Yale Professor: 'Capitalism Has Reached the End of Its Rope’

Perhaps one of the greatest capitalists of the 20th Century was Henry Ford that doubled the wages of his workers to basically twice the national average. The assumption that capitalism is opposed to fair wages for the workers is and has always been false. While it sounds good for those suffering from "class envy" is has never been supported by the facts.

Where we find a serious problem today is the politicians catering to the wealthy for campaign contributions by intervening in the economy with currency as opposed to money. The practice of using currency as opposed to money results in the theft of labor as it reduces the purchasing power of previous labor over time. The loss of purchasing power from inflation is the primary reason why the "real wages" of individuals decline over time. With real money this simply doesn't happen. It's good for the wealthy but comes at the expense of the individual. Fiat currency, which is a result of Keynesian economics, is the culprit and not capitalism.

 

I find it hard to believe that with all the economic experts this nation has produced, that 100 years of conventional economic wisdom has been utterly and completely wrong.

You are basically questioning 100 years of conventional wisdom. Not something that was created 10 years ago. You seriously trying to say that it took a century for this system to finally show its flaws? I doubt it.

 

strawmen!

we are not talking about safety regulations or consumer protection...we are talking about silly regulations like telling us how many gallons of water our shower heads can use, what lightbulbs we have to use, and the thousands of other ridiculous, unnecessary, nanny state regulations the Libs come up with to try to engineer society.

and if you want to complain about 'capitalism', go back and ask the dear ol Socialist professor from Yale how much money he makes and how much he 'redistributes' to those less fortunate than he is.

 

Yale's president Richard C. Levin is one of the highest paid university presidents in the United States with a 2008 salary of $1.5 million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University#Yale_in_the_21st_century

How odd? Isn't Yale a private business?

_

 

Oh my, another pin-headed ivy league elitist telling us that the greatest nation on earth due to its capitalistic ethic is reaching its end daze. Clinton attented Yale; you don't suppose they shared dissertation thesis papers with Noam Chumpski on the advantages of implementing Marxism on the American society, do you?

 

What would a Yale professor who lives in an Ivy League ivory tower know about capitalism?

He lives a sheltered life in the public sector where reality never goes.

 

Exactly, and I just happened to be watching MSNBC while typing that response, and they had this pin head on there pushing his book on Keynesian economics and how and why we need to go a mile further than what obama is doing with it now. Don't these guys ever get distressed over being so wrong about economics and politicals in general?

 

Wonderful to hear 'em glugging as they sink in Whatist Creek, isn't it? What total drivel!

 

The flaws with the Keynesian economic philosophy of government interventionism have been pointed out since day one. Not all ecomomist support it. The fact that many ignored to ultimate failure of Keynesian economics which has long been predicted merely reflects their failure to actually understand that which they advocated. Remember that those that support Keynesianism are those that benefit most from it (e.g. the government and the wealthy).

 

On the contrary - the Government and the wealthy support unrestricted capitalism - as long as they control the police and the armed forces, and can demand subsidies whenever they require, which is always. That is the weakness of Keynesianism - the halfwitted greed and selfishness of those who control the State - which is NOT an independent force.

 

Capitalism is 'flourishing'? Are you living in a cave with no access to news media?
The ability to buy a Coca Cola is 'progress'. *sigh* Here you go Mr. Progress; read it and learn something for once: http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world hunger facts 2002.htm

 

You're talking about corporatism, and so is the OP. If capitalism were exploding across the globe, your tribesman in Africa would be starting his own soda/bottling company.

 

I agree with your sentiment, but would also suggest that much of the "regulation" that stifles growth is done so to favor a specific few large players and the create a barrier to small and medium market competition.

What we have is not capitalism at all. What we have is corporate socialism.

 

Well, unrestrained capitalism was proved to be a total non-starter back in the Nineteenth Century. Like all Americans, you have been prevented from knowing what socialism is, which makes for a poor discussion.

 

best post on the thread

the monopolies create a centralized environment, in which the business leaders control the outcome of more than their own business.

perhaps the NEW model should be 'mind your own business'

 

Having a bad habit isn't conventional or any other kind of wisdom. It's a bad habit. Unbridled capitalism has habitually failed to deliver-except to those who rule the roost.

 

The only thing worse than unbridled capitalism is government controlled capitalism which is what we have today. Government economic interventionism corrupts capitalism at the expense of the worker. As was previously noted it is inflation that has eroded to earnings of the worker over time. If there is no inflation then "real wages" do not diminish in purchasing power.

 

Government Controlled Capitalism is "Crony Capitalism", and yes it is virtually the worst brand and not really Capitalism at all. To say Capitalism has failed is a joke. When you have a fair playing field with free trade, Capitalism has proven to be the best system to raise the largest segment of the population into prosperity. There is no system that has come even close.

 

Thanks HB for shedding some common sense light on this discourse. The question I like to pose to these socialists and progressive marxists is...if not capitalism...then what? Lets say we immediately did away with all facets of capitalism, what then going forward would you replace capitalism with in order to attain your economic utopian dream? And don't give me this bullcrap that we're a nation of a mixed economic ideals. America became great with the advent of our capitalist industrial revolution--and it hasn't looked backwards since, despite having a few times of socialist experimentation with FDR, LBJ and now with obot--all favoring a centralized govt.

 

Government controlled capitalism aka fascism is the next best thing libs could think of instead of pure unbridled socialism which is in even more disrepute.

What liberals learned during the 1950's 60's and 70's is that they really don't want to own the factories and means of production because they know nothing about producing products.

Better to let others do all the heavy lifting and then government will swoop in and tax the profits.

But now libs like Obama think they know enough about the private economy that they can sit in their ivory towers in Washington and tell the producers what to produce and how to produce it.

Which is a silly idea since libs are far too stupid to micromanage such a large economy.

If they don't come to their senses pretty soon libs are going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

 

I note 5 references to 'libs' in your post. Don't you think this is getting a little obsessional?
Also, perhaps you could point to all the successes of conservative government. Let's begin with Bush Jr. and work backwards, shall we?

Also, isn't 'micromanagement' through governmental over-involvement precisely what conservatives are complaining about-and yet you're whining that liberals are incapable of doing so? You can't have it both ways mate.

 

I would suggest that no ideology ever works in practice as it is supposed in theory.

I have a very strong grasp of what socialism is. I am not patently anti-socialism. I actually understand that in essence all forms of government incorporate socialism to some degree. Unfortunately, most Americans are trained to resist anything labeled as such as a reflex without any thought on the matter.

I don't use the term socialism as a blanket negative as many do, neither do I use fascism in the same way. When I use the term "corporate socialism", I am really referring to a mild form of fascism.

 

Capitalism itself isn't a failure and isn't responsible for the poor economic situation in the US. Corrupt politicians are, and an ignorant public who cheers them on.

 

Our monetary system requires inflation for economic growth to be achieved.

 

It's not easy to point to any successes of big government and central planning.

I think George Bush proved that big government by idiot Republicans works no better than big government under liberal Democrats.

Big government is the problem not the party in power.

Except that the Republicans offer a faint glimmer of hope for common sense and smaller government that the wipe-every-nose Democrats do not.