Two of capitalism's biggest defenders just confessed that it's no longer working for a lot of

[alwaysinasnit]

Americans.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/03/capitalism-isnt-working-everyone-even-free-market-champions-realize/

Most of us have figured that out but I think it is significant that some experts are now admitting it too. It's a start at any rate.

[elleng]

1. Thanks.

'Raghuram Rajan, a former governor of the Reserve Bank of India who teaches at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, argues that communities no longer are capable of holding the state or market in check. . . .

Oxford University economist Paul Collier traces a similar pattern in Britain by focusing on Imperial Chemical Industries, which altered its mission in the 1990s from being “the finest chemical company in the world” to extracting shareholder value.'

[alwaysinasnit]

2. You're welcome. I hope more experts realize that.

[riverine]

3. Capitalists never claimed it works for everyone.

That is why we have a safety net. Food via EBT, cash via EITC and TANF, medical care via Medicaid, etc.

It is still by far the best of all economic systems when it comes to production of goods/services.

[alwaysinasnit]

4. I think it is safe to say that the more capitalism is unfettered, the more income inequality we

have. And the more extreme that inequality becomes, the more unsustainable the economic system that buttresses it also becomes.

[riverine]

5. Agree. As a fan of the liberal capitalist George Soros his remarks on unfettered capitalism

which he called "market fundamentalism" fits right in the OP:

"Market fundamentalists... [claim] that the common interest is best served by everybody looking out for his own interests. This claim is false... There are many political and social objectives which are not properly served by the market mechanism... These include the preservation of competition and of stability in financial markets, not to mention issues like the environment and social justice."

Soros further argues that free-market ideology threatens political democracy

(1999)

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/1999/0199breslow.html

Soros was right on the mark in 1999.

[whathehell]

7. Capitalist America had no "safety net" until FDR and his New Deal,

Last edited Mon Mar 18, 2019, 05:13 PM - Edit history (1)

which included Social Security, came along.

Republican capitalists called that (and every subsequent social welfare program) "socialism" and they fought like hell against it.

Capitalism was not always so "kind"

[YOHABLO]

6. It's been the story throughout the ages. Extraordinary consolidation of wealth controls the world.

[whathehell]

12. A Middle Class has ALWAYS had to be fought for..

Prior to Post War Ii America, when the US possessed the largest middle class in the World, the usual pattern was a Two Tier Society of the Few Wealthy and the Many Poor.

I think Republicans, who fought (and still fight) FDR's New Deal, would like us to return to that time.

[safeinOhio]

8. Even Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

author, stated government needed to regulate against greed.

[alwaysinasnit]

9. Absolutely,which is why it seems so ironic that conservatives tend to quote him. Which leads me to

wonder if they have even read the book, much less understood it. Thanks for bring up Adam Smith's work.

[safeinOhio]

10. They only read the

Ayn Rand version.

[alwaysinasnit]

11. You are so right; it is the basterdized version.

[gratuitous]

13. As the Boy Scouts say, "Be prepared"

Any reform of the dysfunctional system now gyrating out of control in a murderous economic rampage will have to overcome a chorus of "Socialism!" which is the current go-to for Republicans. Anything the rich don't like, any changes to the current situation, any reforms proposed to rein in the more outrageous excesses of the overclass, will all have to clear the "socialism" hurdle.

What is the "socialism" hurdle? It's a surprisingly mobile concept that boils down to the heavy tilt of the economic playing field isn't tilted quite enough in favor of the rich. Anything that might restore balance or promote fairness for more people is anathema to this crowd. The specifics or merits of any proposal are irrelevant; shouting "Socialism!" is enough for now to derail any serious conversation. Nobody will demand a definition of "socialism," and it will remain a slippery concept to cover anything that hinders the rapaciousness of the current system.