does capitalism have within it the seeds of its own destruction?

DadaKopf

Recent studies have found that at a certain point GNP per capita and subjective well-being ceases to rise in tandem - basically, the evidence strongly suggests that past a certain threshold, economic income ceases to increase happiness/quality of life. Income may rise, but subjective well-being remains static - this has been the case in the UK since the mid-1990s. Beyond a certain point, other non-material factors become far more important; subjective well-being measures cannot increase without non-material things, like health, sense of social equality/opportunity, environment, social relationships, etc.

There is a clear disjuncture between economic accumulation and living 'the good life'.

Check out Ireland 2022 by the Institute of Administration and studies by the New Economics Foundation for more.

nesf

Akrasia wrote: »

the commodities market is 'perfect competition'

The stock market is 'perfect competition'

Dear God no. Perfect competition would mean that no seller or buyer is a price setter ok, so they have to accept the market price and all buyers and sellers are very small and only participate a small fraction of the overall transactions each day, while in both the commodities and stock markets we have very large sellers and buyers who are price setters and whose bulk sales or purchases literally move the market and in some markets are the market makers themselves.

nesf

DadaKopf wrote: »

Recent studies have found that at a certain point GNP per capita and subjective well-being ceases to rise in tandem - basically, the evidence strongly suggests that past a certain threshold, economic income ceases to increase happiness/quality of life. Income may rise, but subjective well-being remains static - this has been the case in the UK since the mid-1990s. Beyond a certain point, other non-material factors become far more important; subjective well-being measures cannot increase without non-material things, like health, sense of social equality/opportunity, environment, social relationships, etc.

Indeed, I think the cut off is around 15K US dollars per capita per year or somewhere around there. Mainly it's due to if you are under this amount you are close to subsistence living and any extra money buys a lot of comfort.

Affable

DadaKopf wrote: »

Recent studies have found that at a certain point GNP per capita and subjective well-being ceases to rise in tandem - basically, the evidence strongly suggests that past a certain threshold, economic income ceases to increase happiness/quality of life..

That may be to do with the inequality between your wealth and others, which could make a difference to your subjective well being, what woth envy and all.

silverharp

Akrasia wrote: »

You want to foster a society that rewards people for acting on their immediate impulses. Can you not see the flaws in that kind of system?

If you ask people to plan the future that they would like for themselves and their future, they would come up with some kind of life plan.

If you then structure their lives around spontanious decisions that result in long term consequences. I would be pretty certain that allowing young people perfect freedom of choice at 15 years old, would result in them not being to achieve most of the life aims they would have chosen if they were asked at 25.

Freedom of choice is disasterous if you're allowed to choose to gamble everything for some glass beads.

If you look at the US constitution I dont think the idea behind the line ".... and the pursuit of happiness" , was an invitation to be high on drugs every waking moment. There appear to be 2 ways of running society, molly coddle everyone and because of this rules upon rules need to be created to try to cap excesses. Or roll back the state and allow individuals to take reponsibility for their lives. in your terms 15 year olds are perfectly able to see long term consequences if their parents raise them correctly.

Akrasia wrote: »

We have a major conflict between maintaining the natural beauty of our island, and facilitating every whim of a spoilt tiger cub.

If it wasn't for planning laws, every beauty spot in the country (on the virtue of being beautiful, commercial and valuable) would be overwhelmed by opportunistic developments (holiday appartments in the ring of kerry, holiday homes all along the coast road in the Burren.....)

this is an example of the molly coddling and then needing layers of wasteful planning rules. the Cubs thought they were richer then they really were. A free market in money and credit would have acted as a naural dicipline on peoples actions. Also as it makes no sense in financial terms for vast numbers of people to live in one off developments around the country, had there been a free market in infrastructure etc. people would have congregared more in villages and towns, no planning rules would be needed as common sense and market dicipline would do the job.

Belfast

Akrasia wrote: »

A core principle underlying Marxist theory is that Capitalism is inherently unstable, and if left to its own devices, will ultimately collapse as workers revolt against the greed and exploitation of the capitalists.

The term Capitalism is too broad as it cover a wide range of schools of thought.

Akrasia wrote: »

Throughout the 20th century, there have been numerous instances where capitalist institutions collapsed through greed and corruption, and their collapse often presented a systemic threat to the entire economy in which they operated so much so that they necessitated bail outs from the public finances. (the wall street crash for one, Enron, the savings and loan scandal, the AIB bailout in Ireland, the current banking crisis, property bubbles and crashes in almost every economy in the world etc etc etc)

I think it was Keynesian economics have the seed of its own destruction.
The problem with Keynesian like all form of collectivism is it assumes the people running the state are genuine have the interests of the people at heart. In practice you get people like Bertie Ahern and other con men in charge who only serve their would short term interests.

Enron was not a collapse of a normal company. It was a company engaging in criminal fraud. That is why they got arrested. Fraud is not unknown in the communist world.

The Bailouts are more part of cronyism and corporatism (too big to fail)that capitalism.

Akrasia wrote: »

Marx anticipated that the collapse of capitalism would arise through workers revolution, but revolution doesn't seem to be required, merely a refusal (or inability) of the tax payers to indemnify the private capitalists against the risks that they take in the pursuit of their own wealth.

that would improve capitalism not collapse it.

Akrasia wrote: »

There are ultra capitalists out there who blame interference by the state for the failures of big business, but I would argue that if it wasn't for interference by the state in the first place, market capitalism would have collapsed by itself more than a hundred years ago.

Who are ultra capitalists?

State sponsored monopolies are used what create main of the big business in the first place.

The support only harm the market in the long term and is usually directed to support special interest groups.

Akrasia wrote: »

The welfare state that libertarians are so opposed to is one giant insurance policy against worker revolt. Without minimum standards of living for workers in modern liberal democracies, it is inconceivable that there would have been such economic and political stability in the developed world in the latter half of the 20th century

The does not improve the system it damages it and bankrupt economies.

liberal democracies have the seeds of their own destruction. They try to control the economy in the public interest.
In practice they are run by con men who create large institutions who only interest is build bigger institution.

Keynesian economics give politican more power and are used to control the economy.
Keynes said that money should be pumped in to a slowing ecomony to stimulate growth and withdrawn for a growing economy to prevent overheating.

In practice politician keep pumping money in even when the economy is overheating. this leads to cycles of booms and busts.
This has a very destructive effect on people lives.

In Marx's time religion was the opium of the people.(opium was legal them and people used it like we use aspirin). These day it is Marketing, branding and entertainment( celebrity culture) that is the opium of the people.

The present system is what ever you want to call it is unstable and tends to create long term problems in favour of short term pleasure.

Grant the present system is bad .
So what would be a better system to replace it?

The Corinthian

Affable wrote: »

No-one forces you to but it's conditioning. Psyhcologically manipulation of advertising. If theres all that **** on the street you buy pointless stuff, I do that in London all the time, and I know afterwards it was pointless and a waste. The way society and people are influences whether people cultivate inner values, which is a cumulative process which when people get a taste for they want more of. Just like instant gratification and givign away inner values is a taste that people want more of.

Regrettably what you are suggesting is that ultimately no one should be held accountable for their actions, no matter how stupid, or in some cases anti-social, they may be.

Akrasia wrote: »

the commodities market is 'perfect competition'

The stock market is 'perfect competition'

Actually, neither is in practice.

DadaKopf wrote: »

Recent studies have found that at a certain point GNP per capita and subjective well-being ceases to rise in tandem - basically, the evidence strongly suggests that past a certain threshold, economic income ceases to increase happiness/quality of life. Income may rise, but subjective well-being remains static - this has been the case in the UK since the mid-1990s. Beyond a certain point, other non-material factors become far more important; subjective well-being measures cannot increase without non-material things, like health, sense of social equality/opportunity, environment, social relationships, etc.

I would broadly agree with this.

I have a vague memory of a lecture that I miraculously attended, despite a serious hangover, in college that described the model of decrease in marginal utility of wages. People who earn low wages are willing to work longer hours for more money, but as they work more and more hours, the value of that extra money decreases, to the point that their free time is worth a lot more.

Ultimately capitalism is an economic system, and the Social Darwinism that it spawned was largely discredited as a result of the Great Depression of the 1930's. As such, while many would see capitalism as a good, if imperfect, economic system nowadays, there are actually very few who would be foolish enough to claim that it should be considered a social system too - unlike Socialism.

A Primal Nut

dreamlogic wrote: »

Education and motivation are certainly important factors in determining the sort of career options open to a person.
However at least two of the examples you mention here - computer programming, writing - are talent/aptitude based professions and cannot simply be "mastered" through education. Only a tiny minority of people could become successfully self-employed in these areas.

Aside from this, most people are constrained by a need to pay their bills every month. So for most, the option to take time off to pursue these activities is either non-existent or is just not practical.

First of all, what is the alternative?

Secondly, many people like their job and working for a company. Don't tell me things would be better working for a communist state where quality, job choice and fairness are sacrificed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

tolosenc

The best argument I'm ever heard for Capitalism is the fact that under a capitalist society, the distribution of wealth follows a normal curve. For a statistician(which I am not, but I do have some interest), that is quite a strong indicator that that is how it's meant to be. The talk that this was from was given at TED afew years ago. I'll dig up the video when I get home from work.

For now, here's a wikipedia entry on the "Normal Curve":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Curve

Affable

obl wrote: »

The best argument I'm ever heard for Capitalism is the fact that under a capitalist society, the distribution of wealth follows a normal curve. For a statistician(which I am not, but I do have some interest), that is quite a strong indicator that that is how it's meant to be. The talk that this was from was given at TED afew years ago. I'll dig up the video when I get home from work.

For now, here's a wikipedia entry on the "Normal Curve":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Curve

That would go along intuitively with the 'diamond' class system we now have, not the triangle/pyramid one we used to. Although tbh I'm not sure that the 'pyramid' class system was not under a more capitalistic, victorian society so figure that one out.

I don't know whether it's how it's 'meant to be' it's just neat. It also depends how much the state pays people.

tolosenc

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

Drumpot

Main arguements I hear for capitalism:

- Sure its the better then Communism or dictatorship
- It rewards the strong initiative people
- It encourages ingenuity
- Yadda yadda yadda

In essence I have no faith in Capitalism. What its really about is:

- Increasing personal wealth at the expense of others
- Rewarding those who are ambitious (not always a complimentary trait considering what some people do to get to the top)
- Rewarding risk takers in all spectrum of society irrespective of impact on general populations (but hiding behind small bits of legislation that either protects you or is said "protects us all":P)
- Worst of all its about the needs of the few outweighing the needs of the many

Im always debating capitalism and democracy with friends who can never connect the dots between the irony of these co existing ideals. I know one is about economics and one is about a way of governing a country but really and truely:

Capitalisms simplest definition: is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled for profit rather than by the state

Democracy simplest definition: is a form of government in which state-power is held by the majority of citizens within a country or a state.

So let me get this straight . . Generally, the leaders of our country are well marketed to the public, have plenty of funds to help them get their name out into the public arena, have spin doctors to help their image in the eyes of the public and have the backing of a huge organisation (political parties) who get donations from all sorts of vested interest groups.

Now, lets not even discuss the nepotism or celebrity (George Lee) status that some people have aquired over others.

How can anybody say that capitalism is not fundamentally flawed , particularly when coupled with a supposed "democratic" nation. On a more sinister topic of capitalism it means that we are all slaves to the rich in some form. Kind of a modern day feudal system where the lords of the land give small concessions to the mass minions, let us vote for hugely financed vested interest groups where even the most outspoken and honest of politicians will never be heard over what the party mandate should be (ie individualism is frowned on).

Ah, where is capitalism in this, because without money and backing nobody gets into a position of significant power. Our politics and politicians are slaves to the capitalist system. The very fact that any sort of bailout has been needed to banks and industrys vital to economies in itself highlights a contradiction in the idea of capitalism. Bailing out a company in a capitalistic state is really making a mockery of the whole concept of this term.

Capitalism doesnt have to be practised to the letter of the law (hence bank bailouts) and is open to interpretation but one of the obvious repurcussions (and ultimately the reason why its a god awful ideal) is that its normally the middle to lower class people who end up baring the brunt of mistakes made by those privaleged enough to be in a position to screw things up.

Like we are seeing now, sometimes those with high "ambitions" are allowed to take important roles in society.

Whats the alternative . . Im not sure, but "Its better then communism" is the weakest arguement anybody can make in favour of this feudal system. Perhaps an ideology around improving and educating people to not only improve their own wealth, but helping others. Not by hampering productivity, by encouraging it. Right now all I have seen from people in this country , mainly, is those reacting to circumstances that soley affect them. There is no unity. Communism is about sharing wealth irrespective of how hard you work, Im talking about rewarding those who work hard (particularly rewarding those who work hard while helping others), while harbouring a more constructive nation working in tandum to better all. Sounds utopian, but it sounds better then the god awful world most of us have to live a knightmare in.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Eh, there's a world of difference between the average GDP of a country being $15K and a person earning $15K dollars in a country where the average GDP per capita is around $40K dollars (in 2005 terms, I'm too lazy to work it out for 2008 ). You're not looking at this problem in the correct way.

nesf

obl wrote: »

The best argument I'm ever heard for Capitalism is the fact that under a capitalist society, the distribution of wealth follows a normal curve. For a statistician(which I am not, but I do have some interest), that is quite a strong indicator that that is how it's meant to be.

Eh, anyone with decent training in statistics would tell you that the normal distribution only works for some things and many many (possibly the majority of) things aren't normally distributed, or anything like that. Tis why you have to be very sceptical of any statistics worked out under assumptions of normally distributed data or errors. It's only appropriate in certain specific circumstances (i.e. when the data or errors actually are normally distributed).

The Corinthian

Drumpot wrote: »

Now, lets not even discuss the nepotism or celebrity (George Lee) status that some people have aquired over others.

Ahem... Kim Jong-un...

How can anybody say that capitalism is not fundamentally flawed , particularly when coupled with a supposed "democratic" nation.

I don't think, in fairness, many would claim that either capitalism or liberal democracy are without flaws - to quote Churchill; "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

However, and this brings us to the "it's better than [Insert alternative]" argument - it is a system that has evolved from those that preceded it and has proven itself to be the best of an arguably bad lot.

You can hardly gloss over the historical reality that the post-Enlightenment alternatives have all been abject disasters whenever tried out, and in this light, the "it's better than [Insert alternative]" argument is pretty compelling.

Whats the alternative . . Im not sure, but "Its better then communism" is the weakest arguement anybody can make in favour of this feudal system. Perhaps an ideology around improving and educating people to not only improve their own wealth, but helping others. Not by hampering productivity, by encouraging it. Right now all I have seen from people in this country , mainly, is those reacting to circumstances that soley affect them. There is no unity. Communism is about sharing wealth irrespective of how hard you work, Im talking about rewarding those who work hard (particularly rewarding those who work hard while helping others), while harbouring a more constructive nation working in tandum to better all. Sounds utopian, but it sounds better then the god awful world most of us have to live a knightmare in.

In theory capitalism and liberal democracy are excellent systems, in practice, both are flawed. The same goes for Communism, except in practice the flaws turned out to be even more fundamental and the system thus is far less stable.

The regrettable reality is that as a species, we're really not that nice, so as much as you would like to see a society where everyone is nice to each other, that's not going to happen. Proponents of communism unfortunately have not gotten over this issue, and while there have been lots of theories about how such community altruism could be shaped, the only thing that each and every one of these theories have in common when attempted is failure.

Drumpot

The Corinthian

I do agree I am asking alot of our species (being nice to each other on a general scale etc) and that its more a dream then a real possibility, but if we consider how we have gotten to this capitalistic system, we will see that there is always a better way to do things . .

Right now, if things get progressively worse I cant see how people will continue to accept capitalism in its truest , flawed form.

My main point (which I never seem to communicate properly!! ) is that capitalism is not as good as it gets, its pretty much as good as we know. Ive never experienced communism or fascism. It could be argued that both werent ever given the proper chance to flourish (and under the right conditions it could work). Like capitalism, they are based on ideals that arent really fully adhered to so in every sense, you nearly always end up with some sort of tiered society.

If you think nothing else of what I say, I simply believe that its ok to expect better then what we have and not to accept that "this is as good as it gets" . .

The Corinthian

Drumpot wrote: »

I do agree I am asking alot of our species (being nice to each other on a general scale etc) and that its more a dream then a real possibility, but if we consider how we have gotten to this capitalistic system, we will see that there is always a better way to do things . .

I don't think anyone (outside of some of the more extreme Social Darwinists) actually believe that capitalism is the best system possible. However, the system that we have, both economic and political, is in reality the product of a long evolution that still has not reached its end - and probably never will.

Capitalism is really a product of the industrial revolution, but also derived from the feudal economies that preceded it. And today, it is a very different beast from the one described in Das Kapital, thanks largely to the influences of both socialist (welfare) economics and (fascist) corporatism.

The same goes for democracy; had you ever wondered why most republics have both a prime minister and a president? Because it evolved from monarchy where you would have a prime minister and a prince (monarch).

Right now, if things get progressively worse I cant see how people will continue to accept capitalism in its truest , flawed form.

No, I suspect that the present economic recession will result in changes, just as the Great Depression of the 1930's saw the first introduction of social welfare.

For me, both liberal democracy and, for lack of a better word, capitalism shall and should continue to change and evolve. Indeed, the worst thing that for the system is if we adopt a position of 'democratic orthodoxy' where only one brand of democracy is valid.

Like capitalism, they are based on ideals that arent really fully adhered to so in every sense, you nearly always end up with some sort of tiered society.

Capitalism doesn't really have ideals. It's not a political philosophy outside of a preference for meritocracy. It's an economic system and should not be confused as being more than this.

Drumpot

The Corinthian wrote: »

Capitalism doesn't really have ideals. It's not a political philosophy outside of a preference for meritocracy. It's an economic system and should not be confused as being more than this.

But this is where i have difficulty in accepting it simply as an economic system in its current form . .

Let me explain . . If increasing ones wealth doesnt negatively affect the rights of others, then I would agree that its just an ecnomic system. But the truth is that its a system that is currently at the heart of political policy making decisions that are being made throughout the western world right now.

Take the obvious example , banks here, look at whats happened under the capitalist system. Governments are having to change their way of thinking because of the breakdown of this system. In essence, any political decisions that will effect the long term outlook of this country are simply down to "capitalism gone bad". One could make an arguement that it was simply the rules that governed this system, but lets call a spade a spade. The very idea of capitalism encouraged greed, inprudency and a reduction of regulations to protect the interests of the few. . This in itself is a philosophy of rewarding greed and encouraging more of it . .

I think when discussing Capitalism we cannot ignore the stranglehold it has over political philosophy. Right now countries arent being run based on political philosophy, they are simply trying to undo the mess that a capitalistic run economy has caused.

Mentioning capitalism as simply an economic system that should not be confused with political philosophy is like saying a manager should not be confused with a football team. In essence the statement is true but the influence these two have over the economy and their teams is indesputable, therefore leave your statement open to debate. I would argue that many policies in this country are designed around capitalism systems or principles (public services being the exception). Therefore, our political philosophys are determined and shaped by the economic system that permits their success.

silverharp

Drumpot wrote: »

Take the obvious example , banks here, look at whats happened under the capitalist system.....

You need to analyse capitalism on the scale of free market v statist capitalism. A free market capitalist would have taken a contract out of people like Greenspan years ago and in general would have been very critical of the system at a minimum since the mid 90's or even going back to the Nixon era

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

Drumpot wrote: »

Ive never experienced communism or fascism.

Lucky you, id say

Drumpot wrote: »

It could be argued that both werent ever given the proper chance to flourish

Of course it could. But there's one thing that you have to realise: these nowadays communists (including those on Boards) do not even offer anything that different to Stalin etal. Well, they will dispute that, but ask any communist to describe a real practical application of communism and they will fall on their feet, or leave the thread in the case of Boards.

And you say, how is this being the same as Stalin? Well because these communists cannot offer us a fully practical application of communism they are trying to get us to blindly follow them - which is no doubt what happened back in the day. And then once they have the state under control they will realise that communism actually cant be implemented. And the rest, shall we say, is history.

So for the moment Im willing to put my faith in capitalism. Yes, that may be conservative, but I think the lessons of the past out weigh any supposed theoretical benefits communists promise us.

Drumpot

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wouldnt blame the govenment for liabilities that I have taken out myself. Theres only so many things you can blame the government for, eventually the responsibility stops at all our own decisions. Nobody forced us to do anything.

And FF havent controlled our interest rates for some time my dear friend, its the ECB that determines this rate . This was a huge factor in the availability of such cheap money.

Capitalism breeds this sort of competition. Basically even prudent banks didnt necessarily want to get involved in the whole lending bubble. But remember, the very shareholders who were complaining about the banks losses would of been complaining about their lack of profits during the boom had banks not opened the floodgates. THey would of been looking at Anglo in particular and pointing out all the huge profits they were making , while Anglo were throwing money at anything with a heartbeat.

Drumpot

turgon wrote: »

Lucky you, id say



Of course it could. But there's one thing that you have to realise: these nowadays communists (including those on Boards) do not even offer anything that different to Stalin etal. Well, they will dispute that, but ask any communist to describe a real practical application of communism and they will fall on their feet, or leave the thread in the case of Boards.

And you say, how is this being the same as Stalin? Well because these communists cannot offer us a fully practical application of communism they are trying to get us to blindly follow them - which is no doubt what happened back in the day. And then once they have the state under control they will realise that communism actually cant be implemented. And the rest, shall we say, is history.

So for the moment Im willing to put my faith in capitalism. Yes, that may be conservative, but I think the lessons of the past out weigh any supposed theoretical benefits communists promise us.

Again, Im not canvissing for Communism or Fascism, Im just saying that I dont believe that Capitalism is as good as it gets . .

turgon

Drumpot wrote: »

Again, Im not canvissing for Communism or Fascism, Im just saying that I dont believe that Capitalism is as good as it gets . .

Well in that case you really are canvassing for communism/socialism, unless you have another system that you think capitalism is inferior to that you would like to share with us.

silverharp

Drumpot wrote: »

Capitalism breeds this sort of competition. Basically even prudent banks didnt necessarily want to get involved in the whole lending bubble. But remember, the very shareholders who were complaining about the banks losses would of been complaining about their lack of profits during the boom had banks not opened the floodgates. THey would of been looking at Anglo in particular and pointing out all the huge profits they were making , while Anglo were throwing money at anything with a heartbeat.

Sorry but back to definitions again, change capitalism for state capitalism and what you have said is fine. However banks dont operate in a void. You have to ask what role gov. and central banks played.
There was a clear line in the sand in 2000/01 and it was, let the recession happen after the dotcom bust, let the pets.com etc go out of business and let people and companies build up savings again, the alternative is what Greenspan & the chinese etc did, goose the money supply , bring down interest rates to below market levels and create an even bigger bubble where market participants couldnt see which way was up. I even had an Anglo savings account, why? cos fu** it , the gov will always give me back my money (thats moral hazzard)
When it comes down to it the less safety nets the safer everyone drives, individuals will get blown out of the water from time to time but the system will be more robust and less open to systematic failure.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Drumpot

Turgon, Im afraid I dont have an alternative yet (havent finished my work!!! ). I just think the one we have is fatally flawed. If governments are going to continually turn to socialist measures whenever the sht hits the fan, talking about the reasons why they shouldnt are futile. Fact is that every country seems to panic and go socialist when this happens. This is like an alcaholic going cold turkey for a couple of years and going back to drink when he thinks hes over the worst of it. You see capitalism is like a drug, profits are never enoug. Right now regulation will be tight for awhile but then reduced when large corporations demand a reduction in barriers for effective trade (ie so they can make more), then eventually we will have another crash of some sort as capitalism will of fecked over another generation that didnt see the big bang coming.

Donegalfella, anybody who blames somebody else for debts that they took on need a reality check. Unless you were literally physically forced to purchase something you have nobody else to blame but yourself. Personal responsibility for financial decisions made appears to be something that many in this country struggle to accept.

I am speaking from a position of buying at the peak, being in bad negative equity and crippled with a business and personal loan. I bought into the bubble to a degree and have been totally burned. I dont blame bertie or FF because I chose to buy into it. . Maybe when people start taking responsibility for their actions our country will get over this recession quicker.


And the very fact that differant banks had differant exposures to loans on differant levels shows that some were less satisfied throwing around money then others. Fact is that they all got burned in differant levels, but dont confuse all banks with Anglo , when you have to answer to shareholders, its difficult to go against the grain when money is being made down the road!! Put simply, if the local competitor is offering people exactly what they want, then you will go out of business if you dont comply in some form.

Silverharp, my main point is that I struggle to see how people can discuss Capitalism without mentioning the effects it has on political decisions and political ideology. Perhaps all economic systems are intertwined with politics, but if thats the case then the ideals behind capitalism are difficult to seperate from party ideology.

Most countries that operate under the principles of Capitalism have decided to take socialist measures with regards to companies that are considered of systemic importance to the economic stability of that nation. I suppose we are living in a world with capitalism economics and socialist protective measures as a fallback when it fails (rightly or wrongly).

I just cannot see how capitalism in its current form (& given the steps taken by countries) can be discussed as an idea completely seperate to political Ideology.