It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
fascinating new book is about to hit the shelves. Called The End of the Free Market it argues that all-powerful governments from around the world will be the new driving force in the global economy, skewing the decision making process away from individuals, companies and the market towards states, political interests and authoritarianism.
Stated in one bald paragraph it sounds a little apocalyptic. But Ian Bremmer, the highly respected author who is president of the Eurasia Group in the United States, makes a compelling case. The financial crisis has left Western capitalism nervous and risk averse, constantly under attack from a body politic keen to take advantage of public anger over the events of 2007 and 2008. Issues like the control of the banking system, remuneration and the failure of so much of the financial sector, whether Northern Rock, Lehman Brothers, AIG or Royal Bank of Scotland, has created a fundamental crisis in confidence.
At the same time, and with little of the same scrutiny, cash-rich governments from the Middle East and Asia are taking advantage of this malaise. Bremmer argues that, with the collapse of communism little more than a generation ago in historical terms, China, Saudi Arabia and Russia are now the leading players in this new era of state capitalism.
Is this end of capitalism as we know it?
"We do live in a global economy. But it is important to be clear about what we mean by that. A global economy is characterized not only by the free movement of goods and services but, more important, by the free movement of ideas and of capital. This applies to direct investments and to financial transactions. Though both have been gaining in importance since the end of the Second World War, the globalization of financial markets in particular has accelerated in recent years to the point where movements in exchange rates, interest rates, and stock prices in various countries are intimately interconnected. In this respect the character of the financial markets has changed out of all recognition during the forty years that I have been involved in them. So the global economy should really be thought of as the global capitalist system."
"Global integration has brought tremendous benefits: the benefits of the international division of labor ... But global capitalism is not without its problems, and we need to understand these better if we want the system to survive. By focusing on the problems I'm not trying to belittle the benefits that globalization has brought ... The benefits of the present global capitalist system, I believe, can be sustained only by deliberate and persistent efforts to correct and contain the system's deficiencies. That is where I am at loggerheads with laissez-faire ideology, which contends that free markets are self-sustaining and market excesses will correct themselves, provided that governments or regulators don't interfere with the self-correcting mechanism."
"Our global society contains many different customs, traditions, and religions; where can it find the shared values that would hold it together?"
Originally posted by Someone336
This eye-opening quote from a paper written by none other than George Soros. I agree with it wholeheartedly.
Originally posted by Someone336
reply to post by silent thunder
We are going to have to walk a fine line between capitalism and socialism, realism and idealism, self-interest and humanitarianism....Ideology has been our downfall; we refuse to part with ideology even though it is necessary to begin to blend them if we want to progress...
... A balance must be struck.
state directed economies, such as China, are faring reasonable well
Only because some idiots/traitors in the west in their quest for the all hallowed quest for the "Global Economy" decided to give them markets in the west and lift tariffs.
It all comes down to competition , the thing that fascists and socialists hate the most , true capitalism and free market , not the fascism/socialism we have today masquerading as capitalism. As a fascist once said "competition is sin-john d rockefeller" only because he was not willing to share any market and was a staunch monopolist and was willing to do anything sinful to wipe out competition.
If people don't recognise that globalization is not capitalist nor free-market in nature , but in fact fascist or socialist in nature , destroying competition and leaving fewer and fewer businesses , who then become state monopolies (remember them bailouts) , all under one global government. Workers' wages shrink but management's rises as the cost of living rises , desperate , workers accept lower standards. Who don't accept the lower wages or bad conditions , get muscled out by imported immigrant labour from countries where life is miserable in comparison. Most coming from the BRIC member countries to america , irony.
Your "state capitalism" or national capitalism NAT-C has been done in natzi germany and the present natzi america , government and business in a love affair and where has that got us , world depression part 2. One led to a world war and this current one seems to be taking us down that route. For while the economies that refused to mix but remain independant of this foolishness that america made are holding steady and growing.
Why would we not trade with them? Since the beginning of time, mankind has traded with his neighbors.
In fact, globalization has been going on since the 1600s, with the establishment of the British East India Company. I would also like to point out that by accusing the economic powers that be, you are inadvertently agreeing that capitalism should subscribe to national interests. Is this not to opposite of 'free-markets'?
Again, I must disagree with you. People need to remember that economics are in constant flux, and one could regard the elite that are spawned by capitalism as the people who engineered the government creation of the corporation, thus making the corporation the natural progression of capitalism. After all, when you have a system based solely on greed, you will inevitably have individuals who seek more power. We have corporations, and they are going nowhere; the economy has become much too dependent upon them. We also cannot count out the good that they have done, but how do these measure up to the sins that they constantly commit? The solution is the, clearly, to allow them to exist while limiting their power and preventing them from growing to 'too big to fail' sizes. To do this will require stronger anti-trust laws, stricter regulations, and the ability to liquidate oversized firms that are in immediate danger of collapsing. This would effectively even the playing field, spread wealth around, and provide parameters for actual market competition to go forth, allowing for a stable economy and the lowering of prices. In short, government oversight is required for an economy to function properly.
Ever heard of Trade Wars , which is currently what china and America is engaged in. Add that to the fact that since opening trade with them they have become quite confrontational and untrustworthy techno-pirates. They're still red.
In fact I think it's the other way around. since then till around the 1900s , when institutions like the Federal Reserve , IMF , World Bank etc. were formed , all trade was not globally centralized nor nationalized. It was in fact more "free market".
On this we can agree except the part about corporation being the natural progression of capitalism.