Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
I completed this well argued and fact-packed book a little while ago.
I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to understand how the world was led into financial meltdown by an unquestioning belief in the free market and how the state, contrary to the prevailing orthodoxies of the last 25 years, can and should play a role in shaping a nation's economy.
The author shows how, among other things, there is no such thing as the free market, we don't live in a digital world and how higher paid managers don't produce better results.
I found the chapter entitled "Capital has a home" particularly thought-provoking - it sounds like we should be much more worried than we are that foreign companies are taking over our industries and utilities.
It also demonstrates how state intervention can create dynamic and successful industries - the Korean author uses the example of his nation's steel industry, built from scratch in a country of few natural resources by the sheer will and astute planning of the country's government.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
rather thought provoking andrew never bought into the market will always decide theme.
title of book and author please?
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
23 Things they don't Tell you about Capitalism IS the title Howard. The author is Ha-Joon Chang.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Highly paid managers milk the economy dry, as they collectively receive whopping salaries topped up with bonuses, and this constant outflow of money vanishes from the general economy into their private pockets.
They are skimming the cream all the time, and all we get is 0.1% milk, a watery colour, with a light-green top, while they walk away carrying pots of thick cream, all the best cheeses, and want all the pies, and want them all NOW!
Thanks to them, the economy has gone into meltdown, with more and more people on loans, as well as a highly indebted Treasury.
All this has to change.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Thanks for that Andrew - sounds like a book our politicians (National that is, not local) should read.
The question we have to ask though, is "do we want big Government ?" Labour would say yes, Conservatives would say no (generally).
Roger
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Time perhaps for a re-examination of the works of Karl Marx.. Das Kapital springs to mind, if only for the social aspects. Clearly capitalism is in the cesspit. As Alexander says above there in post 4 "Highly paid managers milk the economy dry" and in the current climate who can argue with that.
Lets not forget Bob Diamond was within weeks of having bonuses totalling £20,000,000 ...an awesome staggering sum, but for doing what pray?? If he hadnt been found out he would have been paid all that money yet his performance was merely poor to mediocre if not downright crooked...as was the performance of the previous notorious banker Fred Goodwin. A pattern is emerging here...high rewards for mediocrity. Executive directors back slapping and rewarding each other across boardroom UK whether they are actually any good or not.
It is often argued that rich men create wealth...but no, people with vision create wealth. Guys like these cream cash off and out of the system and put nothing back of note.
Capitalism has an ugly side and the public are seeing it now. The lower end, the workers, are losing jobs on a grand scale, paying for those in high positions. Someone has to pay the bill, the workers are paying the bill.
Lay thousands off but I still collect my bonus...so Im alright jack!
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
The message of the book seems to be that you cannot leave it all to the markets - the evidence for that is all around us - and that there is no avoiding government intervention. It should not be seen automatically as a negative, he claims, and he provides plenty of evidence where the right kind of government action has been making of certain countries.
A case in point is Bombardier. Surely the only sane course of action is to intervene to ensure it gets big contracts or we will lose this piece of our industrial base, never to get it back.
Moreover, free market fundamentalism totally ignores the enormous human cost of unemployment and industrial decline.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
I agree with what you say about state intervention Andrew. More hands on government (not less) is called for.
You mention Bombardier there...right on cue some of their equipment just rolled past my window. Clearly just come in through the Port. We dont want to lose the skills these workforces possess... otherwise it is lost to us forever. David Cameron ocassionally make an ambasadorial trade foray into far climes on behalf of HMG, but so far to little effect.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Well quite a good article, roger you are incorrect in believing the conservative don't want to control from the top.
they are no different to any other govt of all colours.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the point made about bombardier is valid and has been made on this forum before many times.
does anyone believe that the capitalist economies of the u.s. france, germany and others would allow massive contracts to go to overseas bidders?
the totally free market is a myth that certain economists and dogmatists believe in.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I agree with your post too Howard - and Andrew's.
I don't believe the Conservative philosophy is to be all-controlling; there are circumstances (BomBardier for one - ship-building for another) where we should protect our own work-force first, but not at all costs, some companies are very badly run - bad management, over-arching unions etc. should not be protected - but the work-force should be (not sure how Government could intervene in that one though.
It should not be left to market-forces to resolve all our problems and it isn't Capitalism that's the problem, nor the pursuit of profit, it's when that capitalism and profit turn to greed and in many ways, big-business is now following the greed path.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ROGER;
I think we partly agree on this one, the greed part is where it all falls down, but sadly the conservative party is built around market forces and thats where the problem lies
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Roger how do you differentiate between greed and profit?
Where does one stop and the other begin?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
interesting point paulb i will sit back on my cardboard box and wait the reply lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I can't differentiate that Paul - the people involved must. What's greed to one person, is normal profit to another; but they know when they are being immoral and greedy.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
sadly some roger dont nor do they care
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
Looking at the bigger picture, the author seriously questions the attitude of some western governments (including past ones in the UK) which have regarded the collapse of major industries as something not to be concerned about even to be
welcomed. And it is hard to disagree with him.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I think subsidies can be a very dangerous game, but ensuring contracts go to our own companies, rather than passing them abroad, is the way to go - the consequences of not doing so, are not worth considering:-unemployment, imports rather than exports, lack of income-tax and an increase in benefit payments etc.
Could not the same be said for over-seas aid ? we have just pledged an extra £500 million and look at our own people's hardships. Charity does not begin at home any more.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ANDREW;
You are correct we tend to close down factories wihout thought about the future, and maybe we should look at the cost of keeping someone on the dole rather than working, and then of course giving the contracts overseas where standards probably wouldnt be as high in many cases.
of course a lot of this goes wit marker forces.
with regard to subsidies there is a line here but putting 4 million on the dole is surely another consideration before we go down the road of closing everything.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
