• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reimagine capitalism? (1 Viewer)

NatMorton

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
39,596
Reaction score
19,880
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just a terrific set of observations from an op ed in today's WSJ (sorry, paywall). Wish I could copy the entire piece, but here are the key passages:

The 20th-century economist Joseph Schumpeter famously wrote that capitalism sows its own destruction by creating a knowledge class who despise its success. Behold the Hewlett Foundation and Omidyar Network’s $40 million gift to the paupers at Harvard and MIT to “reimagine capitalism.” Bill Hewlett and David Packard founded Hewlett-Packard in a one-car garage in Palo Alto and made it one of the world’s storied companies. Its capitalist success created wealth for shareholders and stakeholders alike, and Hewlett established his foundation to share even more of it. But his philanthropic legacy has become one more sad example of how the wealth of capitalist donors is hijacked by future generations of knowledge-class progressives.

“For more than 40 years, neoliberalism has dominated economic and political debates, both in the U.S. and globally, with its free-market fundamentalism and growth-at-all-costs approach to economic and social policy,” the press release says. It “offers no solutions for the biggest challenges of our time, such as the climate crisis, systemic racism, and rampant wealth inequality—and in many ways, it has made those problems even worse.”

Actually, capitalism offers solutions to all of those challenges. The largest reductions in carbon emissions have come from natural gas, thanks to the market innovation of shale fracking. Competitive labor markets have helped minorities rise despite residual racism because bigotry is too expensive. The wealth created by free markets and innovation, along with global trade, has lifted billions out of poverty. Extreme global poverty has plunged to less than 10% from 45% in 1980 while world GDP has more than tripled. We now have fast broadband and smartphones that connect with others anywhere, anytime; 24-hour home delivery of almost anything we want; breakthrough medical treatments and vaccines; genetically engineered crops that have increased farm yields and global nutrition; cheap energy thanks to an oil and gas shale boom; and a rising standard of living for most of the world. Socialism didn’t build that.

Yet as Schumpeter predicted, people in the comfortable West, including many tech entrepreneurs, now take this prosperity for granted. “Neoliberalism’s anti-government, free-market fundamentalism is simply not suited for today’s economy and society,” says Larry Kramer, president of the Hewlett Foundation.
Source here.

If our friends on the left lack anything, it's perspective.
 
Just a terrific set of observations from an op ed in today's WSJ (sorry, paywall). Wish I could copy the entire piece, but here are the key passages:


Source here.

If our friends on the left lack anything, it's perspective.
Must be an Op-ED. Gotta' love those op-eds
 
Just a terrific set of observations from an op ed in today's WSJ (sorry, paywall). Wish I could copy the entire piece, but here are the key passages:


Source here.

If our friends on the left lack anything, it's perspective.

Ya know Nat, I can remember a time when the Wall Street Journal was actually a valued and respected publication instead of a right wing loon tabloidesque asswipe utensil.

No, I'm totally serious, I speak the truth. I used to read it myself.

An Op Ed in todays WSJ....LMAO. Oh my. :LOL:

What does the Daily Crawler say?
 
Ya know Nat, I can remember a time when the Wall Street Journal was actually a valued and respected publication instead of a right wing loon tabloidesque asswipe utensil.

No, I'm totally serious, I speak the truth. I used to read it myself.

An Op Ed in todays WSJ....LMAO. Oh my. :LOL:

What does the Daily Crawler say?
The WSJ has the best opinion pages in the country, and it's not even close.
 
The WSJ has the best opinion pages in the country, and it's not even close.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The WSJ is no longer fit to wipe ones derrière Nat, and the OpEds are just SHAMELESS gqp and Crooked donnietrump ass smooching....EWWWWW!!!!!!!!! Similar to the laughable FOX "news" owned by gqp propagandist Rupert Murdoch.

Now back in the 70s and 80s....it was actually a respected publication as I said. You maybe weren't around back then, but yeah its true. I wouldn't try to mislead you Nat. You know that...don't you?
 
People being freed up from the daily grind of making money for survival to look towards higher ideals is not a bad thing. If libertarian ideology suffers from that, the world is then better off for that second reason as well.
 
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The WSJ is no longer fit to wipe ones derrière Nat, and the OpEds are just SHAMELESS gqp and Crooked donnietrump ass smooching....EWWWWW!!!!!!!!! Similar to the laughable FOX "news" owned by gqp propagandist Rupert Murdoch.

Now back in the 70s and 80s....it was actually a respected publication as I said. You maybe weren't around back then, but yeah its true. I wouldn't try to mislead you Nat. You know that...don't you?
Name a better one.
 
Just a terrific set of observations from an op ed in today's WSJ (sorry, paywall). Wish I could copy the entire piece, but here are the key passages:


Source here.

If our friends on the left lack anything, it's perspective.
What you lack perspective on is that unfettered capitalism will certainly bring about its demise. As fewer and fewer people own more and more of the country's wealth, the ability to buy the goods and services is diminished. THe USA once bought 25% of all the goods and services produced in the world. That is no longer true because more of the money went into the pockets of the wealthy and less into wages and benefits as wage growth ceased over the past thirty years. Even now, when wages have increased, so have corporation profits because they are more than recouping those wage increase by the huge profits they are gaining by increasing prices far more than increase in wages require. Something over 60% of inflation is caused by those price and profit increases. Economists have been warning that a time will come when the whole thing will come tumbling down without some intervention. Wealth distribution in this country over the past thirty years, the top 10% have increased their percentage of the nations wealth from about 80% to almost 90%.
 
Wealth distribution in this country over the past thirty years, the top 10% have increased their percentage of the nations wealth from about 80% to almost 90%.

Nat won't care, he likes that.

Because....he's gonna be a BIG TIME CEO someday....and when he gets there he doesnt want to have to pay tax!

Nobody gotta rob Nat! He's too cunning for that. :LOL:(y)
 
What you lack perspective on is that unfettered capitalism will certainly bring about its demise. As fewer and fewer people own more and more of the country's wealth, the ability to buy the goods and services is diminished. THe USA once bought 25% of all the goods and services produced in the world. That is no longer true because more of the money went into the pockets of the wealthy and less into wages and benefits as wage growth ceased over the past thirty years. Even now, when wages have increased, so have corporation profits because they are more than recouping those wage increase by the huge profits they are gaining by increasing prices far more than increase in wages require. Something over 60% of inflation is caused by those price and profit increases. Economists have been warning that a time will come when the whole thing will come tumbling down without some intervention. Wealth distribution in this country over the past thirty years, the top 10% have increased their percentage of the nations wealth from about 80% to almost 90%.
First, "unfettered capitalism" exists nowhere but in the heads of those who don't understand capitalism or how it's actually practiced in the real world.

Second, the US buying less of the world's goods is also explained by the data cited in the article from the OP: "Extreme global poverty has plunged to less than 10% from 45% in 1980 while world GDP has more than tripled." We are not buying less; regions of the world that have been economic backwaters throughout history -- and now enabled by market economies -- are buying more.

Lastly, the idea that our current inflation is somehow being driven only by "greedy" price increases is absurd. Businesses didn't suddenly become more greedy in the last 12 months. If they could have made more money by raising prices 5 years ago that's exactly what they would have done. They're prices are going up because their costs are going up.
 
Wealthy elites who benefit from current system want to maintain current system? I'm shocked.
 
Another OP-fail from one of the usual authors of such.

First, capitalism, being hardly “fettered”, is ever widening the wealth gap by taking more profit by paying less for the worker productivity of the goods and services that beget that profit. Capitalism in America is the least “fettered” it’s been in modern times.

Secondly, global poverty has been reduced greatly, but not so much in the US, again because the large corps greed has taken more profit while paying less for workers’ labor. Global poverty has been reduced because advanced countries, especially the US, invest in developing (underdeveloped) countries, partnering with US companies that reap the benefits of those contracts. In addition, US companies, to reduce labor cost that would otherwise employ Americans, use foreign labor that raises many people in those nations out of poverty. One of those countries is China, where many people have moved to the middle class and absolutely love buying more expensive American products. Meanwhile, as the % of China’s middle class increased, the US % fell. And that tripling of the GDP? Guess who’s gotten the greatest benefit from that growth – the rich and large corps. That GrossDomesticProduct per capita growth may have been growth in product literally produced by American workers, but it isn’t being shared fairly through wages, as proven by the wealth gap.

Lastly, large corps didn’t suddenly become greedy in the last 12 mos. They’ve always been greedy, but most affecting American workers since the mid-1970s when wage growth stopped keeping pace with worker productivity while upper incomes increased considerably more, especially exec salaries/benefit that climbed in multiples. Hence the ever-increasing wealth gap. The pandemic is simply a highly unusual time when companies are able to take advantage by price gouging in classic definition, making the rich and large corps evermore wealthy.

Capitalism works best with democracy, and vice-versa. But over the yrs, capitalism has gradually gotten more than their fair share of the deal while democracy, the people/workers, has gotten less than their fair share. That is proven, again, by the wealth gap.
 
First, "unfettered capitalism" exists nowhere but in the heads of those who don't understand capitalism or how it's actually practiced in the real world.

Yes. The closest we came to "unfettered capitalism" was back in the Gilded Age- with the ever increasing exploitation of child labor and the rise of massive monopolies. Sure you had a lot of wealth being generated- but it was all going into the pockets of a handful of factory owners and industrialists. There was no trickle down. They were hiring kids as young as 8 to work on the factory floor for 80 hour weeks, with dangerous equipment and chemicals, or working in dangerous mines, with no liability for their safety. Of course these kids were not getting an education. They still weren't even making enough money to eat.

childlabor.jpg

But even back then, the free market capitalists were telling everyone that if they wait a little longer and leave the free market completely free and without regulations, all that wealth was going to trickle down eventually. It never did, even after several decades. It was only getting worse.

The only way it got better was by "reimagining capitalism", and some common sense regulations and laws on the free market: child labor laws, antitrust laws, workplace safety laws, minimum wage laws, unions, etc...

It has become clear, after extensive experience, that things don't just work out for the best if left completely free and alone. Things don't work like that anywhere else in life. Why would this be different?
 
First, capitalism, being hardly “fettered”, is ever widening the wealth gap by taking more profit by paying less for the worker productivity of the goods and services that beget that profit. Capitalism in America is the least “fettered” it’s been in modern times.
This is gibberish. We have more regulation than we have ever had.
 
Yes. The closest we came to "unfettered capitalism" was back in the Gilded Age- with the ever increasing exploitation of child labor and the rise of massive monopolies. Sure you had a lot of wealth being generated- but it was all going into the pockets of a handful of factory owners and industrialists. There was no trickle down. They were hiring kids as young as 8 to work on the factory floor for 80 hour weeks, with dangerous equipment and chemicals, or working in dangerous mines, with no liability for their safety. Of course these kids were not getting an education. They still weren't even making enough money to eat.

View attachment 67376782

But even back then, the free market capitalists were telling everyone that if they wait a little longer and leave the free market completely free and without regulations, all that wealth was going to trickle down eventually. It never did, even after several decades. It was only getting worse.

The only way it got better was by "reimagining capitalism", and some common sense regulations and laws on the free market: child labor laws, antitrust laws, workplace safety laws, minimum wage laws, unions, etc...

It has become clear, after extensive experience, that things don't just work out for the best if left completely free and alone. Things don't work like that anywhere else in life. Why would this be different?
How is this relevant to today?
 
How is this relevant to today?

Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

The only reason capitalism works a little better today than back then is because today there are some common sense regulations, leashes, and muzzles on it. If you remove those, why should there be any difference between today and yesterday?

Unchecked and unregulated free corporations are every bit as dangerous as unchecked government. I am surprised you are so skeptical of one, and yet express such naive idealism and faith in the other. Any student of economic history would know things don't work out for the best if the free market is just left completely free.

It's just a matter of how much. And there are no easy and simple answers or formulas for that. It takes judgment, experience, and knowledge. Life is never that simple. Be skeptical of anyone offering simple, easy formulas and solutions.
 
Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

The only reason capitalism works a little better today than back then is because today there are some common sense regulations, leashes, and muzzles on it. If you remove those, why should there be any difference between today and yesterday?

Unchecked and unregulated free corporations are every bit as dangerous as unchecked government. I am surprised you are so skeptical of one, and yet express such naive idealism and faith in the other. Any student of economic history would know things don't work out for the best if the free market is just left completely free.
And those who only prepare for the last war tend to lose the next one. 21st century capitalism in the United States is nothing like the industrial revolution era. To pretend there is a similarity is foolish in the extreme.

Why can't the left ever debate modern capitalism for what is and not reflexively cast it as some Dickensian fantasy?
 
And those who only prepare for the last war tend to lose the next one. 21st century capitalism in the United States is nothing like the industrial revolution era. To pretend there is a similarity is foolish in the extreme.

Why can't the left ever debate modern capitalism for what is and not reflexively cast it as some Dickensian fantasy?

We ARE debating modern capitalism. Modern capitalism IS capitalism with extensive regulation and oversight and leashes and muzzles on it. What do you think makes it different from the old capitalism? Without those extensive regulations, there is no difference between it and the old capitalism. You are the one casting some fantasy world where if you leave corporatists free and unfettered it will somehow be different now and pretty little unicorns will jump over rainbows and utopia will bloom.

The success of modern regulated capitalism is a little like the success of vaccines: it has become a victim of its own success. It has been so successful that people start thinking that if they stop childhood vaccinations now, there is no way we are going back to the bad old days of children being born blind and deaf from rubella, dying from measles complications, or getting paralyzed by polio. Not true at all. Without those things, there is absolutely no difference between today and yesterday.
 
Yes. The closest we came to "unfettered capitalism" was back in the Gilded Age- with the ever increasing exploitation of child labor and the rise of massive monopolies. Sure you had a lot of wealth being generated- but it was all going into the pockets of a handful of factory owners and industrialists. There was no trickle down. They were hiring kids as young as 8 to work on the factory floor for 80 hour weeks, with dangerous equipment and chemicals, or working in dangerous mines, with no liability for their safety. Of course these kids were not getting an education. They still weren't even making enough money to eat.

View attachment 67376782

But even back then, the free market capitalists were telling everyone that if they wait a little longer and leave the free market completely free and without regulations, all that wealth was going to trickle down eventually. It never did, even after several decades. It was only getting worse.

The only way it got better was by "reimagining capitalism", and some common sense regulations and laws on the free market: child labor laws, antitrust laws, workplace safety laws, minimum wage laws, unions, etc...

It has become clear, after extensive experience, that things don't just work out for the best if left completely free and alone. Things don't work like that anywhere else in life. Why would this be different?



If it weren't for regulation that free-market capitalist wish were up to them to decide, we'd have barefoot children working in shoe factories for scrip that can only be spent at the company store and the free-market would not apply to bail-outs by the govt with public funding.
 
Just a terrific set of observations from an op ed in today's WSJ (sorry, paywall). Wish I could copy the entire piece, but here are the key passages:


Source here.

If our friends on the left lack anything, it's perspective.
Yep spot on
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom