Question ?

[MMI]

I think the answer is so highly complex that none of us here - ok, maybe one or two, but I doubt it - can actually give a proper respone. That's not to denigrate everyone who has posted a reply, because I suspect there's more than a grain of truth to all of them. Even the ones I disagree with.

I know I don't have the answers, but I do want to focus on one thing, and that's size: size matters, until it gets too big! All over the world there are now companies whose turnover exceeds the GDP of small countries. The banks, the airlines, the motor manufacturers. The computer companies and the oil companies. They are huge and they can change government policy much faster and more profoundly than the electorate can. Recent events prove that: governments have swallowed their principles and bowed to the will of the multi-nationals. In this kind of democracy, it's one dollar, one vote. I'm not saying it's corruption, although there's plenty of scope for that, but countries can find themselves ruled by one or two wealthy companies - and larger, richer and more politically developed countries find themselves ruled by "markets".

I think it's time for a change, and, to draw upon Tomasi again, if we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change. Looking at the events on Wall Street, the City of London and even Reykjavik, it is clear that the multinationals have run away with themselves, taking the wealth of the nations concerned with them. So, for me, the first candidate for change are these huge conglomerates. Let them be restricted in their operations - either by size, or by field of operations, or by some other criterion. But let them be controlable. GM should be split into smaller independent companies, each able to stand on its own feet, but not so powerful that it can exert undue influence on its government, either because it employs half a city's workforce, or it produces most of the city's income. HSBC should not be allowed to operate in so many different places. A branch or two is OK, but not a branch network in every major country. There should be appropriate limits which each country should impose according to its own criteria, but following some internationally accepted principles. That way, if any of them gets into trouble, the nation can swallow it with a hiccough, instead of, as is the problem today, finding it too big a morsel to even bite into.

[Thorne]

I don't claim to be an expert in economics, or in politics. I have neither the time nor the desire to do massive amounts of research on this topic. So take what I say here with a grain of salt, or just ignore it all together.

ANY economic or political system which neglects to reward hard work is doomed to failure. This has been shown throughout history, most recently with the Soviet Union and its satellite countries. People who have no hope of improving their lot through hard work, but who know that the state will provide whatever they need, have no incentive to work. So you end up with a system like the Soviet Union, where imported goods had to be banned (except to high party members, of course) in order to keep their own factories busy. And those factories could not keep up with either demand or quality, simply because no one cared.

Even now, here in the US, there are doctors who are getting out of medicine because government and medical insurance restrictions don't allow them to collect enough money for their services to pay their exhorbitant malpractice insurance bills. So you wind up with inferior medical care. And eventually, the medical system falls apart.

The pharmaceutical industry is constantly under fire for charging exhorbitant prices for relatively inexpensive chemicals. They put out huge sums of money to do the research to discover, test, refine and market those chemicals, yet when they try to recoup that outlay through high prices, the insurance companies and low income groups scream that they are "disenfranchising the poor."

So where is the incentive to provide high quality medicines? Or high quality health care? Or high quality anything! The incentive comes from competition and capitalism! Let the corporations compete for our dollars. Allow them to charge what the market will bear. Let the workforce reap the rewards for their work, and let those who will not work fall by the wayside.

We may see, in the very near future, a temporary decline in capitalism in this country (USA) and probably in many other countries. But capitalism will still survive, underground if need be. There will always be those who are willing to sell goods that people want. And eventually, when the system collapses again, as it will, capitalism will be waiting in the wings to come roaring back.

[lucy]

Even now, here in the US, there are doctors who are getting out of medicine because government and medical insurance restrictions don't allow them to collect enough money for their services to pay their exhorbitant malpractice insurance bills.

Sorry for being off topic, but i alway found it ridiculous how liability is handled in the states. Coming to think of it, it ain't that much off topic, because capitalism in my opinion also needs to include each persons responsibility for her/his own actions.
To spill a hot coffee on one's own legs and then sue the company who sold the coffee is stupid enough, being granted loads of money by a court because you've been stupid is just ridiculous. Same with malpractice: Of course docs should pay if the make a mistake, but the sums granted by US courts are way beyond anything remotely adequate, let alone reasonable.