By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Capitalism is broken

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8347409.stm

Apparently in a survey of 29000 people it has been indicated that most people think the current free market capitalism is flawed and more government regulation and reform is needed.

 



Around the Network

Yeah, i read that.

Really what I found shocking was that most people in the Ukraine now think the collapse of the USSR was a bad thing.

I guess because most of the people who didn't want to be part of the USSR were murdered way back when combined with the economic downturn.


I mean really what are we measuring here?  It's not so much what people feel about capitalism but what they feel about it right now. Ask the question 4-5 years earlier and i bet the poll practically flips.

 

I mean why is Germany at the bottom of the list?  Because it wasn't effected nearly as bad as the other nations polled.  Public opinion will swing back to normalcy with the economy.  Assuming the governments don't overregulate to the point of where it doesn't come back.

 

Well depending on the nation.  Places like Mexico and Spain will have high disatisfaction because they're countries are in general broken normally.  No offense to Spain, but it's unemployment numbers were insane before the crisis.



Many of the bad practices at banks which caused the present recession were allowed due to looser regulation.

Banks used to be allowed to leverage capital at around 1:10 (lending out $10 for every $1 in excess capital), now they can often do 1:20 - 1:50. This generates huge "performance" bonuses for the banking executives, so they have every reason to encourage risky lending. In the long term, it generates bubbles which threaten to blow up whole economies, so at that point capitalism is forgotten and replaced by an oligarchy (aka bailout society, where governments sell taxpayers and the country's future to bankers).

A free market without any rules doesn't work, because a free market without rules can quickly become a non-free market. For example, without anti-monopoly laws, monopolies can emerge and squash any emerging competition, which means the free market can quickly be gone forever.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

NJ5 said:
Many of the bad practices at banks which caused the present recession were allowed due to looser regulation.

Banks used to be allowed to leverage capital at around 1:10 (lending out $10 for every $1 in excess capital), now they can often do 1:20 - 1:50. This generates huge "performance" bonuses for the banking executives, so they have every reason to encourage risky lending. In the long term, it generates bubbles which threaten to blow up whole economies, so at that point capitalism is forgotten and replaced by an oligarchy (aka bailout society, where governments sell taxpayers and the country's future to bankers).

A free market without any rules doesn't work, because a free market without rules can quickly become a non-free market. For example, without anti-monopoly laws, monopolies can emerge and squash any emerging competition, which means the free market can quickly be gone forever.

Well obviously so.  Though that's not really what they're talking about here.

I mean, people are seeing "free market" as "how their economy works now."

Or at least that's the way it seems.

 

Additionally, what is it when you have looser regulations, but are being pushed by the government to be risky?  Is that more intervention or less?



Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Many of the bad practices at banks which caused the present recession were allowed due to looser regulation.

Banks used to be allowed to leverage capital at around 1:10 (lending out $10 for every $1 in excess capital), now they can often do 1:20 - 1:50. This generates huge "performance" bonuses for the banking executives, so they have every reason to encourage risky lending. In the long term, it generates bubbles which threaten to blow up whole economies, so at that point capitalism is forgotten and replaced by an oligarchy (aka bailout society, where governments sell taxpayers and the country's future to bankers).

A free market without any rules doesn't work, because a free market without rules can quickly become a non-free market. For example, without anti-monopoly laws, monopolies can emerge and squash any emerging competition, which means the free market can quickly be gone forever.

Well obviously so.  Though that's not really what they're talking about here.

I mean, people are seeing "free market" as "how their economy works now."

Or at least that's the way it seems.

 

Additionally, what is it when you have looser regulations, but are being pushed by the government to be risky?  Is that more intervention or less?

The problem is, regulations are pushed in and out all the time which change the way the financial world works. In the US (where the crisis started), important regulations like the Glass-Steagall act were repealed in 1990:

http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/glass-steagall-act-banks/2008/09/25/

So did we have a free market before then, or is it just the recent history? It gets too hard to discuss something without clearly defining the terms.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Many of the bad practices at banks which caused the present recession were allowed due to looser regulation.

Banks used to be allowed to leverage capital at around 1:10 (lending out $10 for every $1 in excess capital), now they can often do 1:20 - 1:50. This generates huge "performance" bonuses for the banking executives, so they have every reason to encourage risky lending. In the long term, it generates bubbles which threaten to blow up whole economies, so at that point capitalism is forgotten and replaced by an oligarchy (aka bailout society, where governments sell taxpayers and the country's future to bankers).

A free market without any rules doesn't work, because a free market without rules can quickly become a non-free market. For example, without anti-monopoly laws, monopolies can emerge and squash any emerging competition, which means the free market can quickly be gone forever.

Well obviously so.  Though that's not really what they're talking about here.

I mean, people are seeing "free market" as "how their economy works now."

Or at least that's the way it seems.

 

Additionally, what is it when you have looser regulations, but are being pushed by the government to be risky?  Is that more intervention or less?

The problem is, regulations are pushed in and out all the time which change the way the financial world works. In the US (where the crisis started), important regulations like the Glass-Steagall act were repealed in 1990:

http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/glass-steagall-act-banks/2008/09/25/

So did we have a free market before then, or is it just the recent history? It gets too hard to discuss something without clearly defining the terms.

 

Honestly i think...


Free Market = Your current economy

Changes = Vauge unknown changes.

So it's really just a measure of how happy people are now.  Which is not.   Since i'd guess the vast majority of people were doing better 5 years agon.

 

It's like approval ratings.  Reminds me of back when Bush was up for reelection.

Unnamed Democratic Candidate scored really high.

When Named Democractic Candiates appeared... their poll numbrs weren't nearly as high as Unnamed Democratic Candidate.

Mostly because

Unamed Democratic Candidate can be anything.  You can affix everything the current thing isn't that you want changed and it's perfect.

While the named changes often had big flaws as well.

 

It's the same with this poll... and pretty much any poll.


It's why you should never take seriously any poll that has a vague position.



Well that makes sense... and of course it doesn't help when the country leaders talk about "new regulation" to fix the financial markets, when we used to have "old regulations" which did the job very well. It makes people think that the financial world is this enormously complex place which is impossible to control.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

What interests me is the USA's score. Americans are kind of stereotyped as being very pro-capitalism due to their long enmity to the Soviet.



Rath said:
What interests me is the USA's score. Americans are kind of stereotyped as being very pro-capitalism due to their long enmity to the Soviet.

It's not really a stereotype.


Most people want to see more reform and regulations (me included) but the truth is... the USA is a bit more of a "gambler" culture then the rest of the world.


Or at least it seems that way.  We're more likely to let people be as stupid as they want to be...

If someone wants to take out a bunch of loans they know they can't pay back... it's their own fault.

but when it effects everybody.. that's when it's time to say enough is enough.

 

The USA in general is kinda allergic to a "father knows best" type of government.

 

Hence why it's almost the lowest on those they chose to feature... despite the fact the crisis hit here... and hit here almost as hard as anywhere else.



NJ5 said:

Well that makes sense... and of course it doesn't help when the country leaders talk about "new regulation" to fix the financial markets, when we used to have "old regulations" which did the job very well. It makes people think that the financial world is this enormously complex place which is impossible to control.

 

I hope the "New Regulations" just are the old ones. 

"New Regulations" sounds better then "Old Regulations we removed that kinda screwed us over... our bad."

Who knows though