Question ?

[craven]

OK, OK, this is just as I have said a question, I am not stating a position on this one, just interested in seeing others thoughts and views, so please don’t attack me just yet, ………… and you know who you are !

I know that we have already discussed the rights and wrongs and moralistic issues associated with governments bailing out the banks, financial institutions and companies such as AIG, however I wanted to open up the debate further, hopefully on a more philosophical level.

Recently the US auto industry went cap in hand to the government seeking its share of the bailouts, irrespective of whether you agree with these bailouts or not, has the economic crisis, and resulting government intervention(s) signaled the end of capitalism as we know it ?

We have seen the nationalization of many of the leading banks. Here in the UK there is a call for the utility companies, water, and more loudly perhaps gas and electric suppliers to be nationalized given the sharp increases in energy prices, there is even support for a re-nationalisation of the transport services.

These are I appreciate unprecedented times, even so who would have predicted that many would see government ownership of these industries as the solution to the crisis, and indeed preferable to them being owned privately.

Many of us witnessed the fall of the Berlin wall, and with it in effect the death of communism, I am guessing that not many watched this from the “wrong side” of the wall so to speak, so few have seen their social and governing systems fail, so I ask, are we now witnessing this in the west.

And if so, if indeed capitalism is dead as we know it, what is a viable alternative ?

Oh I stuck this in politics, because I did not feel it was one for philosophy, if some one in admin wishes to move it please feel free, however please don’t feel a need or desire to present different political parties positions and stances here, not what the question is about……..

[mkemse]

OK, OK, this is just as I have said a question, I am not stating a position on this one, just interested in seeing others thoughts and views, so please don’t attack me just yet, ………… and you know who you are !

I know that we have already discussed the rights and wrongs and moralistic issues associated with governments bailing out the banks, financial institutions and companies such as AIG, however I wanted to open up the debate further, hopefully on a more philosophical level.

Recently the US auto industry went cap in hand to the government seeking its share of the bailouts, irrespective of whether you agree with these bailouts or not, has the economic crisis, and resulting government intervention(s) signaled the end of capitalism as we know it ?

We have seen the nationalization of many of the leading banks. Here in the UK there is a call for the utility companies, water, and more loudly perhaps gas and electric suppliers to be nationalized given the sharp increases in energy prices, there is even support for a re-nationalisation of the transport services.

These are I appreciate unprecedented times, even so who would have predicted that many would see government ownership of these industries as the solution to the crisis, and indeed preferable to them being owned privately.

Many of us witnessed the fall of the Berlin wall, and with it in effect the death of communism, I am guessing that not many watched this from the “wrong side” of the wall so to speak, so few have seen their social and governing systems fail, so I ask, are we now witnessing this in the west.

And if so, if indeed capitalism is dead as we know it, what is a viable alternative ?

Oh I stuck this in politics, because I did not feel it was one for philosophy, if some one in admin wishes to move it please feel free, however please don’t feel a need or desire to present different political parties positions and stances here, not what the question is about……..


I believe what makes the Auto Indddustry a "different" situation, is that it would have a Catastriphic effect on our Economy, by this i simply mean, if a Bank fails there are other Banks, if a Mortage Lender goes under someone will step in
In the Case Of The Auto Industry, the HUGE downside to them going under, is that 1st, the Unemplyment Rate already high would sky rocket through the ceiling
2: Auto Dealers would be forced to colse, no carsx being made no cars to be sold, more unemplyed people
#; Auto Parts DEalers, NAPA, Auto Zone, ect ect, would be forced to close no cars made, no parts needed
So from my view, the Car Indsutry going under would havea HUGE mimmdiate imapact on our Econoy like we have never seen, it wouild be a domino effect, GM, Forsd & Chrysler go under, look at how many "Unbrella INdustries" wouls go under with them
If McDonald's wenr under, and you loved fast Food, you still have Nurger King, Webdy's ect
BUT if the 3 Big Manufacturers go under, I do not bvelieve Toyota, Nissame ect have the ability to make up for all the lost revenue, DEalers, Parts Stores ect that other Busineeses have
So I do not believe that the Governement should bail out everyone, I think in the case of the Big 3 The Governemnt has almost no choice onthis one,
No i do not like the idea as a Taxpayer, buti would prefer to see the Big 3 Bailed Out and survive, the to falture and have all other related Business fail with the them
No Cars made, no dealer or mechnics need or auto parts needed, Toyota and Nissan, VW ect could pick up part of what was gone, but they can't pick up all the jobs lost, all the cars made ect ect

Have if they are bailed out, there better be very, very close oversight to makesure the Big 3 use the money for what they need it for, that their CEO's do notget Milloin Dollar bonyuses ect, if that happens THEN you demand immediate repayment on the loan, and if they do not have the money THEN you let them fail, they would have abusedwha tthey recieivedas help to keep them going, then eed to be watch like a hawk, ou NEVER levave an infant alone, their is always a sitter or adult in their presence, the Big 3 would have to be the same, constant monitorin to makesure they usethe money as they say they will as oppsed to whatthey want to use it for, no intense continuous oversight like a "Car Zar" then NO Bailout, taxpayers have had enought

just my opnion

[craven]

interesting viewpoint and worthy of debate i am sure, however i believe that there are threads already devoted to the rights and wrongs of the bail outs and government intervention.

I was hoping with my question to open the debate up wider, does what has happened and the resulting intervention signal the end of capitalism as we know it.

With the state(s) now controlling significant stakes in so many large institutions have we seen the high watermark of the free capitalist economy, and if so, what is the viable alternative for us?

[mkemse]

interesting viewpoint and worthy of debate i am sure, however i believe that there are threads already devoted to the rights and wrongs of the bail outs and government intervention.

I was hoping with my question to open the debate up wider, does what has happened and the resulting intervention signal the end of capitalism as we know it.

With the state(s) now controlling significant stakes in so many large institutions have we seen the high watermark of the free capitalist economy, and if so, what is the viable alternative for us?

No it doesn't it is short help only, the governement will tur n ttthings back to those who own them oncethe economy setles down, maybe noti n my lifet time but iwill capitalism will continue

[voxelectronica]

With the state(s) now controlling significant stakes in so many large institutions have we seen the high watermark of the free capitalist economy, and if so, what is the viable alternative for us?

Yes and I don't know.

I guess we have to come up with something else. Everything fails. Everything has a shiny mark in history.

[Stealth694]

The Auto Industry has waited till the very last minute to go to the govt for help.

I will support a short term loan to tide them over for now.

But before we do a major bailout or loan to these guys I Demand a FULL AUDIT OF EACH CORPERATION, AND A FULL AUDIT OF THE CEO'S AND BOARD OF DIRECTERS!!!

[Thorne]

The Auto Industry has waited till the very last minute to go to the govt for help.

I will support a short term loan to tide them over for now.

But before we do a major bailout or loan to these guys I Demand a FULL AUDIT OF EACH CORPERATION, AND A FULL AUDIT OF THE CEO'S AND BOARD OF DIRECTERS!!!

And concessions from the unions, which are at least as responsible for the auto makers' problems as the CEOs.

[craven]

good and i am sure valid points guys, but there is a danger of thread creep here, there has been much debate already on the nature and pros and cons of the bail outs, i was not seeking to revisit this ground, but to open up the discussion in a more broader context.

Does the fact that our respective governments are now in effect nationalising these companies via the provision of state funding signal the end of capitalism as we know it, has capitalism as we know it had its day, and if so what is the viable alternative ?

[mkemse]

And concessions from the unions, which are at least as responsible for the auto makers' problems as the CEOs.

I agree 100% the Union will not concede any more Salary til their currentcontract is over, if they will not do that, they we SHOULD NOT bail them out, Congress wants their salaries on Par with Toyota ect I see nothing rong withthat, NO GOLDEN Parachute for the Execs, no Bonuses for anyone
They need to be watched so closly that they wnder in Big Brother is in the Restroom with them.
The JIg is up, either they Give Congress in Concessions what Congrsss has askedfor, or No bailout. they put off making corrective measures for years, now they see the end result of things
We as Taxpayers be it short term or long Term can NOT keep failing failing Companies out plain and simple, I do not want my Great, Great Grandchildren to have to continue to pay this debt off,
The Big 3 and the Union eeither give Congress in concessions EVERYTHING that Congress as asked for, or let them SINK, fail and go Bankrupt, that simple

Yes Capitalism will return here, thre question is when, probably not in my lifetime

[lucy]

As for bailouts: How much sense bailing out car companies makes is something the brits here should know: None at all, they will fail anyway later, but then of course the money is already spent.
Darwin's theory applies to economics too. If a company isn't fit enough or doesn't find it's niche to prosper in, it's a goner and should be left to die. Throwing good money after bad usually is not a smart thing to do.

Back to the original question:
Capitalism will not have to return, because it won't fall in the first place. I hope it will become a little bit less of a rat's race and that politicians and other decisionmakers will realize that greed shouldn't be the only force that counts.
But let's not forget that the last 20 to 30 years have brought hundreds of millions of people all around the world a better life, and capitalism was what made it possible.

[denuseri]

Does the fact that our respective governments are now in effect nationalising these companies via the provision of state funding signal the end of capitalism as we know it, has capitalism as we know it had its day, and if so what is the viable alternative ?

Not until it goes to the extremes that the comunists took to nationalize, which didnt end in anything other than failure ultimately.

Even then capitalisum remained in a black market format.

In fact technically (alltough arguable) the only real ecomnomic system that has ever functioned in practice has been capitalism, even before coinage was used.

It is very hard to develope a different economic system that will provide true worker incentive. Perhaps a militerized economy with ranks and rates of pay would work to an extent, but inovations would be far less dynamic.

Furturists like to think of different possible systems that may function (like gene roddenbury, etc) but the problem is that these many purposals only look good in theory (as comunisim did) and don't take into account every possible factor that will make the realities of implementation far far different in practice.

[mkemse]

good and i am sure valid points guys, but there is a danger of thread creep here, there has been much debate already on the nature and pros and cons of the bail outs, i was not seeking to revisit this ground, but to open up the discussion in a more broader context.

Does the fact that our respective governments are now in effect nationalising these companies via the provision of state funding signal the end of capitalism as we know it, has capitalism as we know it had its day, and if so what is the viable alternative ?


Ni it means the are trying t help the Big 3 bfore our economy sinks further, the loan if grantedwill be paid back, ifnot it will be recalled and they governement will let them sink, to many jobs at stake to let them fail

[Skyybird]

Does the fact that our respective governments are now in effect nationalising these companies via the provision of state funding signal the end of capitalism as we know it, has capitalism as we know it had its day, and if so what is the viable alternative ?


I feel a whiff of Animal Farm circling my thoughts here. In fact I have been in the 'library' (my book cupboard but it sounds good!) looking for suitable references.

I've come to the conclusion that we have come full circle. Margaret Thatcher broke up the national companies in the 80's to improve the profit making capacity of the largest organisations, regionalised and localised. It took a huge weight out of the governments resposibilities since they were no longer able to afford (is it afford...or is it couldnt be bothered?) to repair and replace out of date machinery and equipment. We are still paying the bill for the repairs and upkeep of the railway system and public transport regeneration.

Electricity and Gas have never been so expensive. We have the resources and techonology in this country to be much more environmentally and economically friendly with electricity. Perhaps a Nationalised company could have the financial power to harness this technology and use it for the benefit of the people.

As has been the case in many civilisations, capitalism and greed have ruled, mistakes have been made, the bill can not be paid.

The NHS is failing in a big way to keep up with technology because the money is being spent in all the wrong places. Attempts to localise the funding and privatise various parts of the healthcare facilities across the UK have failed because they are merely given lip service.

Maybe you are right...capitalism is dying, Communism is on the horizon, and for once we didnt need a bloody revolution? Instead we are paying with our pensions, our utility bills, our property, our food bills, our health, our environment!


But beware...

"Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without making the animals themselves any richer— except, of course, for the pigs and the dogs."

Four legs good, two legs better!

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS. (my favourite quote from the whole book!)

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Communism will never survive, human nature and competitve drive will never be harnessed by the greater good, because the greater good with time becomes greedy and blinkered.

*smiles* excellent question!

[craven]

thank you though i feel i should point out, i merely posed the question, i have not expressed any opinion, we are living through unprecedented times, we have seen communism fail, as has been pointed out, to date capitalism is still the only viable alternative to that failed system.

I am interested to see how others feel, are we seeing perhaps the emergence of some form of middle ground, part state ownership/funding a form or collaboration between private and public enterprise, i am not sure, has capitalism as such failed, again i ask the question rather than make the statement.

good points raised, and some great thoughts being posted

[MMI]

"We were the Leopards, the Lions, those who'll take our place will be little jackals, hyenas; and the whole lot of us, Leopards, jackals, and sheep, we'll all go on thinking ourselves the salt of the earth."

[leah06]

OK, but where is that quote from, MMI?

[craven]

OK, but where is that quote from, MMI?


here you go rachel

the quote is taken from the book "The Leopard" by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa

[Matin]

i think that we - the western world - need to stop muddling around and swing further one way or the other when it comes to capitalism.

are we economic darwinists or aren't we? i thought, and i suppose i was wrong, that if a company can't survive with it's business model it needs to fail. looking through american history i can find you a thousand examples, up till truly recent history, of major companies - large percentage market holders - failing and our economy swallows it like a hiccup and moves on. what i believe happened is that as pampered westerners we've grown accustomed to a certain lack of discomfort in our lives. yes the big three going under would hurt, but it wouldn't end us, and i feel that by taking a stance solidly that as a country we won't bail out incompetent businesses we will be forcing true competitiveness. i feel there is a complacency that has been festering in capitalism, which stifles innovation.

but the airlines got their bailouts, because as a nation we cannot deal with inconvenience. so the automakers will also, and it will get worse. we must resign ourselves to becoming secondary players in the world market; we do not even now innovate at the level the more vicious 'asian tigers' do.

as a mechanic i can give you an example of how i see capitalism. capitalism at it's best is a machine that runs in perfect tune, streamlined and efficient above all else, because there is no room for dead weight. and as new processes avail themselves, new technologies, new thought patterns and business models, so the engine strips away what was good before but is now obsolete. and it becomes efficient again! the big three represent western capitalism in the way their products represent them; they are beautiful institutions, full of power and tradition, but their technology is old, dated, and inefficient.

ask any hp junkie if he'd rather ride/drive american or japanese.

evolution and change are key. they're willing, we're not. so we'll slow fade - i think there are a lot of comparisons to be drawn, for you brits, to the end of the Empire. stagnation....

wow i thought really hard on this. thank you craven for an excellent topic, i hope this response was what you were looking for.

-matin

[craven]

great answer, and some very interesting points raised, certainly food for thought, it is true that all of the great empires and dynasties have destroyed themselves from within, usually as a result of their own decadence,

thanks Matin great post

[MMI]

I think the answer is so highly complex that none of us here - ok, maybe one or two, but I doubt it - can actually give a proper respone. That's not to denigrate everyone who has posted a reply, because I suspect there's more than a grain of truth to all of them. Even the ones I disagree with.

I know I don't have the answers, but I do want to focus on one thing, and that's size: size matters, until it gets too big! All over the world there are now companies whose turnover exceeds the GDP of small countries. The banks, the airlines, the motor manufacturers. The computer companies and the oil companies. They are huge and they can change government policy much faster and more profoundly than the electorate can. Recent events prove that: governments have swallowed their principles and bowed to the will of the multi-nationals. In this kind of democracy, it's one dollar, one vote. I'm not saying it's corruption, although there's plenty of scope for that, but countries can find themselves ruled by one or two wealthy companies - and larger, richer and more politically developed countries find themselves ruled by "markets".

I think it's time for a change, and, to draw upon Tomasi again, if we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change. Looking at the events on Wall Street, the City of London and even Reykjavik, it is clear that the multinationals have run away with themselves, taking the wealth of the nations concerned with them. So, for me, the first candidate for change are these huge conglomerates. Let them be restricted in their operations - either by size, or by field of operations, or by some other criterion. But let them be controlable. GM should be split into smaller independent companies, each able to stand on its own feet, but not so powerful that it can exert undue influence on its government, either because it employs half a city's workforce, or it produces most of the city's income. HSBC should not be allowed to operate in so many different places. A branch or two is OK, but not a branch network in every major country. There should be appropriate limits which each country should impose according to its own criteria, but following some internationally accepted principles. That way, if any of them gets into trouble, the nation can swallow it with a hiccough, instead of, as is the problem today, finding it too big a morsel to even bite into.

[Thorne]

I don't claim to be an expert in economics, or in politics. I have neither the time nor the desire to do massive amounts of research on this topic. So take what I say here with a grain of salt, or just ignore it all together.

ANY economic or political system which neglects to reward hard work is doomed to failure. This has been shown throughout history, most recently with the Soviet Union and its satellite countries. People who have no hope of improving their lot through hard work, but who know that the state will provide whatever they need, have no incentive to work. So you end up with a system like the Soviet Union, where imported goods had to be banned (except to high party members, of course) in order to keep their own factories busy. And those factories could not keep up with either demand or quality, simply because no one cared.

Even now, here in the US, there are doctors who are getting out of medicine because government and medical insurance restrictions don't allow them to collect enough money for their services to pay their exhorbitant malpractice insurance bills. So you wind up with inferior medical care. And eventually, the medical system falls apart.

The pharmaceutical industry is constantly under fire for charging exhorbitant prices for relatively inexpensive chemicals. They put out huge sums of money to do the research to discover, test, refine and market those chemicals, yet when they try to recoup that outlay through high prices, the insurance companies and low income groups scream that they are "disenfranchising the poor."

So where is the incentive to provide high quality medicines? Or high quality health care? Or high quality anything! The incentive comes from competition and capitalism! Let the corporations compete for our dollars. Allow them to charge what the market will bear. Let the workforce reap the rewards for their work, and let those who will not work fall by the wayside.

We may see, in the very near future, a temporary decline in capitalism in this country (USA) and probably in many other countries. But capitalism will still survive, underground if need be. There will always be those who are willing to sell goods that people want. And eventually, when the system collapses again, as it will, capitalism will be waiting in the wings to come roaring back.

[lucy]

Even now, here in the US, there are doctors who are getting out of medicine because government and medical insurance restrictions don't allow them to collect enough money for their services to pay their exhorbitant malpractice insurance bills.
Sorry for being off topic, but i alway found it ridiculous how liability is handled in the states. Coming to think of it, it ain't that much off topic, because capitalism in my opinion also needs to include each persons responsibility for her/his own actions.
To spill a hot coffee on one's own legs and then sue the company who sold the coffee is stupid enough, being granted loads of money by a court because you've been stupid is just ridiculous. Same with malpractice: Of course docs should pay if the make a mistake, but the sums granted by US courts are way beyond anything remotely adequate, let alone reasonable.

[denuseri]

<<predicts in the next few decades we will eventually see the emergence of multi-national corperate states (heck in some ways we allready have them)

In other words the "companies" will rule more openly as the governments become increasingly more and more easy for the corperate elite to control.

Also we stand a high likelyhood of seeing the current system collapse under the wieght of diminishing rescources with ever increasing population and demand (war and anarchy) abet for those that cant afford to be protected by thier wealth from the massess.

Occassionally thier will be rebellions against it, but pandoras box was opened for this a long time ago.

The cycle of haves and have nots shall continue.

[craven]

i remember reading articles some years back now about the emerging power of the so called "BRIC" countries, namely Brazil, Russia, India and China, due to their abundance of natural resources and large labour markets.

I agree, i can see resources playing a significant part in future world politic, these countries have both the resources, landmass and populations to work their their land as well as labour to obtain, refine, consume and exploit the said resources.

The "have and have nots" as you say den will see the gulf between them play a more significant part i feel.

The political will to develop and move forward must also be factored in as the countries of the BRIC nations are not as westernised as the current economic powerhouses

Interesting points made also with regard to the continued importance and influence of the multi national corporations, yes it could be argued that these are already way more powerful than many governments.

Indeed anyone who has read the book "the corporation" the pathological pursuit of profit by Joel Bakan it could be argued that this is already the case.

good points raised den, it seems that we are indeed living through interesting times, thank you

[MMI]

First, competion is a false ideal: a golden idol. It does not guarantee prosperity or even fair reward for the industrious. Under a capitalist system, it rewards those who exploit other people or materials successfully, chiefly by buying the materials and hiring labour for less than they are worth. Capitalism does not require the capitalist to work or even to deserve his rewards, but merely to inject sufficient intial capital to generate his profits. Such capital may even be borrowed.

Competition may cause prices to fall while one business tries to drive another out of the market, because they cannot co-exist. But as soon as it does, prices will rise again. Alternatively, competitors will not compete: they will co-exist, and form a cosy little cartel which supplies the market at the highest price they can get away with. Consider medical insurers.

Competition is wasteful in that it causes duplication of effort. It also creates instability. But when the comptetion is over and the result clear, one firm or another goes out of business, the duplication ceases; but jobs are eliminated too. It is naive to say that economic growth is the inevitable result of competition, and the creation of new jobs the natural outcome. At least, in a cartel, the duplication is tolerated.

Secondly, competition is not the sole perogative of capitalism; it exists everywhere humanity does. It existed in hunter-gatherer societies, and in feudal times. It existed in Victorian laissez-faire economies, and in socialist and fascist societies too. It will exist in every other type of economy, too. If competition is all that capitalism has going for it, it has nothing to distinguish it from any of the other economic systems, and has nothing to recommend it either.

Competition is described as the incentive for production of high quality goods, and first rate services. It's amazing to see this trotted out so glibly after recent economic events. We deregulated and allowed our entrepreneurs scope to compete and to create infinite growth. We gave capitalism its head, believing competition would ensure an orderly, self-regulating market. We let corporations evolve into collosuses and corruption followed. Many examples spring to mind, but Enron might say it all just by itself. Capitalism will always fail. So far, however, it has not died.

Communism failed and died in Russia, because it wouldn't/couldn't respond to international competition, and it measured its success in inappropriate ways - mass production with scant regard to real needs. It was replaced by the old guard, now devout capitalists, not communists, and in league with the Mafia. (Think of USA in Kennedy's day.) But communism has not failed everywhere, and is not dead yet. Like capitalism, it will fail periodically, and will be revived in "new" forms.

However, I think there will be a new capitalism. It will go back to some of the old ways, concentrating on what it is good at. It will be subject to regulation of sufficient strength to demand respect and obedience, and it will also be subject to considerable state participation. This will, on balance, be a good thing, because capitalists and politicians will each keep the other under scrutiny.

It's not only the politicians you must fear, but the leaders of industry and commerce (including trade unions, if they get too powerful), and, frankly, only the politicians have the power to call the others to heel.

The sad thing is, we will quickly forget our mistakes and repeat them all over again.

[jeanne]

This is my very uneducated opinion, focused in one particular area:

The connection between large companies and the stock market is broken. I always thought that the stock market was a way for companies to raise capital and people to give that capital with the promise of a dividend if the company uses the capital wisely. You would choose which companies to 'loan' money to, based on the performance of the company. (I could be totally missing the point here - it's just how I see it.)

It seems that now the stock market is not working that way. Numbers are massaged by companies to appear more attractive to investors, investors choose to 'loan' those companies capital, the cost of doing so increases, and the companies then have 'stockholders' they must satisfy...and they do so by massaging the numbers. It's a cycle, one that rewards upper management for managing not the company, but the numbers, and rewards stockholders with mirage money.

The drawback to capitalism is that it encourages the concept of 'more'. More, more, more. And legitimatizes the idea that one's worth is not connected to one's work, but rather to one's ability to justify 'more'. The CEOs of major corporation are a perfect example. (As well as many professional athletes.) Nobody 'earns' $10 million dollars a year. I'm sorry - they don't. What happens is that they do what they do to pacify the 'board of directors' (made up of people just like them) and are rewarded by those who have the same expectation at their own companies. It is an exercise in ego and greed, wrapped up in lies.

I don't have an answer, or an alternative. Other than the wish that human beings could genuinely understand that we sink or swim together. That doesn't mean that I should make the same amount of money for what I contribute to my employer as the person who runs the company. But I do believe the people who run the company should not be allowed to literally 'rape' it, simply because they can.

At it's base, the issue is this. Fear. The fear that giving to another means not getting one's 'due'. That it lessens the self. I think the people that 'earn' the most money are the ones that are most afraid. Until we can let go of the ingrained belief that it's every man for himself, we will continue to measure ourselves against others based upon money and possessions. And that is truly a shame.

[craven]

I have given this topic some thought, and have enjoyed reading the views and thoughts of all who have contributed to this thread, so thank you one and all.

I think we all agree that capitalism is indeed far from dead, there being really no viable or practical alternative, we are it would seem, stuck with what we have.

the system has suffered a serious shock and setback, but the vital signs are still apparent and all signs indicate a full recovery.

I do feel though that there has been and will continue to be a seed change, peoples views and feelings have been, I personally anyway feel, permanently changed, the excesses of the recent financial bubble have come back to haunt those that now find themselves cap in hand begging for funding from the public purse to keep their empires afloat.

I also read a great quote the other day with regard to government intervention, and perhaps going forward closer scrutiny and regulation “ anyone can ride the bear markets, it is the bull market that it the difficult one to contain”

Gone are the days I feel of if the city makes money lets not question how, their interaction and impact upon all of us and all aspects of our everyday lives is now painfully apparent to us all and very clear to see and understand.

The scale of the bailouts, and the amounts are truly astronomical, it is easy to become almost desensitised about the amounts of money we are talking about, one figure that I have seen quoted is equal to 25% of the total global GDP, here in the UK the amount is far lower than that promised by the US government, however we are still talking about considerable sums of money, let us never lose sight of the fact that all of these funds are collected from people like me and you, your family and friends, the ordinary tax paying majority.

The cut throat days are I feel, and hope coming to an end, hopefully we will see the development of a more all encompassing capitalist system, with winners and losers but not winners and dead bodies so to speak. The public all be it via our elected representatives do own large stakes in many of these companies now, as such there is a sort of collective feel to the system, we being the majority shareholders across the financial and banking sectors.

If our representatives to their jobs properly and our interests are best looked after then there should not be the desire for one of our partially owned entities to screw another into the ground.

I can see the public ownership encroaching more and more in the day-to-day operations of many of these companies as the politicians seek to both justify the investments, but also to be seen to be doing the right thing by our interests in holding these organisations to account.

Yes I hope we are turning a new page in the economic cycle, a more user friendly and all encompassing version of capitalism.

Of course the proof of the pudding will be in how our investments are managed and run, and to what extent those still at the helm of these organisations are willing to allow the state to impact upon their operations.

Interesting times indeed, I feel, of course there is a duty of care on all of us as tax payers and voters to make sure that our money is not squandered or lost amongst the financial trickery and clever accounting, all of us need to make sure we keep those responsible for monitoring our interests accountable.

Thanks again all for making this a most interesting debate.

[Duke Cador]

I would say it is quite simple. What's the cost and effect of bailing an orgranisation out compared with not doing so - ie damage limitation. But the question is, are the government influenced in any way by a particular industry or the region which would suffer the most should the industry go down. Governments do seem to bail out some industries yet ignore the plight of others. And perhaps the governments and people should ask why did it get to such a critical stage to need a bail out. Could not a stich in time have saved nine. And were there critical and even criminal errors made. What bothers me is how an industry gets bailed out and the matter is swept under the carpet and forgotten without any form of investigation or measures being taken to prevent it happening again.

[lucy]

I think what should be done in the future is whenever two companies want to merge, or whenever a company wants to buy another, the only question that should be asked is: Can we afford to let this new company to go down, or will it be too big to be let down.

I don't think capitalism or the free market has failed. Entrepreneurship was replaced with greed, taking calculated risks with being irresponsible and self-determination with selfishness. That's what went wrong in the last decade(s).

The system itself wasn't the problem, if but we need to remember that "trees don't grow to the sky" as a German saying goes.

[steelish]

good and i am sure valid points guys, but there is a danger of thread creep here, there has been much debate already on the nature and pros and cons of the bail outs, i was not seeking to revisit this ground, but to open up the discussion in a more broader context.

Does the fact that our respective governments are now in effect nationalising these companies via the provision of state funding signal the end of capitalism as we know it, has capitalism as we know it had its day, and if so what is the viable alternative ?

No. In my opinion it does not. At least, not as long as America is filled with small businesses. That is truly the backbone of America, not the conglomerates. When the mom & pop places die without any evident new businesses being "born", then capitalism will be dead.

[SadisticNature]

Facts:

Don't lump all the unions together and paint them with the same brush on this one. The CAW has done an awful lot to make the situation more tolerable, including, a four year freeze on wages + a negotiated cut, and an 8-year freeze on pension increases (no indexing to inflation for 8 years). They also made a concession that redirected a portion of wages into a pension plan that was chronically underfunded due to lax pension regulation in both Canada and the US.

In fact, the UAW has already made concessions repeatedly in the year. It's ridiculous that people with a three year contract are asked to make concessions in March for a plan everyone knew at the time wouldn't work and said so, then get blamed in September for its failure, and are asked for concessions again for another plan that everyone knew at the time wouldn't work. If they went along they'd be facing a 3rd round of concessions in 2010. Keep in mind that these unions asked for further concessions already gave up $19/hour of salary and benefits. If you want to know why so many people can't pay their mortgage, try planning buying a house then having the company take out $19/hour out of your salary, completely devastating your budget! When they made these concessions the exact details were a 3-year plan with no further concessions. 6 months later the company was at it again!

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/canadian-auto-workers-union-imposes-draconian-concessions-on-chrysler-workers/

People are quick to blame unions, yet the executives are unwilling to cut their benefits or salaries by the same % they demand of the average worker. They've mismanaged the companies for years and run it into the ground. GM has known it has had too many brands since 1990 and its internal reviews repeatedly recommended doing something about it. They've done nothing for almost 20 years despite this, and as a result have spent a fortune advertising and producing more brands than the company can support.

[SadisticNature]

As for the original posters question.

No, this is hardly the end of capitalism or its high point. Anti-communists are clutching at straws in the search for an enemy. The cold war is long over and good riddance. Capitalism has won, but that doesn't mean it has to be stupid. Capitalism is the principle that capital generates wealth. It doesn't argue for a complete absence of government from the marketplace (although some economists and politicians do). The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith touches on this rather effectively, and its easy to find a copy online.

Obama is certainly not a communist just like McCain is not a fascist. People try and label relatively middling positions on the political spectrum with extremes reserved for the ends. Obama is in fact politically to the right of a lot of leaders of current capitalist democracies.

Government run utilities are in fact commonplace in many parts of the world. The problems with privatization are that it requires extensive regulation, as many free-market utilities are monopolies and price fixing becomes a major issue. When the utilities are run by the government they aren't run for income generation, which ensures a reasonable cap on prices that is closely related to cost of service. Providing a few essential services in this way is not the downfall of capitalism. Only the most absurd of radicals would treat this as a foot in the door, government has no interest in getting in the marketplace for luxuries, commodities, or any non-essential services. Is it that bad they want to ensure that senior citizens aren't dying because a for profit utility is turning off their heat in the depth of a Michigan winter?