How Wall Street is killing capitalism

For an explanation, let's look at the original theory and underlying goals of capitalism.

At its core, the theory is that those who control capital use it to build wealth (not capital). Adam Smith expanded on the idea by saying that the presence of many buyers and many sellers competing with one another in the marketplace would weed out wasteful resource allocations "as if by an invisible hand." The corollary to this statement is that, without any growth in wealth, the only way for one entity to increase its earnings is at the expense of someone else.

So how, in theory, is overall wealth supposed to grow in a capitalist economy? Adam Smith hinted at this when he mentioned the presence of many buyers and sellers. Additional buyers don't simply appear out of thin air: they depend on (or they are) consumers with increasing amounts of disposable income. In order to sustain a system like this, in addition to growing steadily on its own, a profit-making enterprise must contribute to:

• Its founders
• Its investors
• Its employees
• Its customers
• Its community

And historically, many huge companies did just that. Some companies still do it even today, although they generally aren't publicly traded.

So what happened? Investor obsession, that's what. Today, the only thing that's of any consequence to most public companies is their quarterly reports. That's all. To prop up the numbers, companies have "saved" money not just by cutting back, but by paying employees as little as they can get away with, cheating their customers, and polluting their communities. Anything for another buck.

Not only is this new "way" of doing business disgusting morally, but it's not even a smart strategy for growth. Underpaying your employees takes disposable income out of the system, resulting in fewer available buyers, either directly or down the supply chain. Cheating your customers destroys trust, which is much more damaging to your bottom line than any effects of supply and demand. And polluting your own backyard makes it impossible to stay in an area where it's profitable to operate.

Finally, of course, investors who tolerate this kind of behavior are only hurting their own portfolios. The most successful will invest sensibly, and not treat the market like a casino.

The consumers are also enablers in many cases. We by Apple products knowing that they have gamed the system in every way possible, in multiple countries, to not pay any taxes. Amazon, does the same and treats it's US employees like crap. But we buy it up. All we have is our one vote and where we spend our dollars. While they happily use the infrastructure they don't pay for and take our dollars and use part of it to make our vote irrelevant.

trblmkr said:

The consumers are also enablers in many cases. We by Apple products knowing that they have gamed the system in every way possible, in multiple countries, to not pay any taxes. Amazon, does the same and treats it's US employees like crap. But we buy it up. All we have is our one vote and where we spend our dollars. While they happily use the infrastructure they don't pay for and take our dollars and use part of it to make our vote irrelevant.

Click to expand...

If my memory is correct, fewer people have been lining up to buy Apple's latest and greatest releases.

At any rate, taxation isn't the heart of the problem. Underpaying employees is.

DifferentDrummr said:

For an explanation, let's look at the original theory and underlying goals of capitalism.

At its core, the theory is that those who control capital use it to build wealth (not capital). Adam Smith expanded on the idea by saying that the presence of many buyers and many sellers competing with one another in the marketplace would weed out wasteful resource allocations "as if by an invisible hand." The corollary to this statement is that, without any growth in wealth, the only way for one entity to increase its earnings is at the expense of someone else.

So how, in theory, is overall wealth supposed to grow in a capitalist economy? Adam Smith hinted at this when he mentioned the presence of many buyers and sellers. Additional buyers don't simply appear out of thin air: they depend on (or they are) consumers with increasing amounts of disposable income. In order to sustain a system like this, in addition to growing steadily on its own, a profit-making enterprise must contribute to:

• Its founders
• Its investors
• Its employees
• Its customers
• Its community

And historically, many huge companies did just that. Some companies still do it even today, although they generally aren't publicly traded.

So what happened? Investor obsession, that's what. Today, the only thing that's of any consequence to most public companies is their quarterly reports. That's all. To prop up the numbers, companies have "saved" money not just by cutting back, but by paying employees as little as they can get away with, cheating their customers, and polluting their communities. Anything for another buck.

Not only is this new "way" of doing business disgusting morally, but it's not even a smart strategy for growth. Underpaying your employees takes disposable income out of the system, resulting in fewer available buyers, either directly or down the supply chain. Cheating your customers destroys trust, which is much more damaging to your bottom line than any effects of supply and demand. And polluting your own backyard makes it impossible to stay in an area where it's profitable to operate.

Finally, of course, investors who tolerate this kind of behavior are only hurting their own portfolios. The most successful will invest sensibly, and not treat the market like a casino.

Click to expand...

Supply side economics is a flawed economic policy. During eras of supply side economics, productivity has continued to rise but, wages have failed to keep up.



If what they said about supply side was true, then the wealth would've "trickled down" to us. What actually happened was we created an economic policy that allowed very wealthy people to continue to grow far richer, while ordinary Americans were left to fight for the scraps. They're not done looting democracy yet. They're going to cut taxes again and then point to the budget crisis manufactured by the tax cuts, as an excuse to cut spending. That's conservative ideology 101.

DifferentDrummr said:

Today, the only thing that's of any consequence to most public companies is their quarterly reports. That's all. .

Click to expand...

OMG!!of course thats a 100% goofy embarrassing liberal lie! If a company does not plan years ahead, invest for growth years ahead and sacrifice quarterly profits it goes bankrupt. Drugs can take decades to develop. Movies can takes years. Usually almost all cars are manufactured by having previously designed chasis and power train, only body will change. It may take around 2 to 3 years to complete. If everything is new, then it may take 3 to 5 years, It varies company to company. The 787 jet though, the '7E7' program was officially announced on January 29, 2003. The program was later renamed to 787. It received its type certificate on August 26, 2011 and flew its first passenger revenue flight on October 26, 2011. THe Iphone takes a year
Do you need more example??

James972 said:

OMG!!of course thats a 100% goofy embarrassing liberal lie! If a company does not plan years ahead, invest for growth years ahead and sacrifice quarterly profits it goes bankrupt. Drugs can take decades to develop. Movies can takes years. Usually almost all cars are manufactured by having previously designed chasis and power train, only body will change. It may take around 2 to 3 years to complete. If everything is new, then it may take 3 to 5 years, It varies company to company. The 787 jet though, the '7E7' program was officially announced on January 29, 2003. The program was later renamed to 787. It received its type certificate on August 26, 2011 and flew its first passenger revenue flight on October 26, 2011. THe Iphone takes a year
Do you need more example??

Click to expand...

Your total lack of reading comprehension shines through again. First, the post you responded to says "most" companies. Not "all."

Second, even companies that take years to design new products still can't afford too many bad quarters. Some can't even afford one.

DifferentDrummr said:

For an explanation, let's look at the original theory and underlying goals of capitalism.

At its core, the theory is that those who control capital use it to build wealth (not capital). Adam Smith expanded on the idea by saying that the presence of many buyers and many sellers competing with one another in the marketplace would weed out wasteful resource allocations "as if by an invisible hand." The corollary to this statement is that, without any growth in wealth, the only way for one entity to increase its earnings is at the expense of someone else.

So how, in theory, is overall wealth supposed to grow in a capitalist economy? Adam Smith hinted at this when he mentioned the presence of many buyers and sellers. Additional buyers don't simply appear out of thin air: they depend on (or they are) consumers with increasing amounts of disposable income. In order to sustain a system like this, in addition to growing steadily on its own, a profit-making enterprise must contribute to:


So what happened?

Click to expand...

Not sure if you want your thread to go in this direction considering the rather large assumption you made. But have you stopped to consider that what happened was that adam smith got it wrong.

I think it appropriate to first define a word or two here before someone embarrasses themselves by using an english dictionary.

Wealth i would contend can only be created by a worker. A capitalist can also be a worker and create wealth but it is not a necessity. A capitalist by necessity is someone who has the right of ownership of that wealth that is created by the worker.

The importance of the distinction between capitalist and worker and even more important the actual ownership of wealth between the two if it exists is, if you have not guessed by now, made as a premise of the alternative view point that might be more correct than adams.

Another word is capital which i will define so as to distinguish it from wealth. Capital is the already completed wealth that the capitalist has a right to. In this smith agrees. Adam smith defines capital as "That part of a man's stock which he expects to afford him revenue".

So there is a reason to make a distinguishment between worker and capitalist because one creates the wealth that turns into capital for the capitalist.

So how, in theory, is overall wealth supposed to grow in a capitalist economy? Adam Smith hinted at this when he mentioned the presence of many buyers and sellers

Click to expand...

.

Actually it is capital that grows in a capitalist society hence capitalism and not wealthism. Unless you mean to say how does the capitalist expand their business by having workers create more wealth.

Smith's problem is he really did not take into consideration that there was in fact a third partner to the transaction. The very one you admit to in bold.

So what happened? Investor obsession, that's what.

Click to expand...

Today, the only thing that's of any consequence to most public companies is their quarterly reports.

Click to expand...

I would agree

That's all.

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree.

To prop up the numbers, companies have "saved" money not just by cutting back, but by paying employees as little as they can get away with, cheating their customers, and polluting their communities. Anything for another buck.

Not only is this new "way" of doing business disgusting morally, but it's not even a smart strategy for growth. Underpaying your employees takes disposable income out of the system, resulting in fewer available buyers, either directly or down the supply chain. Cheating your customers destroys trust, which is much more damaging to your bottom line than any effects of supply and demand. And polluting your own backyard makes it impossible to stay in an area where it's profitable to operate.

The most successful will invest sensibly, and not treat the market like a casino.

Click to expand...

And disagree and agree.

The market actually is a casino. It's only purpose to exist is to manipulate the capital that the capitalist created into the dollar. The motive for a investor is that the dollar itself becomes capital which can then be reinvested to create more dollars which can be turned into capital which creates more dollars, and that is capitalism. one big and getting bigger, merry go round.

Finally, of course, investors who tolerate this kind of behavior are only hurting their own portfolios.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately because of what is known about the ownership of wealth around the world where a small percentage own very much more than the rest of that percentage you might have a hard time justifying that remark.

soylentgreen said:

Not sure if you want your thread to go in this direction considering the rather large assumption you made. But have you stopped to consider that what happened was that adam smith got it wrong.

I think it appropriate to first define a word or two here before someone embarrasses themselves by using an english dictionary.

Wealth i would contend can only be created by a worker. A capitalist can also be a worker and create wealth but it is not a necessity. A capitalist by necessity is someone who has the right of ownership of that wealth that is created by the worker.

The importance of the distinction between capitalist and worker and even more important the actual ownership of wealth between the two if it exists is, if you have not guessed by now, made as a premise of the alternative view point that might be more correct than adams.

Another word is capital which i will define so as to distinguish it from wealth. Capital is the already completed wealth that the capitalist has a right to. In this smith agrees. Adam smith defines capital as "That part of a man's stock which he expects to afford him revenue".

So there is a reason to make a distinguishment between worker and capitalist because one creates the wealth that turns into capital for the capitalist.

Click to expand...

Agree and disagree. Workers (who aren't slaves) don't generate wealth for a capitalist without some kind of compensation, whether that be capital and/or shares of ownership in the business. And they can rightly demand to be paid the market rate for their time, effort, and skills. The biggest problem we've seen in modern capitalism - and still see today - is that many capitalists exploit their workers, which ultimately contributes to everyone's detriment.

.

Actually it is capital that grows in a capitalist society hence capitalism and not wealthism. Unless you mean to say how does the capitalist expand their business by having workers create more wealth.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I mean. Without creation of more wealth, and economy will absolutely stagnate.

Smith's problem is he really did not take into consideration that there was in fact a third partner to the transaction. The very one you admit to in bold.

Click to expand...

True, but to be fair, private investment was far less common (and not standardized) in Smith's day.

I strongly disagree.

Click to expand...

Care to explain why?

And disagree and agree.

The market actually is a casino. It's only purpose to exist is to manipulate the capital that the capitalist created into the dollar.

Click to expand...

Strongly disagree on that one: equity in the market is dictated overwhelmingly by supply and demand, not random chance as casinos are. Also, markets centralize trade and keep it transparent, reducing the amount of manipulation that's possible. (Not that it's impossible to game the system, but that's what governments are supposed to prevent.)

The motive for a investor is that the dollar itself becomes capital which can then be reinvested to create more dollars which can be turned into capital which creates more dollars, and that is capitalism. one big and getting bigger, merry go round.

Click to expand...

True if you're trading currency. Otherwise, there has to be wealth creation behind the scenes.

Unfortunately because of what is known about the ownership of wealth around the world where a small percentage own very much more than the rest of that percentage you might have a hard time justifying that remark.

Click to expand...

Even in the case of the wealthiest billionaires, they still hurt their portfolios; it's just a question of degree. The amount of the loss doesn't hurt their lifestyle, that's all.

DifferentDrummr said:

So how, in theory, is overall wealth supposed to grow in a capitalist economy?.

Click to expand...

Henry Ford invents the mass produced auto. His wealth grows by a few $billion. Consumers buy his auto's and have hundreds of $billions in car
wealth. 1+1=2

DifferentDrummr said:

.
Today, the only thing that's of any consequence to most public companies is their quarterly reports. That's all.

Click to expand...

OMG!!of course thats a 100% goofy embarrassing liberal lie! If a company does not plan years ahead, invest for growth years ahead and sacrifice quarterly profits it goes bankrupt. Drugs can take decades to develop. Movies can takes years. Usually almost all cars are manufactured by having previously designed chasis and power train, only body will change. It may take around 2 to 3 years to complete. If everything is new, then it may take 3 to 5 years, It varies company to company. The 787 jet though, the '7E7' program was officially announced on January 29, 2003. The program was later renamed to 787. It received its type certificate on August 26, 2011 and flew its first passenger revenue flight on October 26, 2011. THe Iphone takes a year
Do you need more example??

James972 said:

Henry Ford invents the mass produced auto. His wealth grows by a few $billion. Consumers buy his auto's and have hundreds of $billions in car
wealth. 1+1=2

Click to expand...

Key word: "invents." That's innovation, pal.

Like I already said, if there's no innovation, an economy stagnates.

DifferentDrummr said:

Key word: "invents." That's innovation, pal.

Like I already said, if there's no innovation, an economy stagnates.

Click to expand...

all agree!!! the supply or invention of new products causes an economy to grow. This is what we call supply-side economics. Do you understand???

James972 said:

all agree!!! the supply or invention of new products causes an economy to grow. This is what we call supply-side economics. Do you understand???

Click to expand...

Bzzt! Wrong. That is only what you call "supply-side economics." No actual economist would agree.

Right, and with their buying of government, we have descended into full blown corporatism. My uncle who's in finance was going off about how karl marx would be rolling in his grave at the thought of chinese billionaires. Well, i responded, smith would be rolling in his grave at the thought of bailout for banks!

chromium said:

Right, and with their buying of government, we have descended into full blown corporatism. My uncle who's in finance was going off about how karl marx would be rolling in his grave at the thought of chinese billionaires. Well, i responded, smith would be rolling in his grave at the thought of bailout for banks!

Click to expand...

Why would Karl Marx be rolling in his grave?

China has been on top in world history for most of its time.

China is going threw a period of resurgence, nothing about China's dominance should be a surprise. They just need to innovate sufficiently before labour is completely out competed by capital.

And "capitalists", either directly or indirectly funnel a portion if their funds into innovation, the same can not be said of the worker's share.generally

DifferentDrummr said:

Bzzt! Wrong. That is only what you call "supply-side economics." No actual economist would agree.

Click to expand...

the classic book on subject is by George Gilder "Wealth and Poverty"and that is exactly what he said. If I'm wrong I'll pay you $10,000. Bet????


George Gilder quote: It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A...

Winston said:

Supply side economics is a flawed economic policy. During eras of supply side economics, productivity has continued to rise but, wages have failed to keep up.

View attachment 67213734

If what they said about supply side was true, then the wealth would've "trickled down" to us. What actually happened was we created an economic policy that allowed very wealthy people to continue to grow far richer, while ordinary Americans were left to fight for the scraps. They're not done looting democracy yet. They're going to cut taxes again and then point to the budget crisis manufactured by the tax cuts, as an excuse to cut spending. That's conservative ideology 101.

Click to expand...

Looking at the chart it seems the disconnect between wages and productivity right after the US left the gold standard.

I am not suggesting causation at this point but it certainly is an interesting correlation.

Winston said:

If what they said about supply side was true, then the wealth would've "trickled down" to us.

Click to expand...

and it did of course. The supply of new inventions (often funded by tax cuts) is what got us from the Stone Age to here. Without the supply of new inventions we'd still be back in the Stone Age. Do you understand?

DifferentDrummr said:

For an explanation, let's look at the original theory and underlying goals of capitalism.

At its core, the theory is that those who control capital use it to build wealth (not capital). Adam Smith expanded on the idea by saying that the presence of many buyers and many sellers competing with one another in the marketplace would weed out wasteful resource allocations "as if by an invisible hand." The corollary to this statement is that, without any growth in wealth, the only way for one entity to increase its earnings is at the expense of someone else.

So how, in theory, is overall wealth supposed to grow in a capitalist economy? Adam Smith hinted at this when he mentioned the presence of many buyers and sellers. Additional buyers don't simply appear out of thin air: they depend on (or they are) consumers with increasing amounts of disposable income. In order to sustain a system like this, in addition to growing steadily on its own, a profit-making enterprise must contribute to:

• Its founders
• Its investors
• Its employees
• Its customers
• Its community

And historically, many huge companies did just that. Some companies still do it even today, although they generally aren't publicly traded.

So what happened? Investor obsession, that's what. Today, the only thing that's of any consequence to most public companies is their quarterly reports. That's all. To prop up the numbers, companies have "saved" money not just by cutting back, but by paying employees as little as they can get away with, cheating their customers, and polluting their communities. Anything for another buck.

Not only is this new "way" of doing business disgusting morally, but it's not even a smart strategy for growth. Underpaying your employees takes disposable income out of the system, resulting in fewer available buyers, either directly or down the supply chain. Cheating your customers destroys trust, which is much more damaging to your bottom line than any effects of supply and demand. And polluting your own backyard makes it impossible to stay in an area where it's profitable to operate.

Finally, of course, investors who tolerate this kind of behavior are only hurting their own portfolios. The most successful will invest sensibly, and not treat the market like a casino.

Click to expand...

Wall street is legalized gambling - full stop. Those with the most influence control the table and who plays. Counting cards is supposed to be illegal in any casino - if they see you doin it... But such methods to control the outcome are used by experts every day and they profit from it.

All it is is gambling; nothing more.

DifferentDrummr said:

Agree and disagree. Workers (who aren't slaves) don't generate wealth for a capitalist without some kind of compensation, whether that be capital and/or shares of ownership in the business. And they can rightly demand to be paid the market rate for their time, effort, and skills. The biggest problem we've seen in modern capitalism - and still see today - is that many capitalists exploit their workers, which ultimately contributes to everyone's detriment.

Click to expand...

True.

That's exactly what I mean. Without creation of more wealth, and economy will absolutely stagnate.

Click to expand...

Capitalism has that advantage that it supports means of creating wealth. The problem arises on not only who owns the means of production, but also how is the profit distributed.

True, but to be fair, private investment was far less common (and not standardized) in Smith's day.

Click to expand...

Marx has the same problem which is why discussions about these ancient philosophers should be seen in context of what they experience rather than what we in the 21st century experience.

Care to explain why?

Click to expand...

One word, advertising. Smith, not being a psychologist did not factor the very persuasive influence of advertising. Smoking is a good example. It will kill you but according to the adverts you will look cool and get the chicks while you are killing yourself.

Strongly disagree on that one: equity in the market is dictated overwhelmingly by supply and demand, not random chance as casinos are. Also, markets centralize trade and keep it transparent, reducing the amount of manipulation that's possible. (Not that it's impossible to game the system, but that's what governments are supposed to prevent.)

Click to expand...

My mistake i did not emphasise the word " investor " enough. It is not a direct line between consumer and producer. What stands between them is the third party, the supplier.
As well money is now capital in itself creating a market which can and is manipulated also having an effect on the supply and demand market. Smiths claim of natural forces influencing is wrong. The market is being manipulated by humans.
In this world today there is absolutely no need for any to starve. When we hear of a famine killing men, women and children it is not because there is not enough food to feed them. It is because there is no profit to be made from feeding them.

True if you're trading currency. Otherwise, there has to be wealth creation behind the scenes.

Click to expand...

Trading currency is the problem. It was not meant as a traded item but only a representation of trade.

Even in the case of the wealthiest billionaires, they still hurt their portfolios; it's just a question of degree. The amount of the loss doesn't hurt their lifestyle, that's all.

Click to expand...

At a certain point money breeds money and nothing else.

The problem with capitalism is that it is an unstable proposition under a Laissez-faire market continually moving through a boom/bust cycle.

soylentgreen said:

True.
Capitalism has that advantage that it supports means of creating wealth. The problem arises on not only who owns the means of production, but also how is the profit distributed.


Marx has the same problem which is why discussions about these ancient philosophers should be seen in context of what they experience rather than what we in the 21st century experience.


One word, advertising. Smith, not being a psychologist did not factor the very persuasive influence of advertising. Smoking is a good example. It will kill you but according to the adverts you will look cool and get the chicks while you are killing yourself.



My mistake i did not emphasise the word " investor " enough. It is not a direct line between consumer and producer. What stands between them is the third party, the supplier.
As well money is now capital in itself creating a market which can and is manipulated also having an effect on the supply and demand market. Smiths claim of natural forces influencing is wrong. The market is being manipulated by humans.
In this world today there is absolutely no need for any to starve. When we hear of a famine killing men, women and children it is not because there is not enough food to feed them. It is because there is no profit to be made from feeding them.


Trading currency is the problem. It was not meant as a traded item but only a representation of trade.


At a certain point money breeds money and nothing else.

The problem with capitalism is that it is an unstable proposition under a Laissez-faire market continually moving through a boom/bust cycle.

Click to expand...

I agree with most everything except, trading currency is good. There are cartels, like the petrodollar but even that is seeming to slow down if not end. It leads to speculative disaster, see 1997 IMF Asian crisis. Capital controls, loose and fluid (in terms of reactions to capital flow events) are suggestible but wholesale interventions to be avoided, iorc Malaysia suspended capital flows and ended up taking longer to recover due to foreign investor fear.

The crisis started in the subsidized Thai external trade currency bank (forgot name).

Still, it measures the strength of foreign economies in comparison to each other. Foreign currency is needed for imports, a stronger currency makes imports cheaper for manufacturers and distributors.

As of now, and it can change, people don't realize that there's a lot of value added on shelfs and in American tractors. Not to mention American financing and Advertisement.

True Socialism should master Capitalism like an excited donkey, keeping it in line as it tries to kick, eat and defecate on everything in its path. Keep it working for the farm.

Lord Tammerlain said:

Looking at the chart it seems the disconnect between wages and productivity right after the US left the gold standard.

I am not suggesting causation at this point but it certainly is an interesting correlation.

Click to expand...

It's also timed by the oil crisis, an increase in female economic participants yet Not! Large Mexican immigration flows. It's timed by the falling of Unions. ITS EVEN TIMED WITH A HUGE SPIKE IN CONSUMER DEBT (spending).

Listen, the rich just got better at becoming richer than the Rest of us around 1973.

I say kudos, once I get a few Section 8 properties I'll move out of the country.

James972 said:

the classic book on subject is by George Gilder "Wealth and Poverty"and that is exactly what he said. If I'm wrong I'll pay you $10,000. Bet????


George Gilder quote: It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A...

Click to expand...

And nothing that George Gilder says in that book has anything to do with your ridiculous babbling.

soylentgreen said:

True.
Capitalism has that advantage that it supports means of creating wealth. The problem arises on not only who owns the means of production, but also how is the profit distributed.

Click to expand...

Which is also one of the many reasons that communism has always failed.

One word, advertising. Smith, not being a psychologist did not factor the very persuasive influence of advertising. Smoking is a good example. It will kill you but according to the adverts you will look cool and get the chicks while you are killing yourself.

Click to expand...

The tobacco industry is probably not such a great example, but in general I agree. Advertising can manipulate people into making poor buying decision.

My mistake i did not emphasise the word " investor " enough. It is not a direct line between consumer and producer. What stands between them is the third party, the supplier.

Click to expand...

Certainly not always. I'll grant that there are many situations where, logistically, it's more practical to use middlemen, but they aren't always necessary.

As well money is now capital in itself creating a market which can and is manipulated also having an effect on the supply and demand market. Smiths claim of natural forces influencing is wrong. The market is being manipulated by humans.

Click to expand...

IMO, people give Smith's claim a much broader scope than he really intended it to have. What he was saying about natural forces is that free and fair competition is what powers the 'invisible hand.'

In this world today there is absolutely no need for any to starve. When we hear of a famine killing men, women and children it is not because there is not enough food to feed them. It is because there is no profit to be made from feeding them.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that most parts of the world where there's famine are also torn up by warfare. Using military force to stabilize those areas would cost quite a bit.

At a certain point money breeds money and nothing else.

Click to expand...

You still have to own some means of innovation, or your money will erode.

The problem with capitalism is that it is an unstable proposition under a Laissez-faire market continually moving through a boom/bust cycle.

Click to expand...

Capitalism could not even survive in a genuine laissez-faire market. That goes back to my point about the need for regulation.

Chinandenga said:

I agree with most everything except, trading currency is good. There are cartels, like the petrodollar but even that is seeming to slow down if not end. It leads to speculative disaster, see 1997 IMF Asian crisis. Capital controls, loose and fluid (in terms of reactions to capital flow events) are suggestible but wholesale interventions to be avoided, iorc Malaysia suspended capital flows and ended up taking longer to recover due to foreign investor fear.

The crisis started in the subsidized Thai external trade currency bank (forgot name).

Still, it measures the strength of foreign economies in comparison to each other. Foreign currency is needed for imports, a stronger currency makes imports cheaper for manufacturers and distributors.

As of now, and it can change, people don't realize that there's a lot of value added on shelfs and in American tractors. Not to mention American financing and Advertisement.

True Socialism should master Capitalism like an excited donkey, keeping it in line as it tries to kick, eat and defecate on everything in its path. Keep it working for the farm.

Click to expand...

I agree. For new zealand it is a statistical joke that our money rises and falls on the exchange based on the whims of japanes housewives who appear to be one of the bigger investors in nz money.

Correct me if i am wrong but i believe adam smith's capitalist ideas ran with small business only and he was against large corporations style business.
And in this he is correct. When wall mart moves into a town small business dies and capitalism along with it.
Socialism is needed to curb the excesses of big business while encouraging small business to flourish. Then capitalism will also flourish.