whythawk ratings: measuring effective development

By: Walton on 07 June 2007

This is nonsense.

You're confusing human interaction with capitalism. Look up capitalism on wikipedia if you don't know what it is:

"Capitalism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately[1] owned and operated for profit..."

You're right that humans can't exist without interacting with each other, but there are plenty of alternatives to an economic system that concentrates the wealth among the few, and develops political systems to lock the majority out and refuse them any say on the economic decisions that affect their lives.

If you think that the protestors have got nothing better to say than "scrap capitalism", then you're pretty ignorant, haven't been listening, and shouldn't comment on the issue.

Protestors have been articulating alternatives to anyone who will listen - clearly not you.

These differ, but the common thread is a demand for economic democracy. Do it some justice and blog honestly.

The "efficiency of markets" post was crap as well, by the way.

By: Gavin Chait on 08 June 2007

Walton, economics is an evolving theory. I wouldn't go to Wikipedia for a current answer. Most of what I'm discussing is price theory; in which, should politicians choose to do so, they can price things that are important appropriately and businesses will respond. Consider climate change. In the past year company investment into alternative energy research has gone from US$35 bn to US$72 bn and that is out of new business scenting an opportunity (and venture capitalists piling in) and old businesses fearing carbon caps as well as new, more nimble, competitors.

In other words Capitalism can, very rapidly, provide solutions to clearly enunciated problems. Any problem for one person is a business opportunity for another.

However, engaging with you may prove fruitless. I see from your blog that you have already made up your mind. Since: "It's all the people suffering the effects of undemocratic decisions taken by a few people protecting the influence of the rich and powerful."

I would ask: who elected you? If you're so convinced of your moral superiority form a political party, enunciate your vision and the steps required to get there, and put it to the vote. That is how democracy works. If you're brave enough.

It takes no bravery to throw stones at the police of a European country. You know they won't do anything other than - at worst - pen you overnight. Stand for election, let's see what the "people" you claim to represent really think.

By: Walton on 09 June 2007

Actually the police in Europe shot a protestor dead in Genoa, many more have been badly wounded, and others have had long sentences.

If capitalism is so great, and has all these wonderful "solutions", how come - in a world that produces enough food for everyone - so many are starving? Why do 20% of the world live in absolute poverty?

As for starting a political party, you can't change society through parliament. Parliament is a management structure for the status quo. The decisions that matter in the world are economic decisions, and these are not controlled by parliament.

That's why a strike is more powerful than a vote.

By: Gavin Chait on 09 June 2007

I'm very pleased you have decided to engage here.

As regards your question: "if capitalism is so great ... why do 20% of the world live in absolute poverty?"

The US has 95% employment and very limited amounts of poverty with virtually no starvation. So do all democratic and free-market states. The only countries where the starving exceed the well-off are disaster zones like Zimbabwe, Somalia or the Sudan. These are not countries that many, perhaps even yourself, would consider to have a surplus of free-market capitalism or representative democracy. Although they certainly do have an abundance of centralised brutality and authority.

I remember the story of the protester in Genoa. Given the number of police attacked and severely injured it is somewhat surprising that only one protester got killed. Imagine such a protest taking place in Zimbabwe? Do you think Mugabe's police would be as generous?

And a strike is no more effective than a war. Sooner or later an agreement requires dialogue.

Any example you care to name, where untrammelled brutality has been exercised in the name of profit (most recently at a brickworks in China) falls within countries that have little respect for individual rights, democracy or free-market economics.

It isn't free-market capitalism that is the problem. It is the lack of more fundamental freedoms like freedom of speech, freedom of association, equality before the law, respect for minorities, and consensual rule by the majority.

The countries with the least respect for human rights also host the 20% of the world's population living in absolute poverty.

It may be nice to blame the US or UK for these problems, but how? North Korea? Myanmar? Zimbabwe? Are the leaders who create these hell-holes not responsible for their own actions? How on earth do you lay responsibility for these disasters at the feet of leaders of companies that sell cars, cell phones and microwave ovens?

I was at a biofuels conference late last year where a stunned British executive, having recently travelled through Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Angola, declared that there is more agricultural land in these three countries than is currently under plough in the whole of the rest of the world. "You could be the Middle East of biofuels," he said in awe. None of that land is being farmed since all three countries suffer from neglect and brutality. In Mozambique and Angola most of that land is still covered in landmines.

Protesting about this isn't going to amount to much. Western firms would love to invest but they can't. Politics keeps them out.

Perhaps you should reconsider your disregard for parliament.