Economic crisis leads crowd to losing faith in capitalism

[Umbrage]

Free market flawed, says survey
By James Robbins
Diplomatic correspondent, BBC News

Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a new BBC poll has found widespread dissatisfaction with free-market capitalism. In the global poll for the BBC World Service, only 11% of those questioned across 27 countries said that it was working well. Most thought regulation and reform of the capitalist system were necessary. There were also sharp divisions around the world on whether the end of the Soviet Union was a good thing.

Economic regulation

In 1989, as the Berlin Wall fell, it was a victory for ordinary people across Eastern and Central Europe. It also looked at the time like a crushing victory for free-market capitalism. Twenty years on, this new global poll suggests confidence in free markets has taken heavy blows from the past 12 months of financial and economic crisis. More than 29,000 people in 27 countries were questioned. In only two countries, the United States and Pakistan, did more than one in five people feel that capitalism works well as it stands.

Almost a quarter - 23% of those who responded - feel it is fatally flawed. That is the view of 43% in France, 38% in Mexico and 35% in Brazil.

And there is very strong support around the world for governments to distribute wealth more evenly. That is backed by majorities in 22 of the 27 countries. If there is one issue where a global consensus seems to emerge from the survey it is this: there are majorities almost everywhere wanting government to be more active in regulating business. It is only in Turkey that a majority want less government regulation.

Opinion about the disintegration of the Soviet Union is sharply divided. Europeans overwhelmingly say it was a good thing: 79% in Germany, 76% in Britain and 74% in France feel that way. But outside the developed West it is a different picture. Almost seven in 10 Egyptians say the end of the Soviet Union was a bad thing and views are sharply divided in India, Kenya and Indonesia.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8347409.stm

People agree the system sucks but nobody has an actual solution. After all what system would be able to deal with the corruption of the masters and the unrealistic demands of the servants?

Related news:
Experts find that cornflakes are TRÜE METAL FOOD \m/

Yay communism! Metal cornflakes for all!

[scourge]

The surface problem is that capitalism is an artificial form of natural selection (culture) and people fear struggle of any sort. The 2-5% best rocket to the top leaving the rest struggling to some extent.

The hidden problem is the type of traits this artificial natural selection culture says are favorable. Narcissism, solipsism, psychopathy, short-term thinking and avarice have all made their appearance. In other words, according to the culture of our time, having these traits helps our chances of success in life. In contrast, prior cultures would encourage piety, fidelity, chivalry, planning ahead, and bravery.

[mandrake]

OH! now i get it, capitalism is to blame for governments interventionism and ignorant masses supporting this policy, yeees... it makes sense now... of course a free market is absolutely an artificial thing, nothing natural in self ownership, aint it?  the "scientific" statistics and central planning are rational and essentialy natural... i finnaly get it

And of course if a mass of humans think capitalism sucks then ofcourse that s an absolute truth, the greatest argument against it, or for that matter against anything.

[esoteric]

of course a free market is absolutely an artificial thing

Well, yes it is. Those in the green part of the graph might as well be labelled "insane".

[mandrake]

of course a free market is absolutely an artificial thing

Well, yes it is. Those in the green part of the graph might as well be labelled "insane".

well, in this case you should stick with other popuar opinions also? "Crowdism" is right just sometimes, in some cases crowds are downright smart and intelligent in their opinions. agree?
It s mainstream to blame capitalism. Either in an extreme fashion or not.

[JewishPhysics]

"Free market" capitalism exists only in theory.  What we have in the US and around the world is Corporate Capitalism, which creates all sorts of perverse incentives for big businesses.  The only sensible approach is third position economics (i.e. a mixed economy).  No single approach can handle all economic demands in an efficient and healthy manner.

[mandrake]

"Free market" capitalism exists only in theory.  What we have in the US and around the world is Corporate Capitalism, which creates all sorts of perverse incentives for big businesses.  The only sensible approach is third position economics (i.e. a mixed economy).  No single approach can handle all economic demands in an efficient and healthy manner.

yes, there is no single economy in the world that is free. there are those more or less regulated by central authority. what the common knowledge takes as capitalism (in that research (?) above for example) is a market that only appears free. In fact big bussines marries authority. I agree with you on this. But just think for a minute at mixed economy scenarios: it's the same thing. A state intervention is based, when not on personal interest of those in charge (), on statistical data meant as knowledge basis, practice that never gets it right (because it just can't) so it is disastruous  in "planning".

"efficient and healthy" you say... just keep in mind that interventionism (Keynesian economy) and socialist (communist) central planning are faces of the same coin. Your american socialism  and russia's liberalism (ahem...) are cousins. Healthy and efficient is by no means the redistribution witch is inherent to any socialist economy. redistribution is formaly based on "weak morals" but hiddenly is just means for manipulation and theft. Healthy and efficient is the market that allows those individuals providing things needed (meaning things that people would buy) to freely exercise this. Any state favoritism even well intended) is against this. About state involved in economy everybody should consult Mises's writings.

When it comes to freedom it can't never be treated with half measures for it is freedom no more. A third position is just a form of interventionism for no way two types of free market (capitalism) may be concieved.

(here s an opinion on nazi economy, meaning hitler's views etc  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzD4NeMjRCg ... 4 parts)

[Nimbostratus]

The surface problem is that capitalism is an artificial form of natural selection (culture) and people fear struggle of any sort. The 2-5% best rocket to the top leaving the rest struggling to some extent.

Economical systems are social constructions, but they inescapably resemble biological realities (i.e. natural selection). I'm not against a certain degree of socialism as production system (and a certain degree of socialism is necessary if you want a government) if it allows competence,  based  in meritocracy. That's the difference with political left which denies biological realities and consequently aristocracy and other forms of power relationships.

To me, capitalism is responsibility of the consumers. The left has been very critic about enterprises and very protective with consumers... because leftists can't handle the idea that smart consumption is not a fact of education in a given social context (a context supposedly  and exclusively created by the ruling class), but a matter of pre-constructional intelligence.

Do you want better capitalism? Promote better consumers.

[scourge]

Better consumers is right. I believe much of the push for third world immigration is to ensure a large consumer base that is not at all discriminatory with what they purchase. They prefer cheap, abundant and quick gratification, quality production and environment be damned and stay oblivious to the consequences of putting unscrupulous sellers into power with the mass wealth transfer.

Consumer and environmental education has no effect unless you have people who can absorb the information and care about the results. To date, after decades of such education availability, this is only a tiny minority. It is clear by now that liberalism is incapable of making any large scale improvements and that populations generally need to be coerced into not destroying or culled by war so the impact of their numbers is reduced.

[reasonable]

Better consumers is right. I believe much of the push for third world immigration is to ensure a large consumer base that is not at all discriminatory with what they purchase. They prefer cheap, abundant and quick gratification, quality production and environment be damned and stay oblivious to the consequences of putting unscrupulous sellers into power with the mass wealth transfer.

Is it really reasonable to expect those who come from shitholes with dismal living standards to share your attitude towards these sorts of things?

[scourge]

Isn't it better to direct this question at the parties responsible? Those who either ridicule or pity subsistence living rather than leave well enough alone. Those who insist artificial coaxing like education can rewire evolution's hardware.