Words
GET THE NEW SFH LP!
Capitalism, in its current form, has no place in the world around us.
Those words are not mine. They’re a quote, from a fellow named Klaus Schwab.
For the many who are unlikely to have heard of Klaus Schwab before, rest assured — he’s no socialist rabble-rouser.
He’s a billionaire, in fact, and the founder of something called the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was at Schwab’s Davos gathering last week, as were dozens of other world leaders and billionaires.
While Harper didn’t perform the last rites on capitalism, plenty of others weren’t so shy.
The capitalist “model” needs to be radically revised, said another billionaire, David Rubenstein, and if we don’t, “we’ve lost the game.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in the keynote Davos address, agreed: “We need to debate new methods,” she said.
As I told Krista Erickson on her Sun News Canada Live show, Davos 2012 was different from previous years. Among other things, it was interesting.
I think I just heard Gord’s head explode.
No, that was a pipeline rupturing.
Indeed. But the free market will clean it up, right? Right?
That’s what environmental bonds are for – and property rights if we had them In canada
Suppose that instead of treating capitalism and capitalist corproations as divinely sanctioned creatures operating according to the commandments of the great deity ‘Unseen Hand,’ that we treat them as tools that will serve everyone’s needs in a democratic society, period.
A lot of people are struggling with what was once merely a legal fiction for use in court, – corporate personhood. Corporate personhood seems out of control. It’s as if we have two classes of citizens in our democracies (and everywhere else): an aristocracy made up of corporate nobles, and the humans who till the fields for this corporate aristocracy. ( I understand that in the first decade of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the vast majority of appeals to the charter were from corporate persons. Corporations arguing freedom of speech? C’mon!)
We used to have a deal in BC whereby forestry companies could harvest timber in an area on condition that they support the local community. Our present government did away with that. But I think that there might be a model in that old way that could be applied more generally. Provinces and municipalities, democratically elected by the locals, could take a bigger role in the way that they award incorporation and business licences. Corporations do what is in their incorporation charters, so we put into those charters much more in the way of conditions ensuring that the corporations are not just putting in the minimum, and taking out the maximum, but that they are contributing in specified manners to the local communities.
One way that corporations are freeing themselves of responsibility is through free trade agreements. These treaties make illegal the actions by elected local authorities to protect local workers, environments, and community traditions. NAFTA, and assorted other free trade agreements do this to circumvent local democracies,…and CETA will do the same.
I could natter on and on with more examples about this, but, basically, I think that capitalism has its strengths, but, like the hubris, the fatal flaw, that allows a useful tendency to mestastisize and to take over in a tragedy, when we allow capitalist corporations to take over everything, we are misusing what could be a useful economic tool for all of us.
We could control capitalist organizations democratically, rather than allowing capitalist corporations to control our democracy.
Interesting comment re corporate personhood. Thought provoking.
Corporations are taking over nothing. They are proxies literally of their shareholders. In Canada the largest single shareholder is the CPP. The CPP is held to varying degrees by all of those Canadians who have paid into it.
Part of the debate about the pipeline to Kitimat and increased tanker traffic that I would like to see is a full public airing of the legislated cap put on the amount that corporation has to pay for clean up, should a spill occur. But corporate power, with its bought and paid for politicians, and the corporate mainstream media do not allow that aspect of the debate to be aired.
When oil and gas picked up again here in the late 1980′s, many of our local businesses were displaced by transnationals that came to cash in. The capitalist ideologues who okayed this takeover argued free competition. Now, there is no competition – only monoplies, making bags of cash to take out of our country.
Recently, a private member’s bill, intro’d by a John (something) of the Libs, to hold Canadian resource extraction companies responsible for their environmental and human rights impact in foreign countries was defeated in our House of Commons by the party that belongs to corporate lobbyists.
CETA looks to allow European (and therefore under NAFTA, American) corporations to take the first steps in getting hold of our municipal water systems, overriding what any local elected councils say.
Financial corporations certainly impact our foreign policies, as shown by the panic to attack Libya when the Libyan regime was so successful in lining up so many African nations to establish an African currency for trade in African commodities.
I could natter on with more examples,…but you get the idea. Capitalist corporations make a mockery of any claims of sovereignty – especially by buying democracy.
Schwab is wrong, of course. (but then the big government types like him have done such a bang up job regulating and entitling western europe into the ground – why anyone still listens to these clowns is beyond understanding)
That regulations need to be changed/improved is something I have written about here and elsewhere. But to say that “capitalism sucks” begs the question: Compared to what?
So, if the lpc wants to campaign I favour of socialism, fascism, communism, anarchism or all of the above please do – it will cease to exist in short order.
How about sustainable economies, Mr Tulk?….but if you and your ilk want to carry on with the same “log it, burn it, pave it” mentality please do so……You and I wont be around to worry….
We shouldnt be purchasing prosperity at the price of environmental sustainabilty……
I hope your grandkids/great grandkids arent left thinking: “why didnt they do more to stop the degradation of the planet”?…
If by sustainable you mean going back to the stone age, that’s not sustainable for the 7 billion people on this earth. Mao would be proud you.
The carrying capacity of this earth is several orders of magnitude greater than the level at which we currently utilize it. In the next several generations – unless radical Islam wins – the earths population will begin to recede and the level of environmental impact per cap will recede with it. So quit with the alarmism and start contributing to your grandkids RESP if you care so much about them.
Beg to differ Mr. Tulk…..why you equate sustainability to some form of lesser quality of life is beyond me… Perhaps the level of environmental impact will recede with the lessening of the worlds population…..in the meantime, how much biodiversity will be lost, and what will be the quality of life for those living on the planet when the population finally ebbs?
The fact of the matter is if we do not change our ways, the standard of living for many of future generations will suffer…..one can have economic growth and yet still maintain the environment if govt AND private industry are willing to work towards that goal…
So far Mr Harper has shown very little leadership on this issue…..but why worry when the second comings right round the corner……
“The carrying capacity of this earth is several orders of magnitude greater than the level at which we currently utilize it.”
Several orders of magnitude? Are you sure that means what you think it means? Let’s say by ‘several’ you mean 4; you’re stating that the earth could sustain a population 10,000 times greater than it currently has. Approximately 70 trillion people?
Well, there you have it folks. End of argument. Move along now, nothing to see here.
Rat;
Do you ever attempt to advance arguments? Or do you always just put forth what I suppose are sarcastic comments which taken at face value are actually perfectly true, i.e. Gord Tulk has just argued all comers into a corner and the thus endeth the debate.
Just wondering.
Exactly – well said, Joe. Not that I always agree with what Tulk says, but at least he puts forward rationale behind his arguments. Smelter Rat, on the other hand, just lobs insults and various one-liners.
What’s your point?
Keep wondering. And the day Gord argues anyone into a corner will be the day there are two moons in the sky.
Gord won the argument the second he pointed out that we were having this discussion on social media, which is the very essence of commerce and capitalism.
“‘Capitalism is dead!’” Sent from my i-phone.
Game, set and match.
I’m fairly certain he’s given up trying to reason with Gord. Idealogues are tough nuts to crack. Futile really.
What’s an ideologue, Scot? Is that what you call a guy who’s killing you in a debate?
A friend of mine called me the conservative honey badger just the other day…
Hey Joe. Most people don’t even read Gord’s blather, knowing in advance what he is going to say. Just right wing claptrap. So, are you his little winger friend or what?
“Capitalism sucks” is an easy headline, but if pushed over beers, I hope Warren would admit that the real message of his column is that “financial capitalism” sucks, as opposed to “free enterprise sucks” or “market production and distribution of goods and services sucks” or some other variant. Especially since those other variants have, in the aggregate, produced far more good for society than bad. It’s important to acknowledge both the good and the bad, but acknowledging both means acknowledging both. Wall Street is just one sick component of a very large system, and most of that system is still functioning well, and much of it still functions ethically.
So, to the Kinsella liberals out there, I think you win points in this argument not by repeating slogans that suggest capitalism sucks, but by moving past resentment to clearly say “we need the better parts of capitalism – fostering innovation, rewarding enterprise and mobilizing investment – but we need a new model that does so without leaving the productive parts of society captive to political cronyism and speculation.”
I’d be intrigued by that. But not by round XXI of the generic “capitalism sucks, the establishment’s wrong, society’s NFU” circle jerk.
Financial capitalism doesnt suck. The entire economy since ww2 and eniac are founded upon it. The would be no apple or google or gnc foods or Toyota priuses. That the regulation of the system needs updating no one denies. But to say it sucks and thus should be crippled or spat upon is to wish we lived at Tanzanian levels of economic prosperity – the rough equivalent of where the western world was in 1910.
You do realize you are part of the 99%, right?
*rimshot*
Yeah, Gord, you got me. When you said “…to say it sucks and thus should be crippled or spat upon is to wish we lived at Tanzanian levels of economic prosperity – the rough equivalent of where the western world was in 1910.”
Yup, that’s exactly what I’m saying by saying I don’t want the productive parts of society captive to political cronyism and speculation! Finally, someone understands me.
“Or, like Stephen Harper, they’re afraid of what people might do if they aren’t controlled”
Go back to bed. Compared to some former PM’s, Harper’s a libertarian.
Financially, yes – Socially, no. He controls every message, he controls every party member, he controls every policy, and he blatantly lies in order to keep Canadians in the dark (“will you be cutting corporate taxes?” Harper:”No, that was never the plan” – then you look in the platform and it says in bold letters ‘Tax Cut for Job Creators (Corporations)”…
Gord – I don’t really agree with your logic. Calling someone who has obviously benefited from capitalism a “big government type” who supports job regulation and entitlement seems a little bit backwards – is it possible that the opinions of capitalists who mirror your own sentiments are the only ones who are worthy? If so, that is stupid (though not entirely unexpected, given every comment your ever put on here)… Your commitment to avoiding the opinions of someone who is obviously a specialist shows exactly how much of a Harper stooge you are. That man says he is an economist based on ZERO actual experience – his opinion on the subject shouldn’t matter when compared to someone who has actually been a success/seen the issues in the current system. If you held everyone to the same standard as Harper you would have to acknowledge me as a historian, political scientist and authority on public administration, which you have refused to do in the past – accusing me of being inherently biased, as though you aren’t. I guarantee that I am less biased than you are (I do not support any particular party, and I’m all over the place on individual issues – though generally fiscal conservative and social liberal). You, on the other hand, are predictable.
My issue with all of these billionaires coming out and saying capitalism isn’t a solid system in its current state is that they have obviously benefited from capitalism and lax regulations in the past. For instance, would Warren Buffett or Klaus Schwab have made so much money if they actions they are championing now had been in place? It is akin to Gretzky passing 2000 points, then saying that he would prefer the NHL bring in rules that limit goal scoring. What has changed the minds of these people?
I gotta agree…why don’t the Liberals run on the Capitalism sucks issue in the nest election..
Klaus Schwab is a very far-sighted man, and far away from being a socialist, fascist, communist, anarchist or all of the above. Did politicians and business leaders listen to him last year? Yes, but apparently not well enough. Will politicians and business leaders listen to him this year? Yes, and hopefully well enough!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/06/bankers-bonuses-crisis-social-risk
And Gord you are wrong once again, as always. While I do agree that over regulation is a business killer, the fact you would call the people who put the forum together “clowns” is priceless. Never mind your dear leader made the keynote speach. I find it funny, people of your ilk who go on about the evils of public entitlements when in fact big business are the biggest whores of government entitlements, e.g. Tax cuts, credits.
{{{APPLAUSE}}}
Public entitlements are the bane of the insurance industry. They provide the coverage against risk without rewarding legions of middlemen, each raking off a share. Mr. Tulk is simply representing his own narrow self-interest. I emphasize the word “narrow”.
Public entitlements are bankrupting the western world because they over-promise and undercharge. Interesting to see that you consider that to be less evil than sustainable private sector risk management.
Hey Gord, how many entitlements have you turned down?
The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many, that should be your motto mr. Tulk. But I digress, where I will agree with you mr. Tulk is the need to foster growth among small to mid sized businesses, but currently were not doing that. The corporate tax giveaway is designed not to increase jobs but to help corporate Canada horde more wealth, while their employees are told to ‘tighten the belt a little further’. The working class in Canada have been beaten down in this recession, and I fear they will have to give a little more in order to please their corporate masters.
The clowns I’m referring to are the ones who create entities like the EU. Schwab being one who is doubling down and saying the solution is even more govt control even as europe becomes a third world backwater because the same methods.
BREAKING
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/verdict-reached-in-shafia-murder-trial/article2318731/
Justice served.
“Between shame and shamelessness lies the axis upon which we turn; meteorological conditions at both these poles are of the most extreme, ferocious type. Shamelessness, shame: the roots of violence.”
― Salman Rushdie, Shame
The vast majority of capitalism, and those who work within it, is highly preferable to the alternative. However, the one area I agree needs to be reigned-in is that of CEO (and other C-suite) remuneration. It is low-hanging fruit for the anti-capitalism crowd to hold up these grotesque pay packages as an example of all that is wrong with the Western world. So, neuter their argument. Create a tax regime where all income over $1m is taxed at a very very high rate. Entrepreneurs are exempt, and this could be relatively easily identified via patents, copyrights, ownership, etc.. And, no, patents filed by companies would not exempt their CEOs (or the company) from the tax regime.
Certainly, this may cause some head offices may migrate out of the country, but does that really matter? If we keep the general business tax friendly, and reduce the personal income tax on ordinary people, then companies will still set up factories here in Canada – which is a lot more beneficial to the economy than 2 or 3 millionaire CEOs.
Interestingly, this approach may bifurcate the celebrity world. Musicians would qualify for the entreprenerial exemption if they own the copyright to their music. Actors and athletes, on the other hand, would not be exempt. Which, quite frankly, would be fine with me.
Income inequality is a central problem of what passes for Capitalism now but it isn’t the only one. You can’t address income inequality without looking at globalization. An economy made up of service industry workers and hedge fund managers isn’t a particularly healthy one. An economic system which rewards income equality and globalization is patently broken and needs to be fixed.
Globalization has made the world far more equal for those within itS reach. The regions of the world outside of it are barely out of the stone age. Much of Asia lives far closer to the level of prosperity that we do (and many live better than we do) than they did thirty years ago. Same goes for those countries liberated from communism in eastern Europe.
On balance globalization and capitalism are the greatest forces for good in the world in the history of mankind.
Not. Look at the envirionmental damage in Asia for a start. Gord you and the fellow beleivers keep spewing that stuff. Sooner or later it will catch up.
I’m sorry but I am fairly certain that neither Capitalism nor Globalization have the moral qualities you ascribe to them Mr. Tulk. Economic systems are not morality plays. They may be efficient or inefficient, to varying degrees but not good or evil.
Capitalism doesn’t suck. It has unleashed human creativity and allowed us to transform this planet, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. The real importance of capitalism is precisely the increase in the realization human potential that it has allowed.
What sucks is the notion that we can simply take our hands off the steering wheel, and all will be well. What sucks is the belief that more supply side voodooism is going to solve the debt and inequity issues, and address the over consumption of ever scarcer resources. What sucks is the slow but steady slide from democracy to plutocracy in the Western world.
The argument is not against capitalism, but against blind faith in the power of a deified notion of “the market” to solve all the challenges we face. What Davos tries to facilitate is a consideration of how to keep the the increases in human capacity growing, and growing in such a way that the benefits are realized by the widest possible number of persons. No small task.
Yes. You get it.
Top post.
Exactly. Capitalism does not suck. – warren is wrong to say so.
And Schwab is wrong to say it has no place in this world in its current form – he wants to massively regulate it.
“Honour is greater than life with dishonour in their culture. It really doesn’t matter and it will make no difference in their community.”
Bullshit.
Social Democracy.
I remember from John English’s book about Trudeau that he got in trouble in 1976 for suggesting something similar. When economic times are bad, as now or in the Great Depression, some want to make great changes to the system rather than patiently awaiting the inevitable upturn in the economy. Those who believe in capitalism should see these suggestions as warnings that if things don’t get better soon, the public will support some serious interference in the system, ie. much more state control. I don’t think we’re remotely at that point yet in Canada and hope that we only get some modest and helpful reforms out of this crisis, ie. a little tinkering.
Kenneth Rogoff on the ‘second great contraction’ here: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rogoff83/English
Martin Feldstein on the danger of confusing cyclical and structural problems here: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/feldstein44/English
Add to the economic malaise political problems arising out of the concentration of wealth (itself a function of structural problems) and things don’t look all that much like just another cyclical event.
I really, really hope I’m wrong on this, BTW. And I’d agree that Canada (in part because of good management, and in part, I think, because we are still so much a resource economy) has fared relatively well.
An excellent essay on this very topic here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289352/let-us-now-praise-private-equity-reihan-salam
If you’re going to publish a book about this stuff, I suggest you read this first.
A guy (Romney) who makes his money from breaking up or bankrupting companys and tossing out thousands of real people from their jobs might be acting within the law but is not the guy I would want for president. A little more empathy wwould be nice.
Try reading the essay I linked to… Perhaps you will learn that creative destruction in the end creates jobs and wealth. These PE companies don’t get paid to kill businesses they get paid to make them better and those employees who remain better and more productive employees which means their jobs are safer and their incomes safer and higher than the would otherwise be. Making it mOre difficult for PE firms to do their job shows a lack of compassion for these employees – founded on an anti-business ideology that is based on myth rather than fact.
7 pages of right wing spin by one of the lesser reptilians at National Review.
Well Gord, I read the article. I have a different opinion.
Accoridng to the article Apple’s success in part resulted from “outsourcing” manufacturing jobs – ie pay people less to do the same work – increase profit through killing jobs in North America. A recent published article suggests working at Apple isn’t a lot of fun – but hey the company is profitable and productive I guess.
How much profit is not enough. Profitable companies shutting down profitable manufacturing facilities because they aren’t profitable enough!
Private equity firms who use corporate veils and debt financing to “re-organize” companies by screwing public shareholders – got to love private equity.
Throw people out of work so they can start their own businesses. To suggest praise for the individual who does the laying off so the laid off person has to go out and become self-employed demonstrates a distorted set of values.
Thus, “rigorous, unsentimental, data-driven enterprise dominated by sophisticated investment professionals” who don’t give a hoot about social and community values.
The stagnant future predicted is coming about precisely because of greedy private equity holders/managers/who have no tie to the local community or the local community’s social values. Profit for profit’s sake and damn the torpedoes. Ship the jobs over seas.
These private equity firms are all greed driven using productivity/profit as the only yardstick of success. I suspect the occupy movement is just the beginning of the backlash against the greed of the greedy.
Time to re-think globalization and unchecked capitalism. Time to say, you want to sell it here, you make it here. Let the big companies and their big money walk. They won’t walk completely from the resources. Furthermore, there will be others who will step in, pick up the ball and do locally what the greedy refuse to do.
From your source “Yet those targets start new factories, retail outlets, and other establishments at a considerably higher rate than control firms — and so net job losses at target firms are less than 1 percent greater than net job losses at control firms.”
So actually, they do cut jobs.
But wait, there’s more! Private equity really, really hates unions. Unions want crazy things like a living wage, and loony stuff like health care and pension benefits. Private equity needs big interests payments, managerial bonuses, and huge returns to investors, not to mention the juicy cut it takes for itself. So is it any wonder the post war (unionized — one in four in the US in 1960) middle class is disappearing?
Sure, private equity creates ‘churn,’ and ‘churn’ is good for some. But it is not good for all.
You are obviously a huge fan of capitalism. Social media is the essense of commerce and capitalism. That business design and management changes over time is a given – twas ever thus – you would be better served if you saw the social media revolution as the epitome of creatIve destruction – the life blood of capitalism and wealth creation and the pursuit of happiness.
If you really want to see what is the cutting edge of capitalism and social media take a look at what salesforce (excellent capitalist name – headquartered in the capitalist epicenter of San francisco) is doing with its chatter business social media and its partnerships with Marketo and Radian 6 (the world leader in social media monitoring tools – based in new brunswick) and others.
Social media is about accountability. And accountability is the holy grail in business. With accurate, timely measures of it people get rewarded more accurately for their efforts.
There are many in the higher reaches of big business who want to increase regulatation inorder to make their business more monopolistic. GE is one example. Warren Buffett via geico and other of his holdings are another.
Oh God. you’re flogging this again?
“And accountability is the holy grail in business.”
Where was the accountability from the bankers and lenders during the sub-prime crisis?
And where was the ‘accountability’ in the lead up to BP Gulf disaster – who’s to blame for the lack of redundant systems?
Accountability is not the holy grail in business- accounting is.
“Shafias are now heroes in their community.”
Bullshit.
“The women have no doubt gotten the message and must live in silent fear and obedience.”
Bullshit.
“It will happen again.”
Yes, sadly you are correct. Domestic violence up to and including murder happen far too often, in all communities. It’s a fucking shame.
Heroes to some perhaps, but to many our system of govt is the hero – it is what many of them came to this country for.
Is there any particular reason why your only examples of corruption are from Africa and First Nations reserves?
“Competent administrators working for peanuts” sounds like the approach most conservative-minded politicians take to public administrators. The CAO of the City of London (ON) makes about $200,000/year while running an organization with 3000 employees, and the conservative elements of this city cry that he is paid too much, while an equivalent position in an equally-large organizations would make ten times as much. This is all a perspective issue. When someone is being paid with public dollars, they should make peanuts (which breaks a capitalism rule by not creating the conditions to attract the best talent), but when a private-sector “competent administrator” makes $7 million, it is justified.
Accountability = BP is out of business long ago. That it for years was an arm of the british govt gave it more protection from many sins. That culture still remains to some extent.
More and better Accountability means the market more accurately rewards winners. In the case of social media that can go right down to the individual employee and right to the very top of the company or government.
Frank McKenna was among the first of the grown-up Liberals to cash in his chips and go home. Even he couldn`t stand the thought of sitting in the House frustrated for however long it would take to ever gain power again.
So.,…we should turn a blind eye? There is no point in prosecuting? You don’t think young women will already be afraid having heard about what happened to the Shafias? I personally would like to know that my larger society will do something to protect me if I am living in an abusive home.
Violence against women is not exactly only an afghan problem. And policies aimed at curtailing, changing, protecting, educating individuals and systems, enacting laws, pushing systems to do their jobs, etc have been effective in reducing the violence.
And yes, it takes a generation or two sometimes to see things really go away culturally. But they do change because culture is manufactured and sustained by people. Culture is not static.
By the way – if life is really not life without dishonour, why all the denial and refusal to accept responsibility? Wouldn’t it be better to say “Hey, I killed them and I stand behind it.” Nah…They are human and became scared of the consequences of what they had done and perhaps regretful and want(ed) to save themselves. They know they are in for some pretty shitty lives for what they’ve done and they don’t like it. “I didn’t do it” is not exactly the rallying cry people are looking for if they want to get behind a martyr.
If you can make a sensible explanation of what you mean by ‘their community,’ I could be persuaded that your comment isn’t just bigoted crap, sure.
Well, I guess there’s always fear.
You can tug the forelock all you want, but I’d suggest supporting the International Transport Workers’ Federation in their struggles against the flag of convenience practices.
“Extremist terrorist community.” Hmmm … how many of these individuals do you reckon exist? Out of the million or so adherents of Islam in this country, how many do you believe fit the description of ‘extremist terrorists’?
Let’s see … maybe 15 or 20 have been convicted. So it would seem the ratio of ‘extremist terrorists’ to law abiding citizens would have to be extremely low. But maybe you know something I don’t.
You see, Jim, when I see someone use the phrase ‘their community’ in conjunction with a culturally charged case like the Shafias, I hear a dog whistle. It’s a whistle that by not so subtle implication links all Muslims to the Shafias crime. There no doubt are a few sickos who happen to be Muslim who will see the murders as justified. There are also sickos of many faiths, beliefs, and creeds, who think that murdering their lovers, wives, and children is justified by some twisted notion of honour, or revenge, or mercy, or whatever. Just don’t imagine these people constitute a ‘community,’ or that this ‘community’ represents the norm.