CTV News | Vital Signs: Is capitalism dead or dying?

Top Stories -   

Vital Signs: Is capitalism dead or dying?

Viewer

CTV News Video

Canada AM: Economists debate the recovery

Font-size:      Share  Print  Comments(48)

Photos

Slideshow image

View Larger Image

Andy Johnson, CTV.ca News

Date: Wed. Sep. 16 2009 7:46 AM ET

Sept. 15, 2009 marks the one-year anniversary of the collapse of U.S. financial giant Lehman Bros., which caused deep, worldwide reverberations.

As we mark the day, CTV.ca presents the second in a six-part series on Canada's economy: the damage done, the recovery that lies ahead -- and whether we might climb out of the financial crisis even stronger.

Is American-style capitalism dying?

According to some, it's already six-feet under, and the crippling recession has dumped dirt on the grave and sealed its fate as a soon-to-be extinct economic system.

But according to others, the system that made America great is still alive and well and poised to regain its place as the envy of struggling economies the world over.

CTV.ca spoke to defenders and detractors on both sides of the argument in an attempt to explore the capitalism quandary and find out where we go from here.

Doug Casey, an economic forecaster and founder of Casey Research, is firmly entrenched on the side that says the time for U.S.-style capitalism has come and gone.

In fact, Casey argues, the economic system in place in the U.S., and Canada, is little more than a shell of the original idea.

"America is dead," Casey bluntly tells CTV.ca from his summer home in Colorado.

"America was an idea. It was a very good idea, but just like the Roman Empire lost its founding virtues, America has, too. I think this is almost an inevitable consequence of states developing and growing."

When America was created, Casey says, it was designed on an economic foundation whose building blocks included minimal government, even less government intervention in the economy, and a minimum of taxation.

That all added up to an unfettered free market that has become the very definition of a capitalist system.

"America used to be that way and that's why America became the most prosperous country in the world," Casey said.

But since almost the very moment the United States was first established, those fundamentals have been eroding little by little. The recent economic downturn, Casey said, has dramatically increased the pace at which that erosion has occurred.

"The government in America has grown like a cancer and this actually started right after the founding, but the process has accelerated rapidly as time has gone by," he said.

Casey said the U.S. is essentially bankrupt, and as a result Washington has been inflating its currency, introducing too much regulation and rescuing major companies from bankruptcy. Those are all moves that undermine the very foundation of a capitalist system.

"The shameful thing," he said, "is that people blame the market for exactly the problems that government intervention in the market, has caused."

Sick but not dying

Johan Norberg, a Swedish academic and the author of "In Defense of Global Capitalism" is, not surprisingly, a fierce defender of the economic model and takes a different approach to Casey's.

While he agrees with many of Casey's criticisms of U.S.-style capitalism as it now stands, he strongly disagrees that the system is dead.

It's just a little sick and in need of a tune up -- a return to some of the original ideals that worked -- Norberg tells CTV.ca from his home in Stockholm.

"One version of financial capitalism did fail, and that is the idea that we were in some sort of new economy where we could avoid recessions altogether," he said.

The concept of failure has been removed almost entirely from the philosophy of capitalism, and people have grown accustomed to a system of continual economic growth and booming prosperity.

That has led to a false sense of security, with investors seeking larger percentages with smaller margins for error, "because nothing would really go wrong," he said. 

He uses the iconic investment bank Goldman Sachs as an example of a company that was rescued with a massive U.S. bailout, but just a few months later was repeating the mistakes that pushed it to the edge of bankruptcy in the first place -- over-extending itself with risky ventures and paying out huge bonuses to executives. 

"Is that strange? Is that a paradox? I'm not sure because maybe they have learned that if things go wrong, the government will step in to save them," Norberg said.

How do we fix it?

What is needed to return capitalism to its former glory, Norberg said, is for government to once again become comfortable with a concept that he calls "creative destruction."

Quite simply -- those companies that can't make a go of it and need government support to function, should be left to die. Failure needs to exist for the system to work, he said.

"Creative destruction is really the essence of free market capitalism -- the idea that when you fail you lose out," Norberg said. "That's a pretty powerful incentive to not take too many bizarre risks, and nowadays with all that stimulus funding going to the financial sector... we have created some pretty powerful incentives in the opposite direction."

Casey is less hopeful. He says the economic ship is floundering in a storm and is so close to the rocks that it's too late to turn it around.

Unless Washington liquidates its assets, abolishes government bodies and fires a raft of staff members, the ship will break apart. Since none of those things are likely to happen, the outcome doesn't look good, he said.

"Everything the government is doing is not only the wrong thing, it's exactly the opposite of the right thing. It's perverse," he said.

"If you're skiing a double black-diamond mogul run, and you hit warp speed and you're heading towards a cliff, what can you do? Nothing."

Instead of a recovery, Casey believes the U.S. will continue sliding into what he calls the "Greater Depression" that will be deeper and more severe than the Great Depression. 

Then as the Greenback loses value, Casey predices, there will be widespread panic by people holding dollars outside of the U.S. -- he claims about $7 trillion in U.S. currency is held outside America's borders -- and foreigners will begin to see those dollars as hot potatoes.

Eventually, he suggests, the U.S. economy will collapse to the point where it must rebuild from the bottom up.

That will be a chance, he suggests, to return or recreate some of the original values America's economy was founded on. But getting there will be a painful, long process.

Hope floats

Norberg, on the other hand, believes all is not yet lost and there are even reasons to take hope.

Countries that have adopted American-style economic reforms that hearken back to the original concepts of free market and minimal government intervention -- especially developing nations such as China -- have seen incredible growth as a result.

"As we are beginning to lose some hope in American-style capitalism the rest of the world is seeing the benefits of it," he said.

The out-of-control skier hurtling towards the cliff can slow down, and the ship venturing dangerously close to the rocks can change course, Norberg said. The solution, he said, is to return to those original fundamentals that made capitalism work.

Comments are now closed for this story

Remarkable
said
0 0

Capitalism is a great thing, however those who are investing the money on our behalf must be kept in check. The Madoff's of this world must be punished harshly and the entire free market system must be regulated properly to help avoid what some greedy people did, to help cause the world financial collapse.

The Canadian and Western European style of Capitalism works well for me. American capitalism works for a while, but in the end too many people, including their trading partners get hurt pretty bad.

What other options do you have. Communism? I don't think so, we spent billions and billions of dollars fighting communism during the cold war and if you just take a look at all the Communist countries in the world, you can see that those governments and their economies can not and did not survive.


Steve the Pundit
said
0 0

I was expecting a leftist hatchet job when I saw the title of the article, but this is a reasonable, balanced piece. And pretty much bang on.

The notion that any commercial entity is "too big to fail" must go away. The free market is often not pretty; jobs and fortunes are lost, companies retrench, start over or die. To deny this natural cycle only delays the inevitable, or makes the inevitable that much worse.

The banks have already shown that they've learned nothing from their brush with death; they know full well that, if they start heading for the rocks again, the government will rescue them. Again.

What makes anyone think that GM will be a better run entity now that they've been saved from destruction?


Danny Dinosaur
said
0 0

Kudos to CTV for running some intelligent articles - that are willing to present some reality.
As a society we are all for the quick fix and make it go away quickly. We also force our politicians to be that way by punishing them at the polls if they are not.
I entirely agree that we have severe and significant damage to our economic system. It is in a spiral. However, I do not think we are going to fix it right now. I think the problems will be covered with a band aid of bail outs and government debt. They will then be left to fester for a longer period of time. Hopefully not in my life time appears to be the solution that voters are willing to vote for.


GHW
said
0 0

Unregulated small government capitalism is how they got into this mess. It is a recipe for corruption which is the real underlying problem. It creates a class society where the few elevate themselves on the backs of the many poor. A system like this will always collapse. These two yahoos’ don’t have a clue and are likely among the few at the top. A semi-regulated slow-growth stable balance is what is needed.


ARJAY
said
0 0

This article is anything but balanced. There is really only one side of the issue being prsented- both speakers are in support of capitalism without regulation, when the obvious counterpoint is to ask what regulation is needed to prevent more disasterous collapses.

The fact is that this collapse, like the one in '29, was the result of too little government regulation, not too much.

In fact, the U.S. went through these cyclical collapses on a regular basis until the legislation passed after the '29 collapse prevented the mixing of equity and real estate markets - until Phil Gramm lobbied for a return to unfettered capitalism.

This legislation was signed by Clinton, and passed by a Republican Congress. The result was economic growth at an unsustainable level, followed by collapse.

Why doesn't CTV bring in more diverse opinions to discuss this issue, rather than relying on only one side?


gus
said
0 0

capitalism serves mainly the rich. the workers are paid in crumbs. capitalists don't want government interference but are quick to ask for govenment bailouts for their own greed and mismanagement. so we all end up paying for the elites.


Watching
said
0 0

Every great empire from the dawn of time has come to its demise due to its own greed (Rome comes to mind). At the heart of Capitalism, is greed and want and left un-checked, what has led us to this current crisis. Checks and balances must be place and this goes beyond any social-economic system to the core of humanity.


The Truth Hurts!
said
0 0

The moment all Western governments started pumping tax payers money into Banks and auto sectors, Capitalism was declared dead!. We have been lecturing other countries on how the state should NEVER intefere and that the market should dictate the rules. When the moment of truth came, we showed that socialist approaches were needed to help the system continues. Capitalism is brain dead and it is just a matter of time before they bury it!.


US Treasury Secretary says US needs help.
said
0 0

The so-called free enterprise system won't function without government subsidies.

That's the US system: socialism for the corporate crowd.




GP
said
0 0

Casey’s facts do not entirely represent the truth that history has recorded. When the US was formed they had to create an economic system. The debate that raged with the founding fathers was remarkably insightful and intelligent. They landed on the position that there needs to be checks and balances or the powerful (rich) would pray on the weak (poor) as per the British aristocracy they just freed themselves from. They developed some light regulations and then largely ignored them.

As a result there was an economic crash, such as there was in those days, about every 10 – 12 years which plunged huge segments of people in to poverty...hence the drive west. This ended at the Great Depression when true regulation was brought in and enforced. Until modern administrations started dismantling that regulation it had largely worked with inflation and recessions being the greatest fear.

Now however the markets more closely resemble a pyramid scheme with the financial institutions and the fund traders being at the top, and therefore always making huge sums of money no matter what. With the uber-wealthy and corporations also using speculative devices and other manipulations of the free market to in effect siphon off huge sums of money that are a direct cost to consumers and the small investor.

Ultimately the system is so complex and greed is so pervasive I am completely perplexed at how it can function as intended any more. Until we get a handle on greed we are done.


david sawkiw[saskatchewan farmer]
said
0 0

Truly we have not had pure capitalism,,, ever.

Case in point, if a company [chemical] wants a new herbicide registered they lobby the regulators[government].The same is true for the pharmacueticals or any other company for that matter.

Giant companies will ALWAYS get tax breaks from federal, provincial, or municipal governments to set up shop in an area. True capitalism would not allow for that. In my opinion small companies should get the same breaks, but seldom do.

If a giant company [general motors] needs help, government subsidy is never far away. Bricklin or Delorian should be so lucky!

To all the socialists who are gleefully applauding the downfall of capitalism,, just remember the system definately has its flaws but it is a darn sight better than any of the socialist experiments of the past, just ask the USSR.

Bottom line is, the slow infiltration of socialism into the capitalist system will be the ruination of it.




Matthew
said
0 0

Nice article, but it misses a bit because it frames the question as "one or the other"... as if there are no shades of grey.

I don't believe that Canada can consider itself as a pure "cold-hearted" capitalist society. Letting corporations fail is nice in theory (and I have no love for them), but there are people attached to those corporations. I think that as a responsible society we aren't ready to embark upon a "survival of the fittest" approach. There's a lot of empathy for real people that need help... and you don't get that from the pure form of capitalism.


Geoffrey West
said
0 0

Johan Norberg is, in my humble opinion, not correct in saying that capitalism must be returned to its former glory. Like every other society that has formed, and risen throughout human history, it has collapsed under the weight of its own greed, corruption and dysfunction. We are now witnessing a collapse of capitalism. What replaces it will depend upon humanity's level of consciousness. There is a shift of consciousness taking place as well, and this is leading to many truths being exposed about our ways of living, and what the consequences are.

This collapse WILL continue. It has to. Humanity has stepped beyond what the planet is capable of providing, and our continued abuse of the planet and our continued separation and fear of people around us will fuel this collapse.

Those who have already discovered 'the secret', are now making choices to move away from their jobs (which they probably hate), and are moving to cities and countries where they can live with other people who think and feel the same way about sustainable living (among others).

As long as humans can separate their fear, their greed and their thirst for power, revenge and so forth, and find a new relationship with people and the planet, there is a possibility of creating a new kind of capitalism, a more LIFE-honouring capitalism.

I can say with VERY high certainty and confidence that our current economy will continue its collapse.When a political party finally takes responsibility for what has been created, and proposes a plan for rebuilding government FIRST, then people will see candidates who are truly committed to creating LIFE-honouring change. This is part of the work of A Greenprint For LIFE.


Darren
said
0 0

Capitalism is far from dead, and is going to make a roaring comeback in the US after the 2010 Congressional Elections, when the borderline Marxist Democrats now running it, will be thrown out, just like in 1994.

The far left Liberals now running the Democrat Party have blown their opportunity big time.

You think that they are getting push back over the Health Care "reform", you just wait until they try and force Cap and Tax through.


conductor274
said
0 0

The premise of this article is totally false. Capitalism was a good idea but it doesn't really exist anymore. Unless you agree that capitalism at the point of a gun is a valid form of it's existence. The US has about approximately 1000 military bases or installations around the world in 70 different countries. Inside the US there are 71 air force bases, 59 army bases and 15 marine corps bases.

The Worldwide control of humanity's economic, social and political activities is under the helm of US corporate and military power. Underlying this process are various schemes of direct and indirect military intervention. These US sponsored strategies ultmately consist in a process of global subordination.

Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

The US does not believe in free markets by any stretch of the imagination anymore. They see what they want, if they can't get it through democratic or capitalist means they send in their military and take it by force. This is why capitalism is dead or at least transformed into a system that uses military force to achieve it's goals. Governmental systems run by use of a military are a whole different animal and represent a perversion of it's original concepts.


I'll support s-called free enterprise capitalism
said
0 0

when there's even a likelihood that the so-called free enterprise capitalists will practice what they preach.


Independently Minded
said
0 0

I tend to agree with Norberg that creative destruction is necessary for the system to properly function along with regulations to keep people honest. No prohibitive red tape, but legal guidelines with penalties attached.

Capitalism is a system of calculated risks, with a win loss result. If no one looses then the system becomes distorted and unhealthy as Casey has said.

Though I have seen what Casey is seeing with the US system of unfettered un-regulated greed collapsing the US economy if they don't change their attitudes. Self regulation in any industry especially the financial sector is like expecting a thief to only steal half the money in the vault based on the honor system. It simply won't happen.

I don't see people as basically good, quite the contrary.

Therefore regulations are necessary to keep people honest and the investor safe.


Tom Turek
said
0 0

Take GM & Chrysler for example. They were bailed out while Ford worked hard to stay afloat. Now Ford has to compete agaist 2 companies that are being helped by the gov't whereas it should have been the triumphant one. Instead of being rewarded for smart product and business choices, it is basically being punished.


Monty Burns
said
0 0

So basically one dude is saying "Stop corporate welfare, and engage in moderation" and the other is saying "OMG, the sky is falling, the sky is falling..." (but in his semi-rationalist language?)

Huh. So is the sky-is-falling guy suggesting that a communist economic system is inevitable? 'Cause what else comes after hyper-inflation, the collapse of a nation's economy, and the seemingly inevitable collapse of government that would follow? *Ponders who in the US would benefit most from Totalitarianism...* (hint: it's not the citizens!)


Paul J Graham, Saskatoon
said
0 0

American style Capitalism is not dead, but it deserves to die, along with the suffering that it breeds.

This piece is nothing more than double-speak nonsense. Instead of putting the blame where it is deserved, on the so-called free captialist greed and tacit willingness to exploit everything for gain, it is spun out as the government's fault.

Unless capitalism is controlled to benefit the majority instead of the few, we will continue to have exploitation, crisis, and suffering.

Furthermore, the idea of comparing the foundation of America with today's situation is simply bad logic. Today's society is far more complex with corporate power having influence over politics. The end of American style capitalism cannot come soon enough.


GG
said
0 0

Let's face reality....unfettered capitalism is not only unsustainable ..it creates social class chaos. The reason: we're human beings. We are not perfect...Flaws such as greed, corruption and power and control come as a result of a pure capitalistic system. It is about profiting on the backs of working serfs and beating up your competition until they are out of the game. This system works well for the powerful and the rich as they have a distinct advantage in the marketplace. Think of it like a game of poker. Everyone antes in and then the game is played. The objective of the game..to get more chips. From where you ask ? from everyone else...until you have it all. In the real world certain businesses and people just come to the poker table with way more chips and eventually beat you down. This form of capitalism should die. That being said small, independent entrepeneurial people providing skills and services and products of their own or in collaborations would make for a fairer and sustainable capitalistic/market based system. But why would the current power brokers want that kind of change ? when this system works best for THEM.


Capitalism will survive
said
0 0

if Socialism is there to bail it out.




GP
said
0 0

@ david sawkiw[saskatchewan farmer]

Your facts are often just slightly off enough to miss the point.

For example the USSR was not socialist it was communist. There is a huge huge difference. France today would more correctly be called socialist.

As for the “slow infiltration of socialism into capitalism”. You are simply spewing Republican propaganda. Please turn off Glen Beck and pick up a book. Nobody here is talking about socialism. There does however have to be some controls for the same reason there has to be controls on the use of pesticides, genetic farming, or the ability for multi-national Agri corporations to crush farmers like you and take over everything. Not everything is about money...same is true with the economy.

Honest Dave, there is a lot going on here under the hood that the Glen Becks of the world want to ignore, or simply don’t understand


reece
said
0 0

@REMARKABLE: Capitalism & communism are two totally different things. China is a capitalist society yet very communist.

Capitalism under the directive of greedy people can only cause over-population and the final destruction of our only planet. Funny how in mythology man is given a decision to destroy himself and it's told that he will choose to destroy himself. I never understood why he would - now I do.


Frank - Alberta
said
0 0

To Darren,
Republicans love to blame Obama and the Dems for the financial woes of America. Lets not forget one important fact - this all happened on Bush's watch and he was the one who initiated bail outs for the huge corporations.


Sam C
said
0 0

The problem with capitalism is that there is no check on growth or greed. Companies seek a greater "market share" for their products, and strive for increased sales. Unfortunately, consumers are not necessarily able to purchase more product, nor do they even need to in many cases.

Product is produced in anticipation of a demand that may not occur, and prices plummet as a result.

meanwhile, shareholders want a return on their investments, which becomes difficult to deliver and leads to attempts to reduce costs -- outsourcing to overseas operations.

Capitalism had its heyday, but if it is to survive it will require a major re-think and re-structuring.



Zaphod
said
0 0

We can only hope. Sadly we are catching up to the rest of the world (China) and they will beat us if we keep up the way we are going economically... In fact, I suspect they already have.


dave
said
0 0

"The concept of failure has been removed almost entirely from the philosophy of capitalism, [as well as education, child rearing, household spending, politics] and people have grown accustomed to a system of continual economic growth and booming prosperity [without effort, ethics and discipline] I fear we have not yet seen the worst that can happen as a result.


Neil
said
0 0

Very good article, I agree that without the " right to fail " their is no real success. Without death, there is no life.

We in North America have developed a sense of entitlement.Is it driven by the Hollywood life style that movies/TV roll out everyday ? Everyone has a great life style and no one works, and of course no one fails.

Capitalism provides the most to the most. Yes a few get rich, but the "poor" have food, clothing, shelter, TV, cell phones and often cars. How many poor people in the third world would kill for that ?

We are a society that pays people not to work, and imports workers.

Think about that.


Tono
said
0 0

Capitalism, in its most basic element, cannot die. It has existed well before recorded history, and only since the more modern times with modern economies arrived has any other option even been feasible. Even Communist China has proven that a capitalist-style economy is the best way to go.


david sawkiw[saskatchewan farmer]
said
0 0

GP ::: I took your advice and opened a book,namely websters new world dictionary second college edition. Definition#3 for 'socialism' and I quote: the stage of society,in Marxist doctrine, coming between the capitalist stage and the communist stage(see COMMUNISM,sense 2) in which private ownership of the means of production and distribution has been eliminated.

Now, under the definition of communism,, the word socialist or socialism is used to describe communism probably three or four times.

So, thank you for your comments and trying to correct my thinking , but PLEASE donnot soft-pedal sociaism into somthing Canadians should just accept simply because in your opinion capitalism has failed you.

Oh, and by the way, I have not heard of this Glen Beck fellow, so I doubt he has influenced my thinking.


Robert Jones
said
0 0

Wow after reading the comments section I thought I was over at CBC for a second. I can't belive the number of people who would sell us into the chains of socialisim.

I would have to agree with the author Norberg as I too belive the system is sick and needs an overhaul. The first order of business would be to get the speculators out of the market.

The next would be a halt to all subsidies to unprofitable businesses. GM and Chrysler I'm looking squarely at you. The banks should have been allowed to fail and the bad debts shaken out of the system.

I would much rather live under cpaitialisim even with it's flaws than the alternative.


Mark Smith (Montreal, QC)
said
0 0

Capitalism isn't the problem. Currency management is.

This whole problem stemmed from the fact that there was more debt than credit, but this is inherent to how the money supply is created to begin with.

You put in $100 to a bank. The bank keeps $10 in cash, and claims the $90 as their money. What this means is that $90 of non existent money has been put into the money supply, on top of your $100. The non existent money contributes to devaluation of the currency since its supply went up, and there is your inflation. The $90 is then spent by bank, usually as loans and investments. So now that non existent $90 is locked up in credit derivatives and other extremely complex monetary structures, whose existence depends on money that didn't exist to begin with.

This is a basic outline of what's wrong. I personally understand the problem, but I haven't a solution. However, I assume that solutions can be found, WITHOUT getting rid of capitalism.

Of course, it does involve some radical changes to currency, and the people who control currency are some of the most powerful people in the world, so change won't be fast or easy.

For more information look up the fractional reserve and "Modern Money Mechanics".


Jeff, Calgary
said
0 0

Isn't it interesting that the religious right tells us that flawed sinful humanity needs the control of religion to keep it honest; but that the money manipulators and power brokers should never be regulated. Hypocrisy on a massive scale.

There are many more systems than Capitalism and Socialism. Economics is just one part of political/social systems. None is applicable to all situations, being limited by humanity's minimal intellect.

Until we get away from "-isms" and start responding to the real world not human constructs we will lurch from crisis to crisis.

Giving ourselves the name Homo sapiens was pure hubris.




Charles
said
0 0

We never had capitalism, we had corporate socialism. Canada has certainly been subsidizing large private companies for years.

The new mantra is - "capitalize the gains, socialize the losses."


GTK
said
0 0

The current failures have been Capitalism working against the economy. The bailouts are completely against the natural order of things. Failing US Banks would have lost their assets to bigger US banks. Failing car companies would be bought out at a loss or disappear and be replaced by bigger car companies.
With the US on the brink of insolvency as it is, it is a reinstillment of basic fiscal principles that needs to be adhered to. Supporting the world of phantom money in financial and investment sectors is not what built the US.


Avi Ickovich
said
0 0

Nobel Prize-winning, free-market economist Milton Friedman died in 2006. But Friedman was not only a brilliant theoretician; he was an articulate advocate for our free-enterprise system. Why do we need him now?
Today capitalism is under attack as never before and there are few to defend it.
Their solution is more government, more spending, and higher taxes.
What would Milton Friedman say to that?
“The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus . . .
“In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about, they have had capitalism and largely free trade . . .
“There is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system."
Friedman’s point is not that capitalism is perfect, but that it is better than all the other systems.
So what would Milton Friedman say to President Obama? What would he advise?
He would highlight the need to avoid the following reactionary responses. During recessions, governments turn on the printing presses, interest rates plummet as governments move to inflate the money supply in response to an ensuing economic meltdown. Initial effects seem good.
That is, governments use spending to cover up economic ills, but that leads to rampant inflation.
Bernanke surely knows what Friedman explained in “Money Mischief” — that it takes at least a year after the massive expansion of the money supply for inflation to rear its ugly head. And Bernanke is well aware, as Friedman so artfully explains, that inflation causes a brutal economic “hangover,” making things actually worse in the long run.
Sadly, our biggest problem today is not the economic one, but one of leadership and character. We do not have the Milton Friedmans to rise to the challenge.



Brian fr Langley
said
0 0

Seems like there is a lot of confusion (judging by many of the comments) about what capitalism is (or isn't) At its core its simply interest or usury. That is instead of just selling your labour to make money. (Which virtually every single one of us do). We also sell our money to make money. (Which virtually every one of us do). The only true non capitalist are those who hide their money in their mattress. As long as we have free markets we will continue to be able to sell our labour and our money for what it is worth. The only other possibility is a system where we are told what we will be paid for our labour. This system has been around for thousands of years. In days gone by we called it slavery.


ARJAY
said
0 0

@David Sawaski

David, thanks for picking up a dictionary and providing a definition of the terms you are using. Many posters confuse capitalism and socialism, and at least you've tried to distinguish between them.

However, I think you've missed an important point. Marx thought of socialism as a stage between capitalism and communism because he believed that society would inevitably beome communist when people grew tired of being exploited.

What he didn't understand was that socialism actually prevented capitalism from being overthrown in most countries. By providing better working conditions and wages, unions prevented the polarization of society that occurs when there is no check on capitalism. By giving people universal medical coverage, welfare, and EI, grinding poverty was ameliorated through socialist legislation.

As a consequence, most modern industrial societies are somewhat socialist, with moderate forms of capitalism. Where capitalism becomes too predominant, we see collapse, as we have just seen in the States, because unfettered capitalism produces chaotic cycles of boom and bust, combined with impoverishment of huge numbers of people. Where socialism has too much power, we see stagnation in the markets.

But socialism does not mean that the government owns the means of production (communism), only that some of the profits from corporations and from individuals are used to support social programs that provide health benefits, education and social assistance to those who need it.

These programs also provide the needed infrastructure that makes capitalism possible. Without an educated and healthy workforce, you can't run a company.

Think of it as the price we pay for a stable, profitable, harmonious, and ethical society.


mockorange
said
0 0

It is lack of regulation which led to this crisis. As for creative destruction? There's a lot of 'creative destruction' right now in the States - just look at the communities decimated by job loss.


Bryan
said
0 0

Capitalism is natural and reflects the spirit of humans by facilitating humans' natural desire to seek and experience betterment. Socialism is an artifical means to achieve the same end, but because it is artificial it is not self sustaining. Socialism does not contain the naturally ocurring impetus for system survival of capitalism. The brand of capitalism that exists now is somewhere in between the pure model and socialism, being propped up by a felt need to reduce the potential harshness of unfettered capitalism by attaching socialistic goals to it. This is not entirely unreasonable, but it is dangerous. One of the unintended consequences of this blended model is that the potential harshness of capitalism in controlling participants in the system, is lost. The system now aims toward "feel good" solutions. No one wants to endure harshness. Harshness, as a check and balance in the system, is required to keep people honest, responsible and focused on making thoughtful decisions about risk. Personal (and collective) responsibility is reduced in the blend, which smooths out harshness. Unfortunately, it has the negative effect reducing concern about excessively risky behaviour, like selling sub-prime mortgages. And now we have bailed out many large corporations that took those excessive risks, probably rationally, because there really is no risk involved in wild investing. It is no longer true that the bigger they are the harder they fall - quite to the contrary. Our "social" goals have gained hegemony over the goal of sustainable capitalism, which is the engine producing our wealth. We arrogantly believe that we can tinker with it endlessly and make it better. Clearly we are in a dangerous spot now. We must continue tinkering to fix it, which efforts are the antithisis of captialism.


lee
said
0 0

Doug Casey, as suggested in this article, is not criticising capitalism but the destructive policies of government that is killing it.


lugger
said
0 0

These views of capitalism are too simplistic, and the world is more complex than that.
If all the 'losers' did when they failed was 'die', then we'd be ok. But YOU wouldn't roll over and die, and neither do losers. They fight, kicking and screaming all the way.
So if someone losses their job and their car and their house, they don't just die. YOU wouldn't just die. They do whatever it takes to survive, and when things get really bad that means crime. It has always been this way, except in the olden days when... well, more of them simply died.
The best way to protect ourselves from a society spiraling in to criminal chaos is to keep them working. Hense, corporate bailouts.
You want to know when things REALLY went wrong? When we allowed for corporations to be formed. The original capitalists outlawed corporations because they had too much power and none of the responsibility/accountability. Now we have huge corps too big to allow to fail.
THIS IS A CAPITALIST VIEW, not a socialist one. Pure capitalism is about personal responsibility. Corporatism removes personal responsibility in the same way that socialism does. This mess, this economic collapse, is the result of a lack of accountability. And so the great masses of little guys pay the price for faceless suits. Any capitalist who doesn't recognize the importance of the great masses of little guys is either a feudalist, or an idiot.


Martin C. of NS
said
0 0

I could not agree more with Tom Turek. Companies with good corporate strategies and management should be rewarded by surviving (like Ford), even during economic turmoil. I don't understand why GM and Chrysler can exist. If they know that they can get rescued by the government at any bad times, then what is the point of restructuring or being competitive for that matter? Mind you, I just chose the auto industry as an example but there are plenty more industries that are in the same boat.

Even during a recession the government should not have to bail out massive companies for their incompetence and inability to compete. Since when did we elect the politicians to babysit the corporation? Conversely, why do we expect the corporations/tax payers to take care of all our social programs? Either way, this recession is going to bring change to the way we do business and politics, and who knows if it will be good or bad.

Creative destruction is necessary for the economy to restructure and be competitive in a dynamic market.


Prof. Pye Chartt
said
0 0

@ ARJAY

Socialism good.

Capitalism evil.

Wealth redistribution good.

Socialism and wealth redistribution balance the inherently evil aspects of capitalism. Capitalism is a Tasmanian Devil you have to keep tightly constrained by regulatory chains.

--------------

Thanks, ARJAY. I've got it now.


wms+rp
said
0 0

The leadership of the economy needs to take another closer look at just what "The Economy" is in reality as opposed to what it is theoretically.
In theory, according to every university text book on economics that I have had the displeasure of reading, the economy is either one bbig aggregation of markets.
It is not. It is a distribution of sectors captured in what Karl Polanyi who originally raised the notion and called them "Transaction Modes".
From this foundation as opposed to the foundation of thinking about the economy in aggregate terms, one can more fully understand what has happened and what will again happen and soon once all the injections have settled into the economy.
A new paradigm is essential in order to do this and stave off the fate of Rome and all other empires that lose their greatness.
It need not disintegrate but it is a possibility.


wally from Montreal
said
0 0

As they used to say way back then, don't sell the farm, or don't keep all the egg's in the same basket... because sooner or later we will be living off the land (about 30 yrs from now)* estimate, currancy$$$$$ will be worthless, back to the old barter system no tax no government, heighbour protecting neighbour....time to invest in live stock, horse and buggy included. LOL laugh now. but we will see....


Alan In Halifax
said
0 0

2 comments: The first is "seeing" the difference between the US and Canada. The picture on the front cover of Time magazine during the 1989 San Francisco earthquake was of all the real estate destruction; the front cover of MacLeans magazine was of a couple holding each other in despair. For the most part, the US is more "thing" oriented. In Canada, we are more "people" oriented. And I feel sorry for those who think that "people" oriented is the EVIL menace of socialism.

The 2nd comment is that even all the economic experts can't agree on what to do. It's gonna be a trial and error thing for years ahead and whoever ends up making the major decisions, please do so in bits at a time. Huge course corrections too fast usually results in disaster, whether your driving a car or fixing the economy!


Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Contest

Vital Signs

Economy Series

Part one

If economists could paint a picture of a future, it would be much different than what we have today.

Capitalism

Part two

Is American-style capitalism dying?

Vital Signs

Part three

Small businesses reap recession rewards.

Clean energy

Part four

Will delays hurt Canada's clean-energy firms?

In this photo taken Tuesday, April 21, 2009, sixth-grader Jabarie Barnes uses a calculator in his personal finance class at Ariel Community Academy on Chicago's South Side. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)

Part five

Canadian students are missing out on the financial facts of life.

Why are some economists worried about sky-high inflation?

Part Six

Why are some economists worried about sky-high inflation?

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

Share it with your network of friends

Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz