Has Capitalism Failed The Great British Public?
952510
Its true, the government panders to big business. When I was a student the loans for tuition just piled up and now we have to pay it all back. \n\nThere is money for a war in Iraq. And money for a war in Afghanistan. These people have not really upset us. I think we have the wrong government. They should be voted out. \n\nWe should not have to get young people starting out to start with thousands of pounds of debts while we spend billions of pounds on a war in a country that has nothing to do with us. \n\nIf America has problems with people let them sort it out themselves, we are not rich enough for that sort of adventure.
353060
the bottom line is...americans are pure capitalists whereas the brits are borderline socialists. We in the united states believe in getting all the customers for ourselves and if not kept in check would spend gargantuan amounts of money to to make the competition inexistant. the brits believe in the equality of all like businesses. in the brit ideal, everyone will eventually have his/her share of clients over time regardless of the marketing strategy and funds vested in advertisement.
333769
History has proven pure communism or socialism doesn’t work.  Humans are free thinkers and eventually demand access to individual freedoms and rights.  History has also proven pure democracy and capitalism doesn’t work either.  Louis, Tocqueville warned of a “tyranny of the majority” which some say may be occurring in America today.\n\nThe answer is a balance between the two.   In a perfect society there would be enough social programs to support the poor, sick, and needy while providing opportunity for those “go getters” who wish to pursues wealth and success.
67785
Most theories of what has come to be called capitalism developed in the 18th century, 19th century and 20th century, for instance in the context of the industrial revolution and European imperialism (e.g. Chydenius, Smith, Ricardo, Marx), The Great Depression (e.g.Keynes) and the Cold war (e.g. Hayek, Friedman).\n\nIn his 1765 book The National Gain, Anders Chydenius, a Finnish parliamentarian, became the first to propose freedom of trade and industry and the principles of liberalism, 11 years before Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776).\n\nCriticisms of capitalism:\n\n1. Unequal distribution of wealth and income\n\n2. Excessive inequality\n\n3. Employment/unemployment\n\nMarxist critique of capitalism: \n\nMarxists define capital as "a social, economic relation" between people (rather than between people and things). In this sense they seek to abolish capital. They believe that private ownership of the means of production enriches capitalists (owners of capital) at the expense of workers ("the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer"), and that this is the cause of social ills.
467981
No, Great Britain is only small, we haven't got room, however the British government do seem to not mind illegal immigrants, they house them, give them money for food and generally look after them a lot better than they look after the British themselves.
1013739
Globalise Resistance, a UK anti-capitalist group
799880
Is this a trick Q?  Following the stagflation that occured in the late 1970's (as a resuly of the Keynsian social democratic principles that characterised post-war politics) Thatcher and the conservatives followed liberalist political ideology as advocated by the likes of Hayek.. which included believing in private ownership and individual responsibility etc etc\n\nSo the effect Thatcher had on privatisation was to privatise many utilities/industries such as BT, BR, Steel etc  Some commentators argue that this increased efficiency and productivity..it certainly led to increased flexibility in the work place which for many workers may not be such a great phenomenon in the same way that trade union strangle holds were bad for business before.. (pendulum gone too far?) \n\nPossibly, but now that the major parties have resolved the big issues (Tories accepting some degree of social help needed/NHS to stay and Labour seeing that business must be competitive/privatisation has a place) both parties are fighting over middle ground so it can be said with a large degree of certainty that public ownership is likely to remain something that happened in the past.
817086
Sure, why not?\n\nCommunism has never been tried in this world, but if you read marx's works, it's clear that it could be done. Some people think that you need more money for more motivation, however it is clear that police officers have some of the hardest jobs in the country, and they get payed crap for what they do. On the other hand CEOs, who do NOTHING for the community, get payed the best. Clearly, money does not equal motivation. \nAlso, it is said that communism stifles artistic creativity, yet I haven't heard a legitimate reason why it would.\n\nCommunism makes us all equal, because in the words of our founders we are all created equal. I know some right-wingers don't like the idea of sharing and helping each other out. Don't know why...
1141513
It's not only reasonable, it's necessary.  Like all good things, capitalism becomes detrimental when taken to extremes.  Specifically, a completely unfettered market inevitably tends toward a concentration of economic and political power into the hands of fewer and fewer people, until the system becomes undemocratic and oppressive.
662702
Hadn't thought of it quite this way before.  I like your take on it (you should really have published it as a fuller op-ed somewhere).\n\nHowever, I actually think that there's not a lot that Bush or any president can do here.  But having said that, I do continually wonder at Bush's (and every corporatist conservative's) blind faith that everything happens because of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. Smith is good as far as economic THEORY goes, but there are so many externalities - including petrol-monopoly and all its trappings - that the market is hamstrung from responding as Smith himself would have predicted.
893452
OMG don't get me started!\n\nFirstly as a British (Welsh) person I totally agree with you. about us becoming the world's soup kitchen - but let me try and explain how our system works and why it has gone wrong.\n\nWe have a more socialist system than you.  Healthcare is funded by the Government and there is provision made for social housing (Government funded), Welfare Benefits etc which are far more than you get.\n\nBut they are meant to be for those British people who REALLY need them!! The sick, elderly, disabled, those who through no fault of their own are unemployed, or have fallen on hard times or those who are poorly paid.  The architect of the Welfare State was a 1950's Welsh politician named Aneurin Bevan (Great Welshman!).  He believed that all working people had the right to such basic things as medical care, roof over their head, food, education and the chance to earn a fair wage and live a decent life.  That these things were not luxuries to be bought but fundamental rights.  He had grown up amongst the poor Welsh Mining Communities, and had seen hard working people being paid low wages by their greedy bosses, and having to go without food and medical care because they couldn't afford it.  He wanted to put a stop to this.\n\nOver the years these benefits have been taken advantage of.  Not just by lazy British people who didn't want to work and do the best for themselves, but by foreigners who saw that by coming here they would get housing, free healthcare, education, benefits etc.\n\nWe still need the Welfare State because there will always be genuine hard working British people who fall on hard times (through no fault of their own) and are in need of these basics of life.  Expecting them to rely on "charities" for help is farcical.  Charities are always under funded and can do little other than open soup kitchens and give "advice".   Thats not going to clothe and house people or find them work or treat them when they are sick.  Charities will never be able to provide for all the poor and destitute - ever read Charles Dickens?  They are  supplementary measure but nothing more.   Responsiblity needs to lie with the Govenrnment.\n\nAt the moment we have a useless, spineless government who are so PC its a joke (if you are an muslim or minority you can rant and rage and do what you want but a white person makes an un-PC comment and you end up in court - see Nick Griffin's recent case) and are so terrified of being considered "racist" that they are just allowing our country to be swamped with the poor and scrounging from the rest of the world.  \n\nAs a result, social housing has become nonexistant (5-7 year waiting lists for a council house in my area - British families who can't afford private rents or mortgages are homleless), and there is high unemployment, as British people are being pushed out of work by immigrants who will work for minimum wage.   You can educate yourself and work hard but it doesn't pay off.  And people are getting sick of it.  Hence the rise in popularity of the BNP (British Nationalist Party) - a far right political party.\n\nUnless the Government take steps to do something about the homelessness, poverty, misery, unemployment and crime currently swamping our country (and greatly contributed to by immigrants) then things will go from bad to worse.  Hopefully, Tony Blair and his shower of losers (such as John "Two Jags" Prescott the fattest ugliest stupidest man on earth) will soon be out on their ears.   All we need is a REAL leader to put this country right.
577486
imperialism and capitalism
1072513
what? these responses are killing me. Love the question though. It takes balls to ask a question like that. \n\nCapitalism isn't evil or wrong on its face; it's the implementation of it that is the problem. The same can be said of any socio-economic construct. We humans have quite a knack for screwing things up and introducing corruption and greed to any system. \n\nCapitalism can be a great motivator, and is the reason our Country has been so successful for generations. But it's gone too far. Greed is the primary indicator of Capitalism these days. From Enron to Union labor to Political lobbying "scandals." We no longer live in a democracy. Our governmental system has been co-opted by Capitalism entirely. Think I'm wrong? Try to run for a National Political Office. I rest my case. That is, unless, dear reader, you are born of privilege, attended the right schools, and are a member of the right organizations (read skull and bones, etc.). In that case, you're a shoe-in for president. Even if you're not one of the chosen and you've worked your way up the ranks from City Council to U.S. Representative, you're doomed to live in Corporation X's pocket, or be damned. Example? Jim Trafficant. Look him up. He wouldn't play ball. "They" kicked him out of the game. game over.\n\nCapitalism won't last forever. My only fear is, what will replace it?\n\n[edit] whoa! ChinaJon!!! i think you just made a few great arguments why Capitalism is awful! It looks great on paper, Capital for growth, etc., but you said it yourself towards the end. Ipods. Why do you think they're made in China? It's not just that it's profitable. It's that it's MORE profitable. Capitalism creates a "race to the bottom." i.e. wherever the lowest front end costs are is where the economic development goes. Used to be Mexico, now China, then Indonesia, and so on. The Golden Age of Capitalism was the U.S. in the 1950's. It was mostly a closed market, and it worked. It was self sustaining because it didn't have to play on the global playing field and compete with much LOWER standards of living in other countries. Less profits, which became unacceptable to the Corporations. They looked for ways to maximize profits, and here we are. \n\nAmerica is not the shining example of prosperity it once was. We have no real middle class any more and it's only getting worse. The class gap is frightening. And we pass more tax cuts for the rich. GO CAPITALISM GO!\n\nmorons.
881065
No. Tony Blair and others have tried to pull that one.
954745
No... that would defeat the purpose of capitalism...
335867
Actually its a super conflict between government and corporations.  Most "anti capitalist" think the government does not do enough and the pro capitalist think the government holds the companies back.  Take for example our (America's) little oil &#92; gas problem.  We can't drill in Anwar, can't drill within a 100 miles of our coast or even on our coast anywhere for that matter, and have not built an oil refinery in this country for nearly 30 years.  Do you think that is because of the legal powers of big companies?  Not one bit.
429411
The British Empire is only one in a long line of expansive failed empires.  We could look to Greece, the moors and the Romans to get examples of others.\nHistory is too much like philosophy in that there isn't always one right answer.\nIt is clear though that large empires are very hard to maintain. There is a natural tendency for such to become apathetic, ignoring a peoples natural tendency to resent foreign rule. This makes governing impossible.\nI would say Afghanistan is more a function of their support of the "Yanks" more than colonialism...remember the years of the IRA, the US stopped the group's funding maybe it was a payback.