It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Free market flawed, says survey

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Free market flawed, says survey


news.bbc.co.uk

Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a new BBC poll has found widespread dissatisfaction with free-market capitalism.

In the global poll for the BBC World Service, only 11% of those questioned across 27 countries said that it was working well.

Most thought regulation and reform of the capitalist system were necessary.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Twenty years on, this new global poll suggests confidence in free markets has taken heavy blows from the past 12 months of financial and economic crisis.

More than 29,000 people in 27 countries were questioned. In only two countries, the United States and Pakistan, did more than one in five people feel that capitalism works well as it stands.

Almost a quarter - 23% of those who responded - feel it is fatally flawed. That is the view of 43% in France, 38% in Mexico and 35% in Brazil.

And there is very strong support around the world for governments to distribute wealth more evenly. That is backed by majorities in 22 of the 27 countries.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The BBC article mentions the world's mixed feelings on the fall of the Berlin wall:



What the article forgets to mention is that those who follow the ideals of socialism and communism were not supporters of the USSR, and today do not view it as the culmination their beliefs. They view the USSR as a degenerated worker's state, oppressing the proletariat through a form of authoritarian state capitalism.

The article also spins the ideas the disenfranchised view of capitalism into support for heavy government regulations - state socialism. Nothing could be further from the aims of the original tenets of socialism, which calls for a stateless world. Eliminate capitalism and the state, because both work hand in hand to oppress and exploit the worker. Socialism advocates the worker's - every worker - ownership of the means of production and industry. State control of ownership is detrimental to these ends, unless the ultimate aim is eventual removal of the state. But the capitalists who maintain control over our government wouldn't allow this to happen, would they?

I trust the BBC more than any other news agency. But at the end of the day, they are government controlled, and thus, at the bidding of their corporate masters. This really shows through here.

Love him or hate him, this is a fascinating quote from Woodrow Wilson that pierces the heart of the issue:


Suppose you go to Washington and try to get at your government. You will always find that while you are politely listened to, the men really consulted are the men who have the big stake--the big bankers, the big manufacturers and the big masters of commerce…. The masters of the government of the United States are the combined capitalists and manufacturers of the United States.


news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 9-11-2009 by Someone336]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Interesting article, but I can't honestly say I'm too surprised.

When you have a system like capitalism that's so obviously structured like a pyramid, the much larger base is going to be disenfranchised from the tiny peak of the pyramid, and the more distance you put between them, the more difference of opinion you'll have.

We'll never have a perfect system of government that makes everybody happy, and no current political thought is good in its purest form. In my opinion, the best form of economics/political ideology is one that blends democracy, capitalism, and socialism.

Give people the power to affect the government, give them the ability to succeed on their own merit, and ensure that all are cared for and the country's wealth isn't held in the hands of a powerful elite minority.

The only realistic way of doing all that is to blend ideologies, and unfortunately, people love their ideologies like they love their right arm. Good luck getting them to part with it!



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I agree with you - a middle ground needs to be found. But as you said, we all cling our ideals, mainly because we are what we believe in. Nobody can take away what we believe, so in the end believing in something is the ultimate expression of freedom in a world where our rights are shrinking.

I believe in the need for a state, but not one as far reaching and controlling as the one the American form has evolved into. I understand the need for the concept of 'country', but hope that we will eventually move forward to where there are no countries. But hey, I might be wrong.

What strikes me about the article is that it concerns the world's attitude towards the collapse of the Soviet Union, while the article is titled "Free market flawed, says survey". Why?

This is simple manipulation - we are instantly drawn to connect the Soviet Union to free market alternatives. It is part of the anti-socialist media campaign that has raged since the 1950s. Reform capitalism, and Stalin will march in and send you to the gulag!



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Irrespective of politics, the capitalist, free market economy has by its own standards, - (i.e. survival of the fittest) - failed, is being supported artificially.

It is therefore proven that a capitalist democracy doesnt work, so why not try a social democratic model. Is the word 'social' just too scary?



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I find it evident that there has never been a 'free' market.

Since it's inception and promotion, the market has been influenced by a politically and socially engendered profiteering class of elite.

Hence any evaluation of the market as 'free' is as flawed as considering the former USSR as a true Communist state.

Both suffer under the same yoke of self-entitled elitist leaders.

Both failed under those circumstances.

I find it supremely naive that we would consider those same leaders as capable of something 'new' and 'better'.

I find it supremely comical that these entrenched elites intend to continue this control for the rest of time.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by Maxmars]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I've come to the realization that you just cannot keep the majority happy for any extended period of time, under any circumstances. It is human nature to want more. No mix of capitalism, socialism, and democracy will ever solve that...someone is always going to be in a position that is more powerful than others, and the others are going to want to achieve that level of power.

At least with a true free market (believe me, we don't have one here)...you have the opportunity to work your way up. Yes, there will be people at the bottom of that pyramid who will be essentially worthless, but thats unavoidable regardless of the system.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
this is a lie!

Free Market is the ONLY way to go!

I mean when was the last time we blamed the economy on the people?
NEVER

It's usually the govt's fault
Let's take that accountability out of their hands
and into ours

how does that NOT make sense?



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


We blame economy on people all the time... every time you hear about the 'banksters' and Wall Street and corporate greed, we're blaming the economy on people.

With the government at the bidding of the corporate world, through lobbyists, revolving door politics and the picking of government leaders from the cream of the corporate crop, our 'representatives', 'civil servants' and politicians in Washington, the power structure of this country is one arm of the evolved form of capitalism: corporatism. For example, we reshaped the facade of capitalism in the creation of the Federal Reserve: a central bank. Yet this central bank is not under the control of the government, but is a secretive conglomerate of Wall Street banking institutions. A government investigation in the 1970s revealed the full extent of this.

The elimination of the Fed is needed, to help break the reign of the financial power players in our government, followed by the nationalization of our financial system. However, I'm not advocating 'state socialism', for in the past that has led to totalitarian regimes, degenerated worker states and oppressive state capitalism. We need serious reforms in government, the capitalist system and the markets. But asking for complete government control is not the way to go, and we must think of finances not on a national, but an international level.

There is a famous Spanish phrase, one of the slogans of socialism:

"Only the people can save the people!"



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   
A true free market has never existed in America. I think it is clear that Corporatism and Fiscal Fascism are flawed. That is what we have in America. I am not advocating a true free market. That would be anarcho-capitalism. Chaos. Chaos you can profit from. I'd personally take democratic socialism over anarcho-capitalism or a right libertarian state any day.

I agree that absolutist state socialism would be no better, possibly worse than bowing down to de facto corporate masters. A true incarnation of libertarian socialism would be ideal, where the worker has the ultimate power over his own life, but realisticly I think the U.S. and western Europe is steadily drifting closer and closer towards a balanced democratic socialist model that still leaves significant room for free market principles.

Like it or not, the EU represents the best system the world has seen thus far, and it is the destiny of all civlizations, US included, to one day emulate that system



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Yep, ideology is killing society...

There's a time and a place for each type of ideology needed in order to support society. Sometimes it's best to be capitalistic, sometimes it's best if we turn to a socialist model. ATLEAST with the kind of society we've created today.
It would be possible to completely reinvent the way we govern and how finances are distributed, but it is not probable. The reson being that people and societies in general handle swift radical change very poorly.

Ideally (here we go again) I love to see a society, where no one earns more than the next guy, where leadership is past on after set terms, so that noone can control a seat for more than a 4 years or so.
In order to obtain a seat you'd have to have a minimum of either education or work experience. There should be no substantial economic benefits being in government, atleast not at the ridiculos unfair amounts they are receiving now...!

I know that that sounds very socialistic, but I have always wondered why good it does that one person holds on to 100 million pounds on his/her bank account, instead of creating 10 jobs for people who might be in the unfortunate situation of being unemployed. Noone need 100 million in order to survive.... noone.

So yes, capitalism has failed society as much as it could. Few people have become very rich (for no purpose what so ever) and a lot of people have become very poor...



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



Free market capitalism is without a doubt the best choice! A true free market atmosphere consists of a fair and even playing field for all. A free market demands oversight and vigilance of, not only the market economy, but also the courts. It also contains strict guidelines that forbid things like monopolizing, collusion, favorable legislation, subsidies, government loans and deregulation of markets. When these market supports are made available to industry in a free market it can no longer be considered free. What's worse, these supports are only made available to our biggest industries! Justice is bought and regulation is bought off. These are very important to free market, but only available for those able to afford it.

When industries weakest members are buried in bureaucracy and afforded little justice, we have anything but a free market! When industries strongest members are given free reign as well as their guaranteed survival, we have anything but free market. We have no free market as long as regular hard working people have their wages suppressed, property repossessed, credit revoked, markets cornered and no fair court to hear it.

If only there were a free market!



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   


reply to post by Zerbst
 






It also contains strict guidelines that forbid things like monopolizing, collusion,


No it doesn't. Monopolies and Oligopolies would still exist in a free market. In fact, they would thrive in one. There would also be no regulations against pollution, no minimum wage, no work safety and product safety standards, and no regulations against companies raping and exploiting the natural resources of the developing world.

The government provides many public services such as sewage and garbage, the FAA the CDC, highways, the police, the fire departments and the USPS just no name a few. There is no need to turn these services over to private corporations who would most likely increase the cost of these services to increase profit margins.

A true free market does nothing to alleviate the extremes of poverty and instead relies on charity organizations, homeless shelters and churches to supply food and shelter to the millions who need it. This is an unrealistic assumption that these organizations alone can feed, clothe and house the poor purely with donated money.

There would also be no national army. We would rely solely on a corporate military and privite security companies to keep us safe, and can we really trust a company that profits from war to make unbiased decisions about when to go to war? The military industrial complex and big oil already weighs too heavily on those decisions as it is.

There would be no FDA which means so standards for food and drugs and big pharma would not have subsidies so they would underproduce to create artifical scarcity to maximize profits.

There would also be no budget for foreign aid and on top of all the above, corporations would have de facto legislative power (As if they don't have enough influence now.) A true free market would be a step towards the widening of the gap between the rich and poor and is clearly a step in the wrong direction. A cold dark fascist despotic nightmare where social darwinism reigns and the exploitation of the working class gos unregulated and the homless perish in the streets.




Suppose you go to Washington and try to get at your government. You will always find that while you are politely listened to, the men really consulted are the men who have the big stake--the big bankers, the big manufacturers and the big masters of commerce…. The masters of the government of the United States are the combined capitalists and manufacturers of the United States. - Woodrow Wilson



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by The Transhumanist
 


I like Woodrow Wilson: even though his so-called socialist style reforms were smokescreens for capitalism, he also told how it us.


"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."


Democratic socialism is, I feel, the necessary bridge in our transition into ideal socialism (what a Marxist I sound like!). The EU model is the best we have so far, but it is far from perfect. According to Eric Engle of Harvard University, the EU is a neo-corporatist social model, while Gerda Falkner of the European Union Studies Association argues that is a combination of statist nationalism first and corporatism second. Johan Petter Andersen, of the Communist Worker's Party of Norway, argues that the EU is essentially economic fascism. The development of corporatism on the EU level

Baby steps is what we are taking. But I fear that the corporate entities have their own agenda, and 'socialism from below' will be what is necessary.


[edit on 10-11-2009 by Someone336]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Corporatism and fascism will exist as long as corporations exist. Make no mistake about it however, the state of Europe has more power than the corporations do, which puts the majority of power in the hands of representatives at the mercy of the democratic process rather than plutocrats as we have in America. As you said far from perfect, but a step in the right direction.

Maybe one day there will be a labor union driven workers revolution, but until then, the governments themselves will creep towards a world democratic socialist model.




Conspiracy theorists generally speculate that the New World Order is being implemented gradually, citing the formation of the U.S. Federal Reserve System in 1913; the International Monetary Fund in 1944; the United Nations in 1945; the World Bank in 1945; the World Health Organization in 1948; the European Union and the euro currency in 1993; the World Trade Organization in 1998; and the African Union in 2002 as major milestones.[6]
- Wikipedia





... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we [must] bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people."[14] - HG Wells


In order for this to take place,


"It is the system of nationalist individualism that has to go" - H.G. Wells



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Transhumanist



reply to post by Zerbst
 






It also contains strict guidelines that forbid things like monopolizing, collusion,


No it doesn't. Monopolies and Oligopolies would still exist in a free market. In fact, they would thrive in one. There would also be no regulations against pollution, no minimum wage, no work safety and product safety standards, and no regulations against companies raping and exploiting the natural resources of the developing world.

The government provides many public services such as sewage and garbage, the FAA the CDC, highways, the police, the fire departments and the USPS just no name a few. There is no need to turn these services over to private corporations who would most likely increase the cost of these services to increase profit margins.

A true free market does nothing to alleviate the extremes of poverty and instead relies on charity organizations, homeless shelters and churches to supply food and shelter to the millions who need it. This is an unrealistic assumption that these organizations alone can feed, clothe and house the poor purely with donated money.

There would also be no national army. We would rely solely on a corporate military and privite security companies to keep us safe, and can we really trust a company that profits from war to make unbiased decisions about when to go to war? The military industrial complex and big oil already weighs too heavily on those decisions as it is.

There would be no FDA which means so standards for food and drugs and big pharma would not have subsidies so they would underproduce to create artifical scarcity to maximize profits.

There would also be no budget for foreign aid and on top of all the above, corporations would have de facto legislative power (As if they don't have enough influence now.) A true free market would be a step towards the widening of the gap between the rich and poor and is clearly a step in the wrong direction. A cold dark fascist despotic nightmare where social darwinism reigns and the exploitation of the working class gos unregulated and the homless perish in the streets.




Suppose you go to Washington and try to get at your government. You will always find that while you are politely listened to, the men really consulted are the men who have the big stake--the big bankers, the big manufacturers and the big masters of commerce…. The masters of the government of the United States are the combined capitalists and manufacturers of the United States. - Woodrow Wilson



My poor choice of words has led to a misunderstanding. If complete fairness is achieved in a free market system, monopolies and collusion are unlikely. General competition on an even playing field are effective as long as this evenness exists. Unfortunately, an even playing field has never and will never exist making free market capitalism nothing more than a pipe dream.

Only government has the resources to achieve the level of fairness needed for free market capitalism. This is an impossibility due to government being the most corrupted of all. Without regulated fairness, no system has a chance to afford equal opportunity, making the point moot.

[edit on 1/9/2010 by Zerbst]

[edit on 1/9/2010 by Zerbst]



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join