Depends on your definition of fail? Has capitalism make the general person happier and more satisfied with life? No! and it never will. Capitalism cannot survive satisfaction. Rocket River
In April 1938, FDR gave a speech to Congress. In his speech, he identified two dangers: “The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. “The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.” Corporatism- the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction. "Corporatism is actually not too different from socialism or communism. They are all "collectivist" economic systems. Under corporatism, wealth and power are even more highly concentrated than they are under socialism or communism, and the truth is that none of them are "egalitarian" economic systems. Under all collectivist systems, a small elite almost always enjoys most of the benefits while most of the rest of the population suffers." http://endoftheamericandream.com/ar...e-our-economy-that-every-american-should-know The D. socialist-R. capitalist smokescreen went up, while the corporate elite laughed their way to the bank, and dug their trenches.
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IgFbezXDVQM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
"Corporatism is actually not too different from socialism or communism." whoever said this is either ignorant or just a hater. Corporatism is the exact opposite of socialism.
I don't know. Have you been to the cafeterias in top corporate headquarters in NYC? They are subsidized. Employees get really high quality meals at incredibly cheap prices, because it's being financed largely by the corporations. They also often provide health care for their employees much like a socialist or communist govt. would. The corporations even often have gyms in their buildings as well for use of their employees. There are similarities.
MF says that everyone is greedy and every society runs on greed, but that's no answer to the question he was asked. If everyone is greedy then he is saying that the system should be set up to reward greed? That's psychotic. There is no evidence to show that pure capitalism has succeeded any more than socialism or communism. The success of capitalistic countries can easily be attributed to their already existing resources and the incidence of far less authoritarianism. Then again, these days those countries with a strong democracy and attempts at socialism seem to be outperforming everyone else. This is what people don't realize - neither capitalism nor socialism will work in the long term if there is no democracy and/or if there is corruption. It is easy to ignore the bureaucratic problems which led to the demise of nominally socialistic or communistic countries. Have you read Capitalism and Freedom by MF? He essentially believes that markets are off limits to public demands/wishes. This is, at least, an anti-democratic idea.
To me, socialism seems like finding the best fit to live among the majority. Whereas capitalism is driven by the allure of having the best chance to live among a select minority, like royalty. For socialism to work, you need a total buy-in from the top 20% of the most brilliant and productive members of society in order to accomplish moderate success. The flip-side applies for capitalism... where the bottom 80% support the top 20%. Keep in mind, that the scope of this discussion is global. The entire US, for all intents and purposes is among the top 20% as everyone stands to gain from foreign policy and corporate multinational policy abroad. And also keep in mind, economic theory is totally detached from real human behavior. Instead of always "playing optimal" or doing the worst, most reasonably minded people wouldn't mind a mix of capitalism and socialism (even when it's mutually exclusive). When I first read the definition of economics when I was a kid, it said that it was "the study of finding the best allocation for a world with a finite amount of resources". Yet throughout the times, it seems as if everyone could have lived a decent life. Everyone. From when the population was 500k to 5M. Even when the population topped 3 billion did it seem like there was "not enough resources". But now we're more than double the size globally. So were the problems of finite capacity before mainly a problem of technical limitation? I seriously doubt it (re: Nicola Tesla's bio), though I do suspect we're beyond the global carrying capacity as more nations continue to industrialize at the rate similar to the Far East nations two decades ago. But anyways, that is the flaw of capitalism. The idea of infinite growth, either through inflation or population, and the thought that we need to limit things to sustain it, either because of profit margins or sustained demand. I do admit that capitalism is more grounded in behavior psychology and our own perceptions of prestige and desire...
"Corporatism is actually not too different from socialism or communism. They are all "collectivist" economic systems" It views the whole as being greater than the sum of its individual parts, and gives priority to group rights over individual rights.
Both capitalism and socialism are flawed but must coexist. Capitalism needs regulation, and socialism needs competition. If corporations stayed out of government, they can both be great together. During the financial crisis, banks capitalized profits, then socialized their losses. See, it works!
If you oppose tyranny, as everyone does, then why would it have to be limited to tyranny of the majority? Who decides when the majority is tyrannical or not? What about "tyranny of the minority"? If he was pro individual liberty, then how can he carve out something so huge like markets? What happened to individual liberty in determining whether to live and die by free markets? Why is this particularly a case where the majority must be rejected? Surely, the burden of proof is on whoever claims a tyranny of the majority. If individual liberty is about maximizing your liberty in a arbitrarily confined sphere, it is not really worth much. It is also critical to note that some liberties are hugely significant - such as how the economy should be structured - and others less. Opposing tyranny of a majority certainly doesn't mean all majorities are tyrannical, so there must be some basis for determining when or when it's not tyrannical. It seems incompatible to be pro individual liberty and subjectively/occassionally anti-majority, right? People are either anti-tyranny or not. To selectively and arbitrarily carve out some things where the majority's view does not suit the minority seems to be the legacy of the minority who were frightened that democracy would place their own accumulated assets in the free market. Unless of course there is some scientific evidence to prove that this model is unquestionably fairer to all citizens.
It's not. It's a characterization which you can decide to agree or disagree with. Also bad. Free markets are a vehicle for exercising individual liberty (voluntary exchange). When the majority uses its power to restrict individual liberty. no, social contract is a majority collaborating to protect individual liberty It's a moral question, not scientific.
I can see where you're coming from and appreciate the responde. Is it fair though to apply the 'tyranny of majority' to moral questions? The only thing that can go wrong with this theory is misapplication, which is a given if it is a moral question.
