different things. Apples and oranges. You are eithe very poorly informed or spinning. Are you a repugnican fear-monger? Any system when taken to extremes is bad. And almost any system has its good points. The key to having a good system is having an effective hybrid.
And bush's wars add much to our problems today. They are why the deficit is so staggeringly heavy and they are still adding to it daily. I agree that it isn't the govts responsibility to take care of everyone but it is the responsibility of the govt to have systems in place to help people in need, especially in times of national economic duress. Recessions and depressions are almost always a result of govts poor financial management, hence, if they pulled the rug out from under their people, they have a moral obligation to try and minimize the pain. Further, programs that help the needy and destitute will actually help to stabilize things and prevent things from becoming worse than they are and actually help speed a recovery. Once the govt decided to embrace robber barons and encourage an industrial economy, it seems clear that since it was more difficult for people to get through hard times in cities, it was necessary and prudent to have safety nets in place. During hard times in 1780, you could likely grow your own food or cook your own chickens. That's not an option for most people today. If the govt is committed to an industrial economy, certain obligations for the well-being of its citizenry come with that. THE ONLY REAL PURPOSE OF A GOVT IS TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEFENSE AND WELL BEING OF ITS CITIZENS. ALL CITIZENS. NOT JUST THE WEALTHY AND INDUSTRIALISTS
Capitalism was never the source of the recession. It was the government's manipulation of capitalism that caused this mess and continues to make a mess of it. The government involving itself in the mortgage industry with Freddie and Fanny, Banks that should have failed but were bailed out are still making bad/risky decisions, CEOs of those institution are still making rock star pay, different industries getting "cookies" based upon whatever administration is in office, etc.....
A large percentage of this economy is subsidized, bailed out, propped up, etc. THAT IS NOT CAPITALISM !!!!!!!! True capitalism would have allowed the "dead wood" to be cut away and become much stronger.
As long as this government manipulates the stock market (quantitative easing - CNBC is reporting 50% of the market value is due to this), the banking industry (bail outs), mortgages, school loan programs, etc.... this economy will never truly heal and we will face another crisis and it could be the level of Greece.
In capitalism the phrase "too large to fail" would not be uttered, bad decisions would be held accountable. That never happened at GM, or at the banks, or at Freddie and Fanny.
Tell the government to get out of all of it, just enforce the laws and regulations, and our economy will take off.
Cutting out the dead wood is exactly WHY capitalism is best. Its stops wasting resources on failures.
Capitalism = Me using my own money how I see fit. Now why would that be a bad thing?
Why would me being able to do something and to be rewarded for my actions be a bad thing? Why is it so hard to understand that each of us having control of our own work and money is a good thing.
All those that say capitalism is bad and that socialism is good are only lazy and are jealous of those that have the success they created. They want other peoples money because they are unwilling to create their own success.
I can understand the frustration over success not being easy given how much interference the socialist in our country have put in place. And yes greedy GOPers have put some in place too. Just look at the paper work needed to start a business. Then look at the tax paperwork and tax requirements and now healthcare requirements and and and it just keeps going.
It is not capitalism that is failing. It is socialism that is strangling capitalism.
If you use "your" money to rape our environment then it becomes a problem to me. There is something wrong in using "your" money in such a way. Or do you not see that? Just wondering.
That would fall under the "your rights end where mine begin" doctrine.
Because there are people who will either break the laws, which allow all of this to work, or pervert the system with their wealth to have the laws made to their overwhelming advantage.
Because the resources you use exploit when using 'your' money belong to all of us. There is a thing called the commons that must be protected. Also, you might not have the foresight to use 'your' money in ways that benefit society, and society must protect its future by enforcing a positive long-term trajectory. Society must not let your greed, ignorance or short-sightedness affect it negatively.
I see 8 areas that should never be under private control, in whole or in part: education, utilities, transportation infrastructure, military, healthcare, emergency response, natural resources and public lands.
Believe I'd add "police powers," including prisons. Good post.
Two children are playing. Child A has a toy that Child B wants. Child B takes toy away from Child A. If you are Child B's mom or dad, what did you say to him. Give it back, it's not yours and you shouldn't take from others - or that's OK, he has something you should have and you should be able to take it away.
Moral: Why should I work for my toys if they are just going to be taken away.
Why should I work for my toys if I can simply take them from someone else.
Does anyone else find it ironic that the signs in our National parks convey:
Don't feed the wildlife, it promotes a dependency on others, limits their ability to provide for themselves and leads to overpopulation.
It's not a difficult concept folks! If our gov't would create the climate for more people to succeed instead of rewarding those who don't at the expense of those who do, where could we be?
MahaDave,
Bravo! spot on! Good post.
Stone6,
I agree! Get profit out of these things and all of us will be better off.
People talk as though the only alternative to pure, free-market, laissez-faire capitalism is pure socialism. Progressivism, in fact, was an early 1900s response to that false dichotomy. A progressive would say that we don't have to give up on capitalism just because it doesn't work perfectly. Instead, we can sacrifice a little market efficiency for a little more fairness and stability through some well-placed regulation. (How MUCH regulation and WHAT it should be is, appropriately, a source of lively debate.)
But the point is, we don't have to go full socialist - which the evidence suggests works poorly. Instead, we can "socialize" the few things that the free market doesn't do very well (i.e.: the military, interstate highways, law enforcement, sewer and water service, etc.), regulate potentially dangerous industries heavily (pharma, airlines, finance), and others hardly at all (entertainment, the Internet). This is basically what we have done for the last 70-100 years, and it hasn't brought about the collapse of western civilization.
I know that many Americans don't understand the difference, and view ANY regulations as "socialism". But that's only because this false equivalence has been drummed into their heads by powerful interests who stand to gain from deregulation, and are using the public's fear of "socialism" to prevent meaningful and overdue reforms in their industries.
Merely recognizing that capitalism isn't perfect is not socialism; neither is trying to improve it through sensible rules and regulations. We may disagree on the definition of "sensible", but that disagreement is not one of socialism versus capitalism.
We could call that "enumerated powers." :) All those "protect the people" powers would be pushed down to state and local jurisdictions where the people can actually see their govt.
DCogito - good post. I think it's called "social democracy." And, I think most mainstream economists and historians would agree that "social democracy," coupled to Aid to Greece and Turkey and the Marshall Plan, probably saved Western Europe from Communism, in the aftermath of WW II.
In the post Cold War era, we seem to have reached a "turning point." With the defeat of communism, do we want to return to a pre-progressive era or bring the fruits of the progressive era to those who formerly lived under communist dictatorships.
Doing away with reasonable regulation and more tax cuts for the wealthy would seem to be the pathway to the former, while Obama's platform emphasizes the latter.
peanutGalleryTheater -I have no problem in using Federalism as a means of maintaining the involvement of "people" in their government. It's an inefficient means, involving growing overlap in functions and powers, and costly, but that may be the price of a democratic republic.
But, politically, I think you will find that that's actually how the system works. The vast majority of our Washington politicians begin at the state and local levels and move upward to Washington. What was the famous Tip O'Neil quote? "All politics is local."
On the other hand, I think you do have to weigh costs, and not overburden the society with inefficiencies that depend on federalism. Health care is one. For people over 65, we have basically a national system. For people under 65, we have a state-focused system. The result is an inefficient system that costs too much.
Fear feeds those who would use the power of the government to erode personal liberty. The almighty buck the almighty state they are both the same. Somebody has to sitting on somebody else to feel important and either way it will be somebody who is rich and powerful whether they are a politician or not doesn't mean too much to me.
Capatilism is like religion. You don't understand any other concepts because you are born into it - you are a product of its environment. Luckily, if you grow to become educated and an independant thinker outside of your growing environment, you can break free of time honored traditions that have devasted this planet.
So, now the liberals(leftists who think government must be in charge of everything) think they have the public convinced that capitalism is the cause of recession. Government is the cause of recession and apparently they are enept at using their assigned responsibility and have failed yet again....But they are very good at propaganda....and blaming someone else....Just like our current(themporary) president...
No, I think what's being said here is maybe 'survival of the fittest' isn't necessarily the best way to sustain a planet with so many people and so little resources. There are hungry and sick people and children right here in our own backyards who need help - and I know - I'm a horrible liberal for wanting to feed that hungry kid on the street because he's not my problem but hey shoot me for being raised with compassion for my fellow mankind. Personally I'd like to see us all fed and cared for and living within reasonable means utilizing as little resources as possible, rather than clamouring for as much materiality we each individually can get our hands on while others suffer. We have the means to take care of each other - it doesn't have to be a race to the finish.
When a recent survey reveals that 24 percent of Wall Street executives believe that unethical behavior is necessary in order to be successful, healthy capitalism has failed in this country. If unregulated, these are the people who will usher in the next Enron, the next environmental catastrophe, the next financial meltdown. Men are human and fallible - regulatory systems keep them from victimizing others in order to make a profit.
Excellent post Pedestrain thanks for that. Although J.A. will most likely resist and devise a way to excuse Wall Street's position that unethical behavior is a necessity. <sigh>
Mike I am not excusing anything....That is the very simple liberal attitude. It is the governments responsibility to regulate, not take over. They are doing a very poor job. Government is inept at almost everything they do. Crying for poor people doesnt actually help poor people. Including them in the business of the community and country helps them, not more gov give-aways. People get more opportunity and jobs in a free enterprise capitalist society. Nothing is built with give aways and bigger government. A simple job costs five times as much if gov does it rather than private enterprise.....and they take that money out of the economy to do it.....Look at the socialist countries around the world and you will see failed governments, failed countries and poor economies and yet the liberals all tell us this crap about them caring more. Our country is failing because of more and more government and creeping socialism....I have dealt with the government and there is very little intelligence in the way government deals with things.
I agree wholeheartedly with you JA. But I'm not talking about handouts to the poor - I'm talking about a society that may no longer be sustainable on the principles of capatalism. On paper it sounds great but in a capatalistic society there will always be a rich, poor, and middle class - and as our population continues to exceed what this planet can handle maybe we should think of ways where we all can survive and not just a few of us. That's exactly why capatalism is beginning to become irrelevant - its principles are no longer sustainable with the amount of people and the limited resources on this planet. We do need to find ways to level the playing field even if that means we are all one class of people. I don't see the harm of doing away with the rich and poor and all of us living a decent middle class life.
Capitalism is fine if it is run by honest people that have some compassion and take responsibility for the negatives from their activities as much as they do the positives. We had close to that for spurts in American history, but in last few decades we have less and less of that running it, and I mean mainly business leaders not politicians they try to buy off.
Capitalism doesnt rely on honest people. It works inspite of people. Its just really messy while its clearing out the bad people. The vast majority of us should be acting like consumers, not hardcore capitalists.
To a socialist the state is a deity the collective is much more important than the individual. If you don't agree with their vision you just need a little education. No matter what type of system we adopt there will be a group of elites who will call the shots, they will live better than the rest of us and talk down to us as we little people don't have enough sense to be able to care for ourselves, we need the guidance of the enlightened ones who know all and see all. The media, politicians and the rich (who are one and the same) know we are all sheep who will gladly be led to the slaughterhouse if we think we will be well fed and loved. If we go to socialism we will create a ruling class who is richer than the richest people now with more power as they will have control of all the wealth. Our political leaders are literally drooling at the prospect of that much power and their followers are skipping merrily ahead of them hearlidng the dawn of a new day of oppression, fear and death.
The ones afraid of capitalism are the ones who are afraid of work.
Wrong, those who are afraid of capitalism are those that can not find work because the capitalist corporations outsourced their jobs to cooly wage nations.
Millions of us and our parents worked their/our asses off building corporations that now kick us in the teeth by for example outsourcing our Olympic uniforms to China. There are damned few who are afraid of work - there are a whole lot of us who are completely fed up with the self destructive stupidity and greed of our so called leadership at all levels of society.
Capitalism works in a world of low population in a developing nation. We have neither and the system is broken by greed, corruption, and criminal activities.
That said, socialism or anarchy are the two remaining choices.
I think that I should share with you my thoughts about our nation today, its condition and its relationship with the antagonists of western civilization particularly in the middle east.I believe that you and I live in the finest nation with the finest government (civil servant class) that has ever been devised by collective human thought. We are a young nation with its own unique problems but we have the resources, human and otherwise, to solve all of them in time. The two key behaviors that the American people must permit one another at this time in our history are civility and patience. Sooner or later these behaviors always lend themselves to understanding and convention.
In my estimation there are a number of reasons for the unfortunate decline in the overall quality of life in our country over the last 50 years. The conflict in Vietnam deeply divided and unsettled the American people. We were simply on the wrong side of a nationalist uprising regardless of the involvement by the communists. Conflict and conformity both always inflict hardship on the growth of a nation. Conflict destroys lives and when people are taught only to conform (as in our collective workplaces today) they do not create. They procreate but they do not create. At best conformity lends itself to apathy among a people. They become cogs in a mindless purposeless machine. Conventional wisdom, you see, is not always the best wisdom.
Ronald Reagan was one of the most destructive forces to arrive on the scene in this country since the wealthy anarchists of the 1920s and the 1930s. Reagan assumed that because men and women in this country had become captains of industry they must be all knowing, all wise and capable of collective leadership in fulfilling the needs of our entire nation. This was a foolish assumption on his part. History has shown us now that his notion of trickle down economics has not worked. It was never a reflection of the way that the American people have been led to believe over the generations. The American people have been tacitly led to believe that if a person has more they should want more and it should be the other person who gives and not them. This is the way of wealth in this country. Furthermore the wealthy families in this country have shown time and again that they can hardly agree on the time of day. The only two things they do agree on are the taking of profit and the control of the thoughts and actions of their own minions. So much for this idea of collective leadership by the wealthy families of this nation. It is a curiosity at this time in our history that so many of the republican mouth-pieces for the wealthy families seem to be desperately trying to legislate religious morality for our entire diverse nation of people. Morality belongs to the individual and each person develops their own sense of what is good and bad for them from the time they are born. No two persons are alike. In most cultures somewhere along the line of a persons moral development religious values and convention become embedded. This is a good thing and usually leads to general convention in a society but for any one person or group to try to legislate religious morality to an entire diverse nation such as ours is foolishness at the outset.
George Bush Jr. was truly the bane of our nation. He did his best to bring Reagans deranged fantasy to life. He deregulated virtually everything and put his signature of approval to nearly every item placed in front of him that related to spending. These behaviors alone on his part put us all on the road to national suicide if we do not turn away soon enough. Bush knew this every step of the way during his reign of terror. He knew the disaster it meant for our nation only a few years down the road. The very same thing happened in Vietnam in the 1940s and 1950s. A corrupt political leadership (like Reagan and Bush in this country) and a small handful of wealthy families were raping the Vietnamese people until the people decided they had had enough. The fantasy of the wealthy man all too often is the establishment of a "merchant class paradise" where the only laws that matter are those of the wealthy ruling class. The translation of this is feudalism for you and I. Feudalism demands the maintenance of private mercenary armies, associated peasantries and eternal conflict. The descent into feudalism always signals the death of any modern nation.
Capitalism at this point in history is a good thing as long as it is regulated for the good of all the people. Personally I would prefer Nationalism over Feudalism because I would not want to be someone elses peasant. For nearly a century now all too many of our wealthy ruling class in this country have done their best to dismantle our unions (believing it is their God given right to ignore the health and well being of their employees), destroy our middle class and of late neglect our educational systems as much as possible. These tactics are not new ones but very old in their origin. They are all based around the idea of feudalism. Too many of these families reason thusly: “Why should we defer to the worker in our employment when we enjoy God given good fortune and should not be compelled to share this with anyone else even with respect to the health and longevity of the workers in our workplace?” Many of these persons and families feel that Unions are in defiance of their authority with this line of reasoning. “Why do we need a middle class to protect us from the peasantry we have been cultivating and abusing all along the way because we now have the worlds largest and most heavily armed police and armed forces to protect us from any uprising on the part of the peasantry in this country?.” This line of reasoning on the part of many of our wealthy families stems from guilt and fear over the sure knowledge that they have taken liberty with the poor and working of this country often beyond any reasonable boundary. “Why do we need a progressive educational system with integrity in this nation when an educated peasantry would be a danger to us?” This last line of thought lies at the very root of feudalism: ignorance of the masses.
All of these lines of query and reasoning lie at the very heart of the feudal mentality and this is a mentality that the American people must overcome if we are to survive as a nation. For the last 30 years we have seen that the wealth of this nation have had the best of both worlds. They have pursued a program of less and less pay for the American worker and investment in low paying sweat shops in other nations with whatever profits they generate here. This has been not only a betrayal of the American people but the peoples of other nations as well. This will all lead to a severe decline in the quality of life in our country for the people as a whole and will only keep the peoples of other nations in despair.
I am a Nationalist. I am most closely an FDR Democrat. I am one who believes in limited but effective government.This seperates me from the anarchist on Wall Street who in reality believes in no national government at all. I believe in a strong but compact military and intelligence community. I believe in strong unions in this country though I question the need for unions in the government workplace (because I assume the basic goodness of government to begin with). Unions should and must exist in the private sector of this country to guard against the excesses and opportunistic inclinations and behavior of the merchant class as a whole. I believe in strong and healthy religious institutions in this country. These do a great service to the collective spirit of the American people. We do not need communism in this country because unlike the Russia and China of old our religious institutions are not wrapped around the finger of our government. Our religious institutions serve the people more than they serve the government. The sum of all of this then is that I believe in a dynamic society whose internal institutions are balanced for the good of its citizens.
The reemergence of Islam on the world scene today will likely continue to be a problem for the civilized world for some time to come yet of late we are witnessing the birth of nations in the cradle of Islam. We are witnessing millions of young Muslims demanding societies based on Democratic Ideals and this is a wonderful thing. We must be vigilant though. We must guard ourselves internally, hold to our own beliefs and maintain an iron clad intelligence gathering capacity around the middle-east particularly. These things can be done cost effectively with very little military intervention. I myself am a Democratic Republican. I believe in the ideal of Democracy first and then the Republic I believe that a Republic can be as any people would have it so long as the ideal of Democracy is held as its precursor. I am Judeo-Christian because these modern times demand it and really the times always have. One without the other would be weakened and without context knowing that too many of the opponents of western civilization perceive the Jew and the Christian as one and the same anyway. Now more than at any other time in history the Jew and the Christian must stand together as one. Most of all though I say these things because the great dynamics between Judaism and Christianity are what have given us the wonderful western civilization that we have today. To be sure the Oriental mind, the Persian, Arab and many others have contributed along the way but for the most part it has been the Jew and the Christian who have brought everything together and given us western civilization as we understand it today. There is hope but more than this we must have determination in our efforts. We must be vigilant, without promiscuity in our thoughts and willing to work together side by side at all times to see to the needs of our collective future in western civilization.
--- (Yoda)
Interesting. But, I think you are a little light on the economic forces at work. We are going through a huge transition and change in the values of factors of production. Consider that the four principal factors of an enterprise are: capital equipment (the "tools" used for production); materials (which the tools turn into products), labor (those who use the tools to make the product); and all else (which I'll lump into overhead costs, taxes, profits, and most of all start-up capital).
Up until virtually WW II, the most costly of those factors were in capital equipment and labor. Wages rose not only because of the demands of organized labor, but also through the process of increased industrialization itself, which up until recently (the late eighties) was "labor intensive" - i.e. supply and demand. Commodities were reasonably plentiful (including energy, first in coal, then oil), and overhead - relative to direct costs - a reasonably small percentage of the total.
In the last thirty years the relationship and surplus or scarcity of those factors has shifted considerably. The Commodity portion has moved upward to a greater percentage, as the supply/demand ratio has shifted. The labor component has been devalued, again b because of the shift in supply and demand, namely technology and the opening of huge new labor markets. And, the cost of capital equipment has increased with its complexity, the costs of its development, etc.
Finally, the "all other" has gone up, primarily because of the need for rising taxation, caused primarily by two forces, defense and old people. The first, defense, was needed in large measure to protect the position of U.S. products in the global market and the second due to shifting demographics, wherein more people may be retired than working.
Secondly, the cost of capital itself has risen, again a function of supply and demand, and the rush to free markets by a few billion people previously denied access to those markets.
Won't rattle on...but we are at a point wherein the fundamental relationships between factor of production are changing from their historic values and relationships since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Finally...it isn't that this has gone "unnoticed" by the politicians...the Republican side is via free trade and market expansion and the Democratic side was the "post-industrial economy."
Perhaps one of the most thoughtful, provocative posts ever placed on the Vine.
It is this kind of dialog that we should see between our two POTUS candidates on all the issues facing this nation.
I thank you for a large dose of rational thought, it will be fascinating to see what others post in response.
The fundamental elements of the equation consists of:
1. Population (work force)
2. Production Efficiencies
3. Automation
Over the years are population has exploded while production process has been streamlined, add to that the effects of automation and it is easy to see that fewer and fewer people are needed to make goods and services for the growing population base. The result is simple, where a few years ago the "full population" figures were in the 5% and below area the new normal (until the next major recession) will be under 10% however as the combination continue to tilt with projected population of over 25Billion by the end of this century and automated industries do all the "work" we will have 75% unemployment or more. The question is what can be done to control this inevitability?
As I see it we will have;
1. Uncontrolled Anarchy
2. Mandatory Birth control much stricter than the Chinese model
3. A revolt against technology and manual labor becoming mandated
4. Or Armageddon - nuclear war - and a long slow growth out of the ruins of this civilization.
No one on this planet wants to look at these facts (and facts they are do your own research over the human population growth over the centuries - it will scare the socks off you). Consider the number of people it now takes to build an automobile compared to 50 years ago. Consider the number of people it takes to put a television program on the air today compared to 40 years ago. Do the same with your own profession.
Yoda and Stone what are your thoughts along these lines?
I think you are right about an increasing norm regarding "full employment" (you call it "full population"). That's due to the inability of capital investment to keep up with technology and the added work forces caused by the end of communism. The size of the work force itself is largely demographic. AFTER the baby-boomer generation - now entering retirement - dies out, our population growth should fall back to a low, but reasonably steady growth rate. The baby-boomers were all of the births that took place following WW II.
One thing, I believe often forgotten, in discussions of unemployment, is that there are probably more people leaving the work force today and going into retirement, than new people coming into the work force...although I don't know the exacrt numbers.
Longer term, I think you are right. Once "capitalism" runs its course (assuming it does not destroy itself through corruption first)...and makes us (the global population) all rich, then we're going to need to do a serious reappraisal of "value." But, I think that can be done and still retain a reward and punishment system to distinguish performance between us. [e.g. value based on societal costs].
Sorry...gotta go run errands...will check back for comments in about two-three hours.
Enjoyed the chat.
There are two population numbers that are of concern one is the USA growth and us boomers will kick the bucket in our good time however the USA population is a drop in the bucket compared to the world population vis-a-vis non replaceable natural resources and that is the real problem.
Footnote and back from errands:
No, I don't think the choices are all that dire, provided there are international rules, which everyone agrees to play by. Much of the problem right now is that the emerging economies have to adjust from an over-relaince on their export surpluses to more internal growth and the building of their own middle classes.
There are still sufficient surplus resources in the emerging economies to shift from "western investments" (dot.com stocks or securitized mortgages) to western capital goods necessary for them to expand their infrastructures...thus promoting real job growth in the West.
Broadly, most of our competition on a product to product basis (aside from perhaps Big Agriculture) is with the other advanced industrialized countries of the West (and perhaps Japan and South Korea and a few others). With the exception of some "niche markets," most of our textile business is gone. Most of our relatively low skilled electronic assembly work is gone.
The West specializes in things such as commercial aircraft, semiconductors, high tech medical devices, specialized construction equipment, pharmaceuticals, etc.
A Boeing 747 is worth quite a few Wal-Marts stocked to the brim with Asian imports.
Doesn't mean we can afford to sit still. We have to keep our infrastructure up to date, reform our educational system, maintain our lead in graduate studies, create a competitive health care system, etc.
But, simply cutting taxes on the wealthy, to create additional disposable income for them to "invest" isn't the answer and it's going to require a period of government intervention.
Why? Because investors do not invest to create jobs, which lead to middle classes, which lead to the benefits of large middle classes, such as an educated work force, consumers, etc. Investors invest to make more money. Pure and simple. They follow the money...they follow where the best returns may be expected, with the lowest risk and right now, that isn't here.
What would you put your money in? A shopping center being built in Beijing, with say a 12% return on investment, or a shopping center in Peoria, Illinois, with a return of 6%? Fact: The overwhelming majority of investors could care less about investing their money for a "social cause" (or for that matter a national cause) versus investing for profits, wherever they have to go in the world to find those profits. Investing for social causes is something wealthy billionaires do AFTER they've spent as much money on themselves as they want...after the McMansion, the six cars, the yacht, etc. (and, of course, each person has their own definition of how much is enough).
Consequently, there are PLENTY of places to invest in on the planet, that today promise a better return on investment than here. In fact, that is one reason for the West's evolution into "bubble economies" of overvalued assets...to create investment opportunities with returns sufficient to compete with the opportunities found in the emerging economies.
If anyone is actually reading this stuff...I can continue...otherwise, I'm off to my home gym.
I do read "this stuff" as it is an intelligent dialog which is as rare as civility is during our national elections in posts on the Vine. Thanks Stone.