Zombie Capitalism For The Next 20 Years

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

how do we escape from the Zombies

link

INTERNATIONAL. Legendary global investor and chairman of Singapore- based Rogers Holdings, Jim Rogers said the Fed and the US Treasury should have let 10 banks fail, not just Lehman Brothers, for the financial system to clean itself up.

Speaking to CNBC Wordwide Exchange today Rogers said "All the government officials and bureaucrats loved the fact Lehman failed, because they could all jump in and support banks."

"This whole problem was not caused by Lehman Brothers or Lehman Brothers failure. Lehman was an effect not a cause."

"The real problem over the past 10-15 years has been that regulators have not let people fail. Had they let people fail we would have solved this problem a long time ago. I don't know why they're not in jail," Rogers said.

Reiterating his view about US monetary policy and their effect on the Dollar, Rogers warned. "I would expect there to be a currency crisis or a semi-crisis this fall or next year. It's crony capitalism, Bernanke and Greenspan have brought crony capitalism to America … but that's not going to solve the world's problems."

"We're going to have zombie capitalism for the next 15-20 years. How long are you going to let the bureaucrats run the thing so we can't have a clean system?," he added.

"Banks have been going bankrupt for a few hundreds years. The way the system works is when somebody fails you let him fail. What we're doing now is we're taking the assets away from the competent people and giving them to incompetent people and telling them now you can compete with competent people with their money."

Addressing debt & consumption and how more of the same can solve the problem, a theme that has become classic Rogers rants, he said: "How can the solution for debt and consumption be more debt and more consumption? How can that be the solution to our problems?"

"What we're doing now is we're taking the assets away from the competent people and giving them to incompetent people and telling them 'now you can compete with competent people with their money,'" Rogers added.

[Traktion]

Good link and he is right, imo (not that he needs my support! )

[Cogs]

Capitalism doesn't have 20 years left in it.

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

Capitalism doesn't have 20 years left in it.

were doomed then

crony capitalism needs to go

but socialism wont last another 10

[domo]

Capitalism doesn't have 20 years left in it.

Socialism only has 5.

[Snugglybear]

crony capitalism needs to go

It won't, though. The aforementioned cronies run everything. Does anyone seriously think they'll let anyone else have a go, let alone reform the whole economic and political system? The entire electorate could vote for a 'Crush Crony Capitalism' party at a general election, and they'd find a way to nullify that result.*

* the usual way would be to turn the leaders of the CCC with great wodges of wonga

[Cogs]

were doomed then

crony capitalism needs to go

but socialism wont last another 10

We don't have socialism, but we will. It may be called something else of course. Ironically, probably something like "real capitalism", people are very ignorant. If you can get the Americans to willingly swallow Trotskyism for 8 years for no personal gain, you can certainly get people to accept being wealthier and more secure whatever you want to call it.

[Orbital]

On the plus side, by then I will be mortgage free - yay!

[Si1]

On the plus side, by then I will be mortgage free - yay!

..at a point when houses can be bought for cash anyway

yay!

Edited September 15, 2009 by Si1

[interestrateripoff]

We might have had zombie capitalism for the past 60 years and the majority not realised it.

[Uriah Heap]

The Roman Empire was a zombie republic. It lasted 500 years.

[Guest UK Debt Slave]

Capitalism doesn't have 20 years left in it.

Capitalism is what has made mankind function ever since man got up on his feet.

Social and economic engineering is what will fail.

Rumours of the death of capitism have been greatly exaggerated

[bogbrush]

Capitalism is what has made mankind function ever since man got up on his feet.

Social and economic engineering is what will fail.

Rumours of the death of capitism have been greatly exaggerated

It's wishful thinking by cogs. Capitalism is simply people doing stuff to live. Socialism is putting guns in their backs to do what you tell them.

The former is a default state, the latter lasts until the state can't pay their troops.

Crony capitalism (what socialists try to have so they can live off wealth creators but keep them under orders) relies on all the instruments of socialism to survive.

[HumanAction]

Capitalism is what has made mankind function ever since man got up on his feet.

Social and economic engineering is what will fail.

Rumours of the death of capitism have been greatly exaggerated

You need to buy a dictionary. You have capitalism confused with trade, they are not synonymous at all.

[HumanAction]

It's wishful thinking by cogs. Capitalism is simply people doing stuff to live. Socialism is putting guns in their backs to do what you tell them.

The former is a default state, the latter lasts until the state can't pay their troops.

At which point you just get a new state ( ignoring that Statism is not synonymous with socialism anyway ).

Crony capitalism (what socialists try to have so they can live off wealth creators but keep them under orders) relies on all the instruments of socialism to survive.

Crony capitalism is just what capitalism automatically degrades into out in the real world, it has little specifically to do with socialism specifically.

[bogbrush]

Crony capitalism is just what capitalism automatically degrades into out in the real world, it has little specifically to do with socialism specifically.

Crony capitalism cannot exist without the state.

Only the state can suspend the natural rules of bankruptcy and allow pseudo-corporations like banks to float effortlessly above the consequences of their actions. This is achieved by taking money of all the rest of us and giving it to their friends.

This cannot be done without a socialist regime. You are wrong to suggest it is a product of capitalism, businesses going broke is a consequence of capitalism. Businesses going broke is a very good thing, a fact that socialists cannot grasp.

[HumanAction]

Crony capitalism cannot exist without the state.

Only the state can suspend the natural rules of bankruptcy and allow pseudo-corporations like banks to float effortlessly above the consequences of their actions. This is achieved by taking money of all the rest of us and giving it to their friends.

So you agree the conditions always exist for crony capitalism then.

This cannot be done without a socialist regime.

The current evidence from around the world appears to contradict your daft assertion.

You are wrong to suggest it is a product of capitalism, businesses going broke is a consequence of capitalism. Businesses going broke is a very good thing, a fact that socialists cannot grasp.

Yet capitalism always does degrade in this way, socialism or not and nothing you say above contradicts that fact. That the evidence starkly contradicts your dogmatic assertions does tend to make you look a bit like a docrtrinaire fool.

[bogbrush]

So you agree the conditions always exist for crony capitalism then.

Yep, while the state is there to get involved it can always go tits up.

The current evidence from around the world appears to contradict your daft assertion.

The current evidence of global socialist governments taking wealth off private human beings to be given to corporations? You know, governments who want to Socialise pretty much every aspects of our lives including banking losses. Sorry, that seems to confirm what I'm saying.

Yet capitalism always does degrade in this way, socialism or not and nothing you say above contradicts that fact. That the evidence starkly contradicts your dogmatic assertions does tend to make you look a bit like a docrtrinaire fool.

Socialism doesn't degrade into cronyism? Did you not actually pay any attention to any of the 20th Century? Clearly not.

Look, how many times are we going to try our socialism before we work out it ends up like this? Would banks be behaving as they are now if it was clear to them that they will be left to go bust? Why do they believe they won't?

[HumanAction]

Yep, while the state is there to get involved it can always go tits up.

Indeed and the state is certainly not always socialist.

The current evidence of global socialist governments taking wealth off private human beings to be given to corporations? You know, governments who want to Socialise pretty much every aspects of our lives including banking losses. Sorry, that seems to confirm what I'm saying.

I accept you believe this ( with your dualist view of existence ), nevertheless most of those governments are simply not socialist in any meaningful way. At worst they are Social Democrat which is a distinct political position in itself and whicgh owes a good deal to capitalist as well as socialist ideas.

Socialism doesn't degrade into cronyism? Did you not actually pay any attention to any of the 20th Century? Clearly not.

You claim that capitalism doesn't degrade? I think its you not paying attention. ( I never actually said socialism doesnt degrade either but I guess you need me to to prop up your simpleton two option view of the world. )

Look, how many times are we going to try our socialism before we work out it ends up like this? Would banks be behaving as they are now if it was clear to them that they will be left to go bust? Why do they believe they won't?

This particular situation isn't the result of socialism. It's the result of capitalism degraded ( as it inevitably is ) by self interested elites.

Edited September 16, 2009 by HumanAction

[bogbrush]

Indeed and the state is certainly not always socialist.

See last note here.

I accept you believe this ( with your dualist view of existence ), nevertheless most of those governments are simply not socialist in any meaningful way. At worst they are Social Democrat which is a distinct political position in itself and whicgh owes a good deal to capitalist as well as socialist ideas.

I can't see any trace of capitalist philosophy in any of the major Western governments. Not one of them embraces the fundamental principles of capitalism, starting with the principle that in order for the best solutions to prevail churn is good. They all want to freeze solutions in time which is classic socialist behavior.

You claim that capitalism doesn't degrade? I think its you not paying attention. ( I never actually said socialism doesnt degrade either but I guess you need me to to prop up your simpleton two option view of the world. )

I can't see how capitalism degrades without the help of the state. Left to themselves bad businesses die off, which tends to keep things fresh. You can get monopolies for sure, but even they die off under the weight of their own limitations except when governments step in because they fear the effects of collapse and churn.

This particular situation isn't the result of socialism. It's the result of capitalism degraded ( as it inevitably is ) by self interested elites.

Capitalism is all about self interest; the only reason it could have degraded into something else in this instance is because it's been interrupted by state intervention. The banks were not, on their own, able to achieve this; they could not go to the public and take all their money to cover their losses. That could only be done by a government taking the decision to socialise the banks losses.

As for dualist thinking, frankly Social Democracy is a crock. Or, put another way, it's a way whereby people pretend to be capitalists so that they can take as much from wealth creaters as possible whilst trying not to kill the goose laying the golden eggs.

The current regime have pretty much preened themselves with the Social Democrats tag, and the result is that the vast majority of people now work or depend on the state. Quite how that differs from socialism I'm not sure, especially as it's a work-in-progress with the trend heading strongly further in that direction (last 3 months has 260k people fewer working in private sector and 13k more in public).

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

The current regime have pretty much preened themselves with the Social Democrats tag, and the result is that the vast majority of people now work or depend on the state. Quite how that differs from socialism I'm not sure, especially as it's a work-in-progress with the trend heading strongly further in that direction (last 3 months has 260k people fewer working in private sector and 13k more in public).

yep

but we must be getting close to collapse

and maybe that needs to happen because enough people cant see the problem and reduce the size of the state

[HumanAction]

I can't see any trace of capitalist philosophy in any of the major Western governments. Not one of them embraces the fundamental principles of capitalism, starting with the principle that in order for the best solutions to prevail churn is good. They all want to freeze solutions in time which is classic socialist behavior.

Its not really possible to speak meaningfully with you about capitalism seeing that you have redefined a fairly well defined term into meaninglessness. Out here in reality though the defining characteristic of capitalism is probably that workers labour is exchanged for wages leaving capital ( or at least those who control it ) to appropriate the whole end product of whatever wealth production is being undertaken. For the most part western governments facilitate precisely that exchange so cannot really be said to show no sign of capitalist philosophy.

If production were arranged so that labour hired capital and land you would no longer have a capitalist enterprise even if it traded in a market in much the same way as before. Indeed there are examples where firms do organise this way ( Gore for instance ) and in general they are longer lasting and more profitable than a traditional capitalist firm whilst providing better wages and working conditions ( despite the capitalist propoganda suggesting otherwise ).

As far as the state goes, unless you are positing an Injin style state free solution I dont really see that blaming the state is much of a defense against a charge that capitalism degrades into crony capitalism. A solution that cant allow for reality is no solution at all afterall.

Ironically I think capitalism would die without the state because no one in their right mind would make the bad bargain that exchanging labour for wages represents. Capitalism I'd suggest actually needs the state.

[Stars]

Out here in reality though the defining characteristic of capitalism is probably that workers labour is exchanged for wages leaving capital ( or at least those who control it ) to appropriate the whole end product of whatever wealth production is being undertaken. For the most part western governments facilitate precisely that exchange so cannot really be said to show no sign of capitalist philosophy.

Be more specific. Apart from the negative of not outlawing people making exchanges, how does the government facilitate people selling their labour to others who sell goods?

Edited September 16, 2009 by Stars

[bogbrush]

Its not really possible to speak meaningfully with you about capitalism seeing that you have redefined a fairly well defined term into meaninglessness. Out here in reality though the defining characteristic of capitalism is probably that workers labour is exchanged for wages leaving capital ( or at least those who control it ) to appropriate the whole end product of whatever wealth production is being undertaken. For the most part western governments facilitate precisely that exchange so cannot really be said to show no sign of capitalist philosophy.

If production were arranged so that labour hired capital and land you would no longer have a capitalist enterprise even if it traded in a market in much the same way as before. Indeed there are examples where firms do organise this way ( Gore for instance ) and in general they are longer lasting and more profitable than a traditional capitalist firm whilst providing better wages and working conditions ( despite the capitalist propoganda suggesting otherwise ).

As far as the state goes, unless you are positing an Injin style state free solution I dont really see that blaming the state is much of a defense against a charge that capitalism degrades into crony capitalism. A solution that cant allow for reality is no solution at all afterall.

Ironically I think capitalism would die without the state because no one in their right mind would make the bad bargain that exchanging labour for wages represents. Capitalism I'd suggest actually needs the state.

What an absurd statement. You're suggesting that without the state nobody would ever decide to exchange labour for money/reward? There'd be zero working for money?

Think it through.

And the success of capitalism has nothing to do with firms lasting for ages. The genius of capitalism is that firms should go broke in the face of new firms with better ideas. The process is the point, not individual firms. Your idea that the success of the process is determined by how static it is explains your love of the state solution. Simply a recipe for stagnation and decline.

[HumanAction]

What an absurd statement. You're suggesting that without the state nobody would ever decide to exchange labour for money/reward? There'd be zero working for money?

Think it through.

I have thought it through. People make that bargain right now because the state removes options and restricts freedoms. Given freedom there is no real reason to believe that people would continue making the bad deal because it would become obvious that it is indeed a good deal only for the capitalist and with priveledge gone there would simply be better options than lining anothers pocket with the fruits of one's own labour.

And the success of capitalism has nothing to do with firms lasting for ages.

That only addresses half of what I wrote though. The worker owned and run firms concerned are also more profitable.

The genius of capitalism is that firms should go broke in the face of new firms with better ideas.

This is not actually a unique point in favour of capitalism, although you no doubt are ignorant of that fact.

The process is the point, not individual firms. Your idea that the success of the process is determined by how static it is explains your love of the state solution. Simply a recipe for stagnation and decline.

Perhaps you should learn to read. I have said nothing about static processes ( you swapped that in for increased profits ie efficiency ). As usual for you, you are projecting your preconceptions onto what I said rather than engaging with what was actually written.