I was engaged in a Twitter exchange yesterday in which Giles Wilkes of the FT said that he thought that at some time Aditya Chakrabortty of the Guardian might have to admit he had some problems with capitalism.
It did not take Aditya long to respond that he did have such a problem with some forms of capitalism.
I'm with Aditya. I definitely have a problem with some forms capitalism. In fact, I have problems with pretty much every form tried to date and most especially the neo-feudal form that outsources risk to the state whilst capturing reward for the few that is now in vogue. I wonder how Giles Wilkes could defend it?
But that begs the question of whether I imagine any form of capitalism I could live with? And the answer is yes, I can. But it would distinguish the return to enterprise from that to capital. And it would restrict the abuse of rentiers. And it would be based on transparency and full taxation of the externalities that an activity imposes on society, including those that limited liability creates for others.
So I can imagine a capitalism I could live with. But it's sure as heck is not this one.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Look to Germany. They work at all levels to discourage rent-seeking.
We have to disagree on that one
The thing is representation is needed at all levels; rather than exclusion and to feel our voice is lost. There are good people who care and are not seduced by ego and power. We are not a culture who wishes blandness and sameness just because we want fairness.
There seems to be just a dribble of investment in ideas that benefit all, albeit arts or science,all are precious. I cannot back this up with any figures but I do read widely, not just the guardian. Not everyone is able to soar to heights of success but to exclude large sections of society the means to smell the roses is plain wrong.
Why isn’t anyone talking about Federal Fractional reserve which caused this mess and created corporatism.
I can’t imagine that there would be a time when, what Michael Parenti calls ‘Mom and Pop’s corner shop’, would be difficult to live with.. even in Cuba, hairdressers are not state-run (for good reason!). Anything much bigger, automatically starts to distort the priorities of the political classes, and we end up with global trade agreements like TTIP, TPP, TISA and CETA which are aimed at entrenching neofeudalism.
(Btw did you know that Michael Perelman has traced the historical roots of neoliberal thought back to the slave owning states? No wonder we are faced with zero hours contracts, food banks and working for ‘welfare’ benefits.)
Could you provide a reference for the Michael Perelman idea Sue?
‘The Dysfunctionality of Slavery and Neoliberalism’?
http://www.academia.edu/12454310/The_Dysfunctionality_of_Slavery_and_Neoliberalism
Giles Wilkes is an extreme free marketeer – not that different from horrific people like Tim Worstall really. It’s not surprising that he can’t see any problems with capitalism, and not surprising that those of us on the left can. Incidentally, the pundits who were hailing Vince Cable as the possible saviour of the world in 2008/09 or thereabouts (and I was one of them) would have done well to realise that Wilkes was one of Cable’s special advisers… is it any wonder that Cable was absolutely useless as business secretary in the ConDem govt?
I have always had ‘problems’ with Wilkes and his fundamentalism
His LibDem view was remarkably similar to that of Comrade Mark Redwood of the IEA (as I will call him next week when we are on air together)
And yes, Cable’s appointment of Wilkes was a definite sign of problems to come
All capitalism is based on exploitation for gain. There were attempts with the post war consensus to tame capitalism, but problems started when the likes of Japan started to make inroads into our markets. We were forced to devalue (the pound was far too high)and the oil crisis of the early 1970s pushed inflation sky-high. This high inflation was used a a battering ram to bring in monetarist and neoliberal economics that we’ve been stuck with for the past 36 years. It was the beginning of the end in 1876 when US financiers encouraged speculators to dump sterling, creating a crisis in which we were led to believe that we needed IMF help. They of course introduced, by the standards of the day, harsh cutbacks that cut pay and eroded benefits.
The very fact that capitalism is dependent on growth forever, something that the planet cannot cope with anymore, quite apart from th way it exploits and externalises its costs onto ordinary people and the environment means that an alternative to capitalism is way overdue.
That should be 1976, by the way! 🙂