Capitalism: Is it Working?

[The Magic Pudding]

Every week I write up my shopping list.
On shopping day I almost always come home with what I wanted, and some stuff I didn't know I wanted.
Capitalism must be working.

[little_monkey]

Stop watching those ads!

[Brian37]

Many countries in the world today practice capitalism. Hell, even Communist China has a capitalist economy.

My question to you is: do you think capitalism is the best and most beneficial form of economic system? Does capitalism help, in itself, solve our economic problems? It has many pros and cons. It's a very volatile system. It can be downright unpredictable.

Wow, someone who actually understands that "capitalism" is not a form of government. Refreshing.

All the word "capitalize" really means is to gain resources to gain an advantage. It says nothing about morality or type of government. Some countries make money better than others.

But, I think it is stupid to say things like this because right wing and uber rich nuts will use this and say "you hate all business". I don't think a healthy population which is an ecosystem can be considered moral without any private business ownership at all.

I think the real issue is weight class(meaning size and money). I wouldn't mind owning a small business and sure I would take more than those at the bottom.

I think the real issue is greed and monopolies and size that is creating abuse.

I'd advise not to blame the hammer for the the person smashing someone's scull in with that hammer.

It is an attitude problem and climate problem and condition problem. Business has produced lots of good things that are beneficial. But it is true that the world's uber rich as a climate are not introspective. Business when it is doing the right thing builds and improves. But globally what we have is no different than what caused the dust bowl. We have a global extraction market, much like over tilling a field and not taking care to maintain it so it can grow.

I think it is absurd to say we can survive without consuming, we do need food and shelter to survive, and even North Korea has currency. But they are the opposite extreme.

Business is needed and I do not object to private business. I do object to excess and bullies. The only thing that will change that isn't getting rid of business, but work to change the conditions of the climate so it is productive not destructive.

Anyone using their computer to suggest we rid the world of private business ownership is a hypocrite. I would agree only to the extent that the world's middle class and poor are being abused far too much by corporate greed globally.

I would not want however, to ban say, the mom and pop shop and without big business the fantastic cities in the west like Tokyo or Sydney or New York, would not exist at all.

So Capitalism isn't the problem, lack of introspection by those in power is. Like you said China is also a capitalist country, but I would not want to live there. I simply hate that our rich in the west are masturbating over their cheap labor.

[Minimalist]

Capitalism works since it allocates resources efficiently. if there are poor, meh, there always have been poor. at least today, the poor can better themselves if they choose. tell poor commoners in 1350 if they ever had a chance to better their economic lot.

Tell that to the slave labor building the toys you like in China...or the dead in Bangladesh. What capitalism does is oppress in the name of efficiency and the beneficiary is always some rich motherfucker who is greedy enough to want to be richer.

Meanwhile...

http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?...xZpbHq%2Bz

Describing the United States as an "advanced Third World country," longtime consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader calls for a new mass movement to challenge the power corporations have in Washington. "It is not too extreme to call our system of government now 'American fascism.' It's the control of government by big business, which Franklin Delano Roosevelt defined in 1938 as fascism," Nader says. "We have the lowest minimum wage in the Western world. We have the greatest amount of consumer debt. We have the highest child poverty, the highest adult poverty, huge underemployment, a crumbling public works — but huge multi-billionaires and hugely profitable corporations. I say to the American people: What's your breaking point? When are you going to stop making excuses for yourself?

[Something completely different]

My apologies. I confess I had the USA too much in mind in my thinking.

Oh no! My appologies! I completly forgot to think about the united states. I can see how the american political class was in the early days also a small landowning bunch, I can also see how private interpreneurship and buisness did create widespread wealth for everyone there throughout the 19th century.

Except for the natives, slaves and the new migrants.

But honestly, I have to confess that my knowlege of US history is very limited. But I am convinced that one cannot compare those two continents demographic developments concerning the creation of wealth throughout history. It is even hard to compare European nations concerning their developments.

Workers participate in capitalist systems, as well, selling their labor, knowledge, and services. I'm not getting what this has to do with economic systems not providing ethics. Ethical systems provide ethics.

I wouldnt say that workers in 19th century factories were "selling" ideas, most of them did monoton uncreative factory work. Only in todays modern economy it is possible for workers to bring their own knowlege more actively into the buisness (at least that`s why the german economy is so successfull).

Yeah, but ethics systems will create limitations for economic systems which most liberterians systematicaly neglect as if economic systems create ethic systems.

I don't understand the question.

I misunderstood one of your previous statements.

I don't know. I don't recall claiming that capitalism is the central theme which defines a society. I've claimed that it's an effective system for maximizing economic growth, and I would modify that with the caveat that this is in comparison to other systems we've tried. It's easy to imagine technological advancements that could replace it with something more efficient. It's harder to imagine a better economic method with current technology, because if I could I'd be backing that horse. And I don't think capitalism is a marvelous system some genius came up with, I think it's what happens when people have a convenient medium of exchange and a certain amount of freedom to exchange goods and services and invest in future productivity. It's what happens when central planning goes below a certain level. It's like science in that it can help you get what you value, but it can't legitimately tell you what to value.

I think it is a overloaded word, since it oncludes so many aspekts. Everyone will define something completly diffrent as capitalism. For a American buisnessowner it probably means least goverment intervention in the market, for the german buisnessowner it means having the social responsibility of ensuring the companies workers wellbeing, for a danish buisnessowner it means being a part in a closely conected complex of institutions in which everyone has to work together yet as an individual, for the Russian oligarch it means having political power, for the chinese buisnessowner it means contributing to the wellbeing of the greater collective, a french buisnessowner will see it as a patriotic duty to provide jobs for the country no matter how profitable (the french are notorious for simply subsidizing anything that keeps jobs alive).

Here we generaly refer to our economic system as "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" which means social economics - and as the word says - puts the weight of some social responsiblities upon buisnessowners.

Not true. Wealth inequality stayed widespread well up to the 1950s

Wealth inequality isn't the same as lack of wealth. If my income goes up 10% and my boss's income has gone up 90%, I am not less wealthy than before. I'm not saying that extreme wealth inequality is fair, just that it doesn't mean poor people's standards of living aren't improving.

lol well, from a European perspective it all looks a bit different. Wealthy magnates in the 19th century industry got outrageously rich on a level which is unimaginable today, whilest sponsoring the building of churches and golf courses for their workers - which might improve living conditions (not really) but keeps most of the wealth in the tight grip of that rich class, so wealth inequality can create the lack of wealth when the wealthy are capable of keeping their wealth circulating amongst the wealthy without any of it trickeling down.

I tend to agree. It helps to have a lot of wealth in your country when you're ready to do that, though.

I dont think one has to be ready to do that. I think one is always ready.

And in my opinion I see myself proven in my claim that democracy causes wealth when looking at the recent emerging economies in South American and Africa. In contrast to which India, which has been a democracy for 60 years and olny recently opened it`s markets has hardly created widespread wealth but simply a small middle class.

Cheap labor is a major part of what drove industrialization, just as it is today in developing countries. In combination with stable politics it attracts investment. Cheap labor and rule of law is far more likely to kickstart a poor nation's economy than rich natural resources, to the point I consider particularly precious resources like oil, gems, and gold to be an economic curse for an undeveloped economy, as they encourage economic reliance on the resources rather than on the people.

What has that got to do with your theory that the first workers rights movements would have destroyed their countries economies?

I agree that the right to vote couldn't come too soon, and it's shameful that it didn't; but historically, only more power makes the powerful share theirs. And capitalism played a role in workers having more power. A peasant can always be replaced by the next peasant over from a feudal lord's point of view; but skilled workers can wreck you by not showing up for work because it can take months or years to train their replacements. Violence was done to force them to work, but it couldn't overcome their will and power in the long run. It could have happened differently, the people have more power than they often think they do, and rulers are always riding a tiger they hope won't realize it's a tiger.

?

The only example in history I am aware of in which the powerfull decided to give political power to the public was the South Korean dictatorship which disolved that way voluntarily in 1989.

Other than that, it almoust happened everywhere through uprisings and with blood being spilled.

Wrong, our economic system depends on sweatshops and cheap labor - which is why companies in Bangladesh and China have an interest in the politics of labor there. It is the bigger profit that counts in economics and not social change. Proof of which can be seen all throughout the third world: It was Reagan and Tatcher who proposed the idea that through economic liberties will come social liberties - and see today - the same countries which opened to the free market then are still not offering social liberties.

I regulary read articles on African economics - and most economists from which I read articles agree on one point: Africa will not be a base for sweatshops. Africa is going into a completly different direction by not simply producing the products designed and developed in the West. It is creating it`s own stuff.

Anyway, what has that to do with my argument that the free market did not create democracy as predicted in the 80s by conservatives?

Africa actualy proves my point that it is democracies which create free markets and not the other way arround.

Yes, as the country develops, sweat shops become obsolete for the very reasons you outline. As I said before, China's government is wise in implementing capitalism slowly, not only does it smooth out the transition, it allows them to retain their power longer. It won't remain at it's current level indefinitely, although I don't expect China to become an open democratic republic similar to Western ones in my lifetime...with or without capitalism. I don't mind that we disagree, history will tell, eventually. China is certainly likely to remain severely authoritarian longer than Pinochet's Chile after he enacted market reforms.

It wasnt Pinochet`s market reforms that ended his dictatorship - it was he himslef, who through his horrific brutality made him more and more unbareable for his people and became a very bad smalling stain on the list of allies to the west. It is a bit cynical to believe that market reforms ended Pinochets reign. The main reason for it`s end was the collapse of the soviet union which made it obsolete as a western ally. Also, the catholic church finaly started being critical about the South American regimes in the late 1980s and that church still has alot of power there.
The free market didnt add anything significant to the collapse of the regime - Chile was simply a great place to produce cheap stuff in factories because people who protested conditions would disapear with a bullet in the head in some jungle.

Sorry, I was using a USA-centric expression. Not actual barons, but 'tycoons'. A certain breed in America before the turn of the previous century were often referred to as 'robber barons'. I regret any confusion.

I mentioned above - I forgot about the US - which can be definatly seen as a society in which the free market created wealth and democratic liberties - especialy under Jefferson and Jackson. But the free market did not create the democracy itself.

In America we had great tracts of land that the government gave to railroad tycoons who greased the wheels of congress sufficiently. History would have been kinder if workers' rights were provided sooner.

As far as I know the railroads were built mainly by chinese imported labor which could be more easily exploited since they were considered to be an "infirior race"

That policy seemed to be entirely at the whim of those willing to pay politicians for special privileges. I can't speak to India, but factors in the Irish famine included Catholics having been prevented by the government from owning land until the late 1700s, and Catholics were most of the population. Ireland was a conquered country with a landlord tenant system where most of the landlords didn't even live in Ireland, and this set up the preconditions for disaster. I hate to say it, but England's attitude toward the Irish during the famine smacks more of malice than of laissez faire market beliefs that might have been beneficial if they had been acted on before there was a famine instead of being used to justify halting government relief. Their actions are consistent with a significant faction of the English government wanting as many Irish as possible dead, or at lest a pervasive malevolent incompetence. Given British involvment in India, I wonder if they contributed similarly to the famine there. At any rate, I'm not against government intervention in principle, particularly during a disaster. I'm for anticipating possible unintended consequences of government acton or inaction.

Actualy in the first years of the famine, the English goverment did help by making inferstructure investments like the building of roads. Dont forget that the famine didnt just hit Ireland but all of Europe - and these actions were undertaken in all of Europe - yet in the UK they were stopped because they were considered to be too much intervention by goverment in the free market. The same was not only done in Ireland but in all of the UK - including Scotland were there were also people starving to death.
The Indian famine of 1876 was caused through a drought and the implementation of plantations which werent capable of creating enought food but a bigger profit for the companies which ran them. When the famine kicked in the governor of Bengal had to stop importing aid from Burma since it was considered to be a too high expence for the goverment.
The Indian Vice Royal of that time actualy believed that this was a natural process in which through implementing these new more profitable plantations the starving of millions would create a better base for a more profitable and wealthier society - even the most conservative estemates are that 50 million people died as a result.

Of course communism caused the probably worst famines of the 20th century in the Ukrain and communist China, which also proves their incompetence for providing security.

But to get back to the point, the common policies during the 19th century concerning economics in Europe was one of non goverment intervention and it often resulted in disaster - especialy in a society in which the wealthy have absolutly no boundries set to their actions.

No, I am not. Wikipedia isn't always our friend in normal conversation. Corporatism also refers to the control of government by large special interest groups, such a large corporations and powerful lobbies.

A democracie needs interest groups - without interest groups it wouldnt even survive - the very thing that defines democracy is that the people are represented, and without interest groups representing their concerns a goverment would simply be out of touch with reality.
We may debate the way in which those concerns are brought forward ( I am also not a big friend of powerfull buisness lobbys and unions) but I do not see a democracy working in touch with reality without interestgroups.

I find that idea curious, too. Capitalism as it is usually conceived can't exist without rule of law and some degree of political stability. I wouldn't build cell towers in a country with no legal infrastructure to ensure that I can collect the charges for my services, for instance. There's a balance: N. Korea is actively hostile to capitalism, I wouldn't want to invest there. Somalia doesn't have the legal structure or stability, too risky. Botswana: just right.

But it can exist without democracy. and to be fair - so can every single political ideology or social and economic system. I simply wanted to mention that because you left oppressive regimes out of that list which had opened to the free market.

Anyway, my previous point was that believing in a magic capitalism which will solve each problem is just like believing in a magic marxism which will solve all problems.

The ernest politician who is concerned with his countries state will not use a ideological dogma in his work, but carefull analyse the situation in order to apply the solution, through calculating, which will provide the best possible outcome to that situation.

If you catch me saying 'that isn't real capitalism', please correct me. I might point out that blame for evil usually belongs to the crafter rather than the tool.

You never did.

I simply wanted to point out that it is a phrase often used by liberterians who cannot argue their way out of a bad situation caused through the policies implemented by them.

I haven't been mentioning one of the most important aspects of capitalism: incentive. It's effective at efficient allocation of resources because it rewards those who do it well. Governments and charities are in a unique position to tap that quality in a variety of ways by offering incentives for coming up with solutions to achieve desired goals one might not ordinarily think of as captialistic, such as hiring a firm to figure out the most effective way to distribute mosquito nets in Mali within a certain budget, with a substantial reward if the method is truly effective. You just have to be careful to know for sure what you're actually incentivizing and have a good way to measure success. That firm will bust its hump trying to figure out how to get mosquito nets to villagers in Mali.

Incentive doesnt nececerely bring wealth or democracy. In the Germany of the 1930s it produced tanks.

Incentive through capitalism will only bring more wealth when it applied in a country which already is a democracy, if not - it will be abused.

[little_monkey]

No system is perfect. But what is distressing for the US is that we have a party that wants to bring the country back to the 19th century, when we know what went wrong then. Instead of moving forward, they are trying to move us backward.

[Mister Agenda]

And in my opinion I see myself proven in my claim that democracy causes wealth when looking at the recent emerging economies in South American and Africa. In contrast to which India, which has been a democracy for 60 years and olny recently opened it`s markets has hardly created widespread wealth but simply a small middle class.

Sorry to snip so much, but I just didn't disagree much with what you're saying, so I skipped to what I found more contraversial. I appreciate your courtesy, by the way.

I would think India would be an example of a democracy that didn't lead to wealth at first because so many Indians opposed open markets. Many African countries had similar resistance due to a similar experience with colonialism. It's understandable, but was one factor in holding them back. I'm glad the wind has shifted in that regard.

What has that got to do with your theory that the first workers rights movements would have destroyed their countries economies?

I said 'shut down the factories'. Their economies would merely have gone on as before, just like in other countries that didn't industrialize. The availability of cheap labor combined with new technology and enough wealth to invest to implement it is what made building those factories so attractive in the first place, investment happens when the gain is perceived to be greater than the risk. Once factories in an agrarian economy are established and become the norm, the perceived risk of investing in something so new goes down, which means the gains can be lower and still attract investment. Of course today, most of the technological development has already occurred and it's easy for investors in more developed countries to invest in projects in less developed countries; so if we're smart, getting someone from subsistence farmer to fairly compensated employee could be much less traumatic than it was for us.

?

The only example in history I am aware of in which the powerfull decided to give political power to the public was the South Korean dictatorship which disolved that way voluntarily in 1989.

Other than that, it almoust happened everywhere through uprisings and with blood being spilled.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding me. That the powerful won't give away power unless they feel they have to was my point. Although I suppose military takeovers of Turkey are also an exception; they have always returned the country to civilian rule once they were satisfied it was abiding by the country's constitutional provisions again.

I regulary read articles on African economics - and most economists from which I read articles agree on one point: Africa will not be a base for sweatshops. Africa is going into a completly different direction by not simply producing the products designed and developed in the West. It is creating it`s own stuff.

Nothing would please me more than Africa being able to avoid the 'cheap labor step'. Its people have certainly paid their dues in other ways.

Anyway, what has that to do with my argument that the free market did not create democracy as predicted in the 80s by conservatives?

Nothing, but in my defense, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to argue with that point. The only type of government necessary for capitalism is one in which people are allowed to own businesses and conduct commerce, so a certain degree of economic freedom is vital; but that doesn't necessarily translate into civil rights.

Africa actualy proves my point that it is democracies which create free markets and not the other way arround.

When they get around to deciding they want them. It isn't automatic. African democracies resisted global trade for many decades, fearful for their autonomy. 'Free' is always relative when it comes to markets, but clearly countries that aren't truly democracies (although they usually have 'democratic' in the full name of the country) have also effectively implemented (or maybe more accurately, 'allowed') market economies.

It wasnt Pinochet`s market reforms that ended his dictatorship - it was he himslef, who through his horrific brutality made him more and more unbareable for his people and became a very bad smalling stain on the list of allies to the west. It is a bit cynical to believe that market reforms ended Pinochets reign. The main reason for it`s end was the collapse of the soviet union which made it obsolete as a western ally. Also, the catholic church finaly started being critical about the South American regimes in the late 1980s and that church still has alot of power there.
The free market didnt add anything significant to the collapse of the regime - Chile was simply a great place to produce cheap stuff in factories because people who protested conditions would disapear with a bullet in the head in some jungle.

Good points. Perhaps it was a coincidence that the end of his regime came after he instituted significant market reforms. 'After' doesn't mean 'because' and all that.

I mentioned above - I forgot about the US - which can be definatly seen as a society in which the free market created wealth and democratic liberties - especialy under Jefferson and Jackson. But the free market did not create the democracy itself.

I think The Enlightenment deserves most of the credit.

As far as I know the railroads were built mainly by chinese imported labor which could be more easily exploited since they were considered to be an "infirior race"

Yes, on land provided by the government, on the backs of extremely poor immigrants. I think it's a sign of the brutality of the exploitation of and hatred toward Chinese that despite millions of them immigrating in the 1800s; they make up a small fraction of our population in comparison to the descendants of people that were literally bought and traded as slaves. Without researching it, my guess is that a major factor was that Chinese men were so disproportionately represented that they couldn't grow their population significantly.

Actualy in the first years of the famine, the English goverment did help by making inferstructure investments like the building of roads. Dont forget that the famine didnt just hit Ireland but all of Europe - and these actions were undertaken in all of Europe - yet in the UK they were stopped because they were considered to be too much intervention by goverment in the free market. The same was not only done in Ireland but in all of the UK - including Scotland were there were also people starving to death.

As I said, I think government intervention in mitigating emergencies is a good thing. I also think if 80% of the Irish population (the Catholics) hadn't been disenfranchised from owning land or having a vote, Ireland would not have become so dependent on potatoes in the first place.

The Indian famine of 1876 was caused through a drought and the implementation of plantations which werent capable of creating enought food but a bigger profit for the companies which ran them. When the famine kicked in the governor of Bengal had to stop importing aid from Burma since it was considered to be a too high expence for the goverment.
The Indian Vice Royal of that time actualy believed that this was a natural process in which through implementing these new more profitable plantations the starving of millions would create a better base for a more profitable and wealthier society - even the most conservative estemates are that 50 million people died as a result.

They were pretty non-interventionist when it came to spending money on keeping poor people they subjugated alive, but very interventionist in imposing the systems they preferred on them.

Of course communism caused the probably worst famines of the 20th century in the Ukrain and communist China, which also proves their incompetence for providing security.

They had the same root: A ruling class dictating how millions of people without true representation should live. Perhaps the supreme virtue of democracy, given how little other rights matter when you're starving, is that suffering people can make their rulers pay without a bloody revolution. That we routinely change our leadership without bloodshed is something feudal societies could scarce believe.

But to get back to the point, the common policies during the 19th century concerning economics in Europe was one of non goverment intervention and it often resulted in disaster - especialy in a society in which the wealthy have absolutly no boundries set to their actions.

Which is why the central theme of societal evolution is arguably method of governance rather than economic system.

A democracie needs interest groups - without interest groups it wouldnt even survive - the very thing that defines democracy is that the people are represented, and without interest groups representing their concerns a goverment would simply be out of touch with reality.

It doesn't need interest groups to have power out of proportion to the interests they serve. A corporation with good lobbyists can cripple a less-connected competitor with discriminatory regulation. A lobby like the NRA can control debate on its single issue. Lobbies owning senators is not a virtue of democracy, it is a disease afflicting it.

We may debate the way in which those concerns are brought forward ( I am also not a big friend of powerfull buisness lobbys and unions) but I do not see a democracy working in touch with reality without interestgroups.

I'm not against interest groups. I'm against them having improper influence, which a system in which election campaigns cost millions of dollars and are financed with donations is prone to.

But it can exist without democracy. and to be fair - so can every single political ideology or social and economic system. I simply wanted to mention that because you left oppressive regimes out of that list which had opened to the free market.

That was an oversight, not a claim that oppressive regimes and capitalism cannot coexist.

Anyway, my previous point was that believing in a magic capitalism which will solve each problem is just like believing in a magic marxism which will solve all problems.

You are correct about that. Capitalism on its own can only solve problems of inefficient resource allocation.

Snip

I simply wanted to point out that it is a phrase often used by liberterians who cannot argue their way out of a bad situation caused through the policies implemented by them.

Fair enough, and although I'm more of a 'pragmatic liberaltarian' than an ideologically pure Libertarian, I'm close enough to understand why you might think I follow the usual dogmas.

Incentive doesnt nececerely bring wealth or democracy. In the Germany of the 1930s it produced tanks.

I don't think it does either. All incentive produces is effort toward a particular goal. That's a valuable thing to know how to harness, whether you're a hero or a villain.

Incentive through capitalism will only bring more wealth when it applied in a country which already is a democracy, if not - it will be abused.

It will be abused, just like any other tool. But China is still getting wealthier.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, on land provided by the government, on the backs of extremely poor immigrants. I think it's a sign of the brutality of the exploitation of and hatred toward Chinese that despite millions of them immigrating in the 1800s; they make up a small fraction of our population in comparison to the descendants of people that were literally bought and traded as slaves. Without researching it, my guess is that a major factor was that Chinese men were so disproportionately represented that they couldn't grow their population significantly.

Isn't it important to note here..that saying "on land provided by the government" attenuates the situation and may not really describe the full brunt of it?

If we continued to say -On land provided by the government - who had a glut of land and nothing to do with it, who hoped to glean the benefits that the railroads offered as infrastucture (but frequently found themselves in the position of not having been as clever as the railroads operators) -and land acquired from private citizens - on the backs of exploitative labor -and with the assistance of the media in forming public opinion - the private ownership of -all- means of production.

I also don't think that capitalism on it's own actually solves problems of inefficient resource allocation...as we should all be fully aware that there's a profit to be made in allocating resources inefficiently...... At best it might offer a heuristic - but without understanding why it works (or doesn't) I could hardly call this a solution.

Private ownership of the means of production with the aim to produce a profit. Isn't this all that capitalism is? What sense does it make then to call it a problem solver? If your problem is that the means of production are not privately owned...and no one is looking to make a profit..and you wish that they were - then capitalism can solve this problem, sure..but going too much farther is a stretch. I suppose this cuts to the question in the OP. Is capitalism working? Are the means of production privately owned, are people looking to make a profit? If so then yes, but the rest of this stuff....something else is required, because "efficient allocation of resources" is not required for capitalism to "work"..nor does it seem to be offering that service by the sheer weight of it's own simple principle.

[Brian37]

]Tell that to the slave labor building the toys you like in China...or the dead in Bangladesh. What capitalism does is oppress in the name of efficiency and the beneficiary is always some rich motherfucker who is greedy enough to want to be richer.

Exactly, which is why I hate when people get focused on the word "capitalism" the issue is monopolies of power and abuse of power, and political parties and religion can also be abusive, but so can business. One can go off the rails and oppress or a combo of those can do it, but it still amounts to a monopoly.

I don't want to end all the private sector, but I certainly don't want to compete with China or Bangladesh just to have a big business. The same abuse was committed here in the states in with West Va coal mines. The owners would buy up all the land including housing, buy the gas stations and food stores and pay the workers in company script. By the time the workers paid their bills they were either broke or in dept, so basically they were slaves.

[fr0d0]

Corporatism is the baby of capitalism. The love of money and all that.