News Sections
Vital Signs: Is capitalism dead or dying?
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(48)
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.
User Tools
Vital Signs
Part one
If economists could paint a picture of a future, it would be much different than what we have today.
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(48)-
Feedback
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.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.







Comments are now closed for this story
Remarkable
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
ARJAY
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
Watching
0
said
0
The Truth Hurts!
0
said
0
US Treasury Secretary says US needs help.
0
said
0
That's the US system: socialism for the corporate crowd.
GP
0
said
0
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]
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
Independently Minded
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
Monty Burns
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
Capitalism will survive
0
said
0
GP
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
dave
0
said
0
Neil
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
david sawkiw[saskatchewan farmer]
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
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)
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
The new mantra is - "capitalize the gains, socialize the losses."
GTK
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
ARJAY
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
Bryan
0
said
0
lee
0
said
0
lugger
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
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
0
said
0
Alan In Halifax
0
said
0
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!