Is Capitalism dead?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by BoyBach, Oct 3, 2008.

?

Is Capitalism dead?

  1. Yes

    12 vote(s)
    25.5%
  2. No

    29 vote(s)
    61.7%
  3. Undecided

    6 vote(s)
    12.8%
  1. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #1
    In light of the US House of Representatives voting to accept the $700bn bailout of Wall Street, and following the spate of banks and other financial institutions around the globe being nationalised or going bankrupt, where does Capitalism now stand?

    Is it dead, alive and kicking, on life support?
     
  2. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #2
    No.

    It's just been bailed out by Socialism, again. That's why Capitalism will survive, maybe forever.
     
  3. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #3
    links to other examples please if you dont mind
     
  4. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #4
    Do you seriously not know any? I mean, I'll give you examples if you're serious, because that's part of this forum - I'm just not sure if you're actually serious.

    I recommend this
     
  5. olliebraves20 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    Lansing, MI
    #5
    Well to be honest as big of a fan as I am of capitalism I feel like that bailout was necessary. This was not my original position but after reading as much as I could about it I feel like it amounts to basically something similar to the "New Deal". That didn't destroy capitalism and I don't think this bailout will either. The only way that it will is if we let them do more of this on a regular basis every time there is a little problem. Which if the democrats get their way wound be the case. (No I don't want to get into the republican vs democrat debate, I'm just stating facts as it pertains to the current discussion). We do however need a few more regulations then the republicans want. It's going to be a tricky balance but I feel like it's doable just like last time.
     
  6. gotzero macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic, US
    #6
    The regulators are allowed to step in after the free-marketers manage to injure themselves.

    Assuming all goes well, we will be hearing about how this bailout wrecked everything in a few years, and how we should deregulate.

    I believe free-markets can function, but not when they are subjected to the US shareholder system.

    Anyone staying out of sub-prime mortgage originations would have been forced to get in the game by proxies.

    I am just disappointed there is not wide-scale financial shareholding dilution.
     
  7. olliebraves20 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    Lansing, MI
    #7
    The bailout is not socialism. It is part of a principle of socialism but not full out socialism in any way shape or form. You elude to the fact that socialism is something of higher value then capitalism. What makes you feel like this?
     
  8. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #8
    Sorry, what are you waffling on about? In an economic sense, it is exactly what's happened. It's the old case of 'Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor'. This is nothing new.

    No, I don't. I'm just saying what happened.
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    As I recall, the last time we had to bail out the banks, it was when the Republicans were in power too. (No I don't want to get into the republic versus democratic debate, I'm just stating facts as it pertains to the current discussion).
     
  10. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #10
    This brings up a question just from a historian perspective. You're right, it is similar, with the exception that the New Deal pretty much introduced the US to deficit spending, with the notion that we will pay it back some time later. Outside of our recent (read: past 20 - 30 years) expenses, have we paid back the debts from the deficits we had from the New Deal?

    Wouldn't that be a delicious irony, if this would happen more often with a Blue in charge. The guys that started this type of spending would make it worse? Worse than what the recent Reds have done? I'm thinking of the S&L issue and its bailout, Enron, MCI/Worldcom, and now..

    BL.
     
  11. olliebraves20 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    Lansing, MI
    #11
    Wow you might have a career in comedy. What did this have to do with what I was saying however? I'm saying one of the basic principles of the democratic party is big government. Just like the Republicans want deregulation. Neither is going to be the answer, it's going to be a combination of both. But way to get defensive and get off point.
     
  12. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #12
    Seems like capitalism is alive and well, cause golden parachutes are still deploying, calls to save home owners were labeled "rewarding bad financial decision", yet calls to save the banks is called "a necessary move". :rolleyes:

    And people wonder why I:

    1) Don't invest in financial institutions
    2) Refuse(d) to work for any banks


    It amazes me that nobody expected that when the home owners go bankrupt, that the bank holding the mortgage wouldn't suffer in turn. Instead of trying to see how they can get money from people (refinancing? revaluating? etc?), they moved like vultures to foreclose on properties, and the government waited.

    Government spending went through the roof under Republicans, and I recall Palin calling for more government oversight. The world is talking backwards! :eek:
     
  13. olliebraves20 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    Lansing, MI
    #13
    I don't believe I'm waffling on anything. Socialism is a whole sent of concepts that form an entire economy. The bailout is just a small snapshot of socialism with overtones of Capitalism in the sense that yes we are bailing banks out but we the taxpayers have a chance to profit from this bailout if those bad assets turn around to the point were they could be sold for a profit. Profit is the cornerstone of capitalism.
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    What on earth are you talking about? Clinton shrunk the size of the federal government. Every Republican from Reagan on has increased the size of the federal government. I suggest you pay attention to what the GOP DOES rather than what they SAY.

    We've had both bigger government AND deregulation for the past 8 years now. It's been an epic fail, in case you haven't noticed.
     
  15. olliebraves20 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    Lansing, MI
    #15
    Yes it amazes me as well. I guess because Freddie and Fannie were basically guaranteed by the goverment that they would cover any losses. You are correct though I think the common person, most of us falling into this category, were not talking a close enough look at this before it was too late.

    I agree under the last administration that this has most certainly been the case. I'm talking about decades of voting however to back up what I refer to as the basic principles. For example how many republicans still voted against the bailout because of the cost. Mind you a lot of democrats did as well for the same reason.
     
  16. TommyLee macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Location:
    New Orleans
  17. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #17
    I have been trying to catch up on a podcast called Market Place. It is amazing hearing all the events unfolding again, like when Freddie and Fannie asked to start covering bigger jumbo loans, how they were claiming tax refunds/credits as income, etc.

    It's like the people at the helm/driver seat/cockpit KNEW less than us average folks, and somehow thought that taking more risk was the right answer.

    If I run into F&F CEOs on the street for example, I would ask someone to restrain me from beating the **** out of them. :mad: :p
     
  18. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #18
    Is there anything NOT made in China? :D
     
  19. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #19
  20. Aranince macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #20
    You do realize that the Democrats hold the power in Congress right?
     
  21. TheAnswer macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #21
    Yes, according to this expert source.
     
  22. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #22
    Yes, since 2007. And we all know that the effects of politics kick in with absolutely no delay, right? :rolleyes:

    Here in Sweden the right wing has always been blamed for the economic crisis in the early 1992, when the right had been in power for a year. It took about a decade before the left admitted that it was their bad policies in the mid 1980's that led to the meltdown several years later.
     
  23. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #23
    Okay.. let's go back a bit.

    Bailout of Chrysler in 1980: Reds had control of the Senate and House. (the Reds lost the senate in 1986 due to Iran-Contra.) Red President and VP for 6 years.

    S&L bailout of 1988: Reds had the House, Blues had the Senate. Red President/VP.

    Reds get back both House and Senate in 1994. Blue President.

    Between 1995 and 2001, Congress was completely Red, encompassing the bailout of the airlines in 2001-2002. It wasn't until a Red went independent that shifted the control of the Senate to the Blues in 2003 (50-49-1). So in effect, you still had an entirely Red Senate with Cheney casting the tiebreaking vote. During that time, Enron and MCI/Worldcom shafted us.

    Now? 49-49-1-1 in the Senate, with one of the independents all but Red, making 50-49-1, and 235-199-1 in the House, with that 1 vacant. In short, control in Congress, specifically control of the Senate, doesn't mean absolute control. You'd need at least a 60/40 split if not more to ensure a party wouldn't need to rally for votes from the opposing party to get a bill passed.

    BL.
     
  24. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    We can hope that market fundamentalist, laissez-faire, Gordon-Gekko capitalism is dead.

    You need a state around to stop the markets hurting themselves. Scandinavian countries seem to have it right.
     
  25. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #25
    This is totally off topic, but does anyone else find it funny that Republicans and Communists are symbolized by the same color?
     

Share This Page