The public is so ignorant when it comes to economics probably because in school it quickly became a boring subject, so they become "useful idiots" for those who champion it even if it sinks the masses because it is a "sink or swim" economic system. I've always thought we need a blend and I also think that's what the founding fathers of the US intended. There are a number of things we need to keep in the "commons" and NOT let be privatized. Here in California voters gave a resounding NO to a proposition that would have made it difficult for cities and counties to operate their own utility system over companies like PG&E. I even know conservatives who were opposed to that proposition.
At the same time it is human nature that some folks just can't work for somebody else so for them some limited capitalism is good so they can run their own businesses. Besides where socialism failed in some countries is where they tried to run the corner grocery or gas station. That's too much micro management. The problem right now is we have too few people in too much control of the economy. It needs to be for the PEOPLE and not the CORPORATIONS! One thing I mentioned lately that may well need to go into the commons is broadband. In France the lines are in the commons and that might be because of their Teletext infrastructure which had its origin in the 1970s. There are basically two choices for broadband in my neighborhood: Comcast or AT&T. The latter does lease their lines to Covad who in turn leases that to other broadband companies but you are constrained with AT&T policies. Hence when I could get a faster broadband a few years back from Earthlink they couldn't offer me the faster upstream which I needed to upload stuff to clients. AT&T wouldn't allow that. So I dropped Earthlink for AT&T and got faster DSL for less money and with the upstream I needed. The courts actually ruled that AT&T could get away with this. And Comcast operates like a snake oil salesman so I don't want to give them anymore money than the excessive rates I pay for their cable TV. jpgillam wrote: > A while back, someone posted a prediction by Maharishi that capitalism was on > its way out. Seeing as we live in a world of continual change, it's not hard > to predict that things will be different in the future than at present. But > how? > > The topic came to mind over breakfast this morning when I read this short > book review in The Economist: > > http://www.economist.com/node/16536988?story_id=16536988 > > New capitalism > Magic by numbers > Looking at the past and predicting the future > Jul 8th 2010 > > > Capitalism 4.0: The Birth of a New Economy in the Aftermath of Crisis. By > Anatole Kaletsky. PublicAffairs; 396 pages; $28.95. Bloomsbury; £15. Buy from > Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk > > BY NOW it is hard for authors to stand out in the growing library of books on > the causes and consequences of the financial crisis. Anatole Kaletsky manages > to do so, thanks largely to the breathtaking ambition of "Capitalism 4.0", > and partly to the unusual optimism that infuses it. > > As the book's subtitle suggests, Mr Kaletsky, an editor at the Times who > worked at The Economist in the 1970s, argues that the financial crisis marks > a transformation in modern capitalism, one from which a new, improved version > will evolve. He regards it as a turning point equivalent to the Napoleonic > wars, which augured the beginning of the classical era of laissez-faire (or > Capitalism 1.0); the Depression (which spawned the government-heavy era of > Capitalism 2.0); and the stagflationary 1970s (from which rose the > free-market Capitalism 3.0). > > Like the changes that have gone before, capitalism's latest transformation > will alter the relationship between markets and governments and between > politics and economics. It is the ability to adapt that secures capitalism's > survival. Version 4.0 will be as different from the recent free-market > fundamentalism as Reaganomics was from the New Deal. > > In a potted history that is admirably broad in its reach but annoyingly corny > in its nomenclature, Mr Kaletsky describes capitalism's evolution over the > past 200 years, particularly the changing role of government. The managed > economies of Capitalism 2.0 were based on a fundamental faith in governments' > ability to solve economic problems. Version 3.0, after the 1970s, > romanticised markets and distrusted government. Within each of these broad > categories, Mr Kaletsky describes the mini-shifts, Capitalism 2.1, 2.2, etc. > > This history, together with the software analogy, is relatively > uncontroversial. This changes when Mr Kaletsky analyses the financial crisis. > The recent bust was not, he argues, only or even mainly the inevitable > consequence of bankers' greed or credit excesses. Much of the build-up in > debt that is now widely disparaged as a cause of the crisis was > "fundamentally justified and irreversible" thanks to broad structural shifts > in the world economy, such as globalisation and the dampening of inflation. > Only in the last year or two before the crisis did the boom spin out of > control, and even then by not nearly enough to fell the global economy by > itself. > > The reason a run-of-the-mill financial bust became a catastrophe, Mr Kaletsky > claims, was due largely to the stunning failures of one man: Henry Paulson, > George Bush's treasury secretary. In a passionate ad hominem attack, called > "The Economic Consequences of Mr Paulson" (after Keynes's 1925 pamphlet "The > Economic Consequences of Mr Churchill", a devastating critique of Sir > Winston's defence of the gold standard), Mr Kaletsky excoriates Mr Paulson, > particularly his decision to allow the investment bank Lehman Brothers to > fail. The hyperbole is spectacular. Mr Paulson, the book claims, came "closer > to destroying capitalism than Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong combined." > > Destruction was averted. The last section of the book describes what > Capitalism 4.0 might look like. Oddly, given his contempt for policymakers' > decisions during the crash, Mr Kaletsky is full of optimism about what they > can now achieve. Provided that governments are willing to use the tools at > their disposal—such as zero interest rates and fiscal stimulus—he expects a > rapid and robust recovery. > > Skating breezily across swathes of economic policy, his theme is that new > capitalism will be defined by experimentation. Governments will become far > more involved in some areas of the economy, such as macroeconomic management > and financial regulation. But they will retreat from others, such as > education and health. > > Pedants will find plenty to quibble about in Mr Kaletsky's analysis of the > past, let alone his predictions. His tirade against Mr Paulson is unseemly as > well as unconvincing. But his book is full of clever insights. For sheer > intellectual chutzpah and creativity, it is well worth reading. > > > http://www.economist.com/node/16536988?story_id=16536988 > > > > > ------------------------------------ To subscribe, send a message to: [email protected] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
