Free market flawed, says survey, page 1

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)

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]

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!"

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!

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

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]

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]

Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 5 days ago with 83 member flags

Google announces privacy settings change across products; users can\'t opt out
  Posted 18 days ago with 78 member flags

BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran\'s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
  Posted 3 days ago with 73 member flags

Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 7 days ago with 72 member flags

Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 18 days ago with 67 member flags

FDA\'s New Claim: "Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It"
  Posted 10 days ago with 53 member flags

Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 6 days ago with 49 member flags

Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering
  Posted 5 days ago with 41 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: