Suggestions Wanted for "Can Capitalism Survive?" Debate

On Friday, I'm taking part in a debate that will be broadcast on C-SPAN. Howard Dean and I will be crossing rhetorical swords with Dick Armey and John Kasich on the question "America's Future: Can Capitalism Survive?" The event will be moderated by Joe Scarborough. I plan to make the point that what we have right now is not actually capitalism -- it's corporatism. It's welfare for the rich. It's the government picking winners and losers. It's Wall Street having their taxpayer-funded cake and eating it too. It's socialized losses and privatized gains. I'd love to hear what other points you think I should make. Leave me your suggestions in the comments section below.

 

 

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[McGruff]

11:48 AM on 11/02/2009

Your summary position is clear and succinct.

However ... you need to start directing all of your comments & questions directly to President Obama ... or risk being ignored.

You need to mobilize your audience to start personalizing their questions by addressing the President by name.

It's time to turn up the pressure on this White House ... and force them to choose sides on these obvious examples of corruption.

Please turn to the camera ... point your finger ... and start your question and/or comment with "President Obama ... why are you supporting ................".

If you truly want to shape the political agenda ... you need to mobilize your zillions of readers to start directing their questions to President Obama ... and demand an answer.

The White House will not be able to leave these questions floating around in the media "unanswered" ... and will be forced to start addressing concerns directly ... or risk looking like they are choosing to ignore their core constituency.

One small change in the way you and your readers ask questions ... will yield big results.

The honeymoon is over ... it's time to start acting like journalists ... and begin speaking truth to power ... regardless of the outcome.

Don't be afraid.

[gkmtech]

08:31 PM on 11/01/2009

Several points come to mind with regard to your request for input. First, we have been through this before...in the Gilded Age and a again in the 1920's. What was required was a rebalancing of unbridled greed (I won't call it capitalism) and the needs of society. In both cases, we had strong presidents, both Roosevelts, who were willing to take on entrenched money. The President needs to step up to the plate but I fear he is burning all his political capital on (much needed) health care reform. Perhaps he is waiting for that to be completed of for a second market melt-down which will give him a refreshed mandate for action. Having Washington do the bidding of business is nothing new, again, see the Gilded Age for some despicable examples. New regulations for a new global economy are certainly required. What worked fifty or even twenty years ago is now outdated. The Government should be the aggregated voice of the people and the Government is the only entity which is strong enough to take on the deeply vested interests that want to maintain the status quo that was unleashed in the Reagan years. While the majority of people don't want government intruding in their lives, the majority also wants to feel that they live in a society where everyone plays by the same rules. Bottom-line (as they say in business), the Administration needs to start drawing some new lines.

[Hieraro]

10:13 AM on 11/01/2009

Capitalism does have to have some regulations and we do, the argrument is do we have enough or too much. I don't think we enforce many of the regulations that we have. Then politicans make new laws and the system gets more screwed up. You can't have a (business)system that penalizes hard working people from keeping the fruits of their labor otherwise people won't work hard it's actually that simple. Big business, Big Labor(unions) and Big government are all equally BAD. Some people won't work even if they are rewarded, for sure most people won't work if they aren't rewarded(Soviet Union model)

[Danyelle55]

11:32 PM on 10/31/2009

Capitalism: A Love Story

Micheal Moore's latest film is a great example of the damage being done to capitalism's reputation when one does not understand the difference between capitalism and corporatism. I wish Arianna good luck in her upcoming debate. Capitalism has taken a lot of flack lately, often for no fault of its own. May she reach out to Micheal Moore to help him to understand the difference.

She can and will be a strong unifying force on this issue!!!

[Greg0658]

01:56 AM on 10/30/2009

Part 3)

7) Healthcare Debate - in essence is Industry vs. Industry, TBTFight, Interconnectivity in profits generation, Corporatisms drive to wring out as many costs as possible. Pitting cheaper labor markets, robotic technology, and threatened job loss as incentive to play along.

*but coda jump* Music Harmony above Sport Competitiveness .. I do worry, nearly as much .. of the creativity & human drive losses without the sport of competition. I posted over on The Big Picture earlier a reference to StarTrek .. I am just about sure Earth would need to transform from Capitalism / Corporatism to another form of labor for stuff to arrive into that day and age … folks both on Earth and in the stars, content with their roles in the Enterprise.

[Greg0658]

01:54 AM on 10/30/2009

Part 2)

Hence:
Mergers & Acquisitions work against the consumer, who needs a job to buy.
M&A works against the government who needs a competitor factory for its property taxes.
We are where we are because of a Wrung Out Economy with to many laborers unable to labor.

5) Technology Interactivity - a business must utilize products and services and place trust across many fields to produce a product of major standing, researching patents and implementing twists of trade secrets. The interactive nature of data collection will report activity to the collective with the notion that a startup is threatening the Collective.

With items 4 & 5 there is also the Polar Opposite. At levels, little is known, as in the underground cash flow in drugs, prostitution, gambling. Those operations can run with printed cash exchanging hands. A law in nature, "For every action there's an opposite and equal reaction". TBTF creates the need for these avenues of small business to exist.

Hence:
6) Disbursement of Police'g Costs - to many USA Capitalism businesses this is a loss. Versus, to some Corporatism interests this is a win. America in large part is policing the world at the expense of the American worker through payroll deduction. Be mindful of a book and notion, Disaster Capitalism side aspect. A small scale example: a glass window replacer’s kid with a BBgun shooting up the neighborhood.

[Greg0658]

01:51 AM on 10/30/2009

Part 1)

Can Capitalism Survive .. imo No .. at least it shouldn't .. *but with a but*
Corporatism - as in your opening - I will be using one of the 2 "C" words used in this essay - nearly the same notion.

1) Energy Independence - Capitalism is unable to move away from oil dependency into cleaner fuels for climate interests and trade balance without upsetting the cash flow rhythm and the controlling faculty.

2) Waste Reduction & Cleanup - Corporatism is un-eagar to move from a throw away society and recycle, again because controlling faculties would lose market, and Capitalism does not intend to (when able to thwart) spend cash resources for cleanup needs, like on our Supersites.

3) Population Balance; Natural Resources; Immigration Control - Capitalism is in constant need for expansion as its engine of growth. Take as an example, well manufactured furniture and homes. They would be in less demand with a designed population per acre balance. War as a method for reductions are no longer as politically correct; or advisable on a world war scale of activities. Items 1 & 2 are major injections here also.

4) ToBigToFight - Corporatisms natural drive is to destroy competition. To be a world player and mass produce a widget, a business needs a massive factory. The Good-ole boy network has little interest in sharing, that notion goes against our sporting competitive nature*.

[Steven Harris]

11:24 PM on 10/29/2009

slow down,relax,think fast!

[el profesor]

06:41 PM on 10/28/2009

”Can Capitalism survive? No. I do not think it can.”
—Joseph Schumpeter, 1942

[Alexander2791]

09:32 PM on 10/28/2009

Arianna......I am starting to believe that that Obama is and will stay the un-engaged pundit staying on the sidelines. He lacks the economic knowledge or true leadership skill, hence he is completely at the mercy of his economic advisers. Maybe, you should discuss Soros effort to address the myth of a free market with equal access to information, which is the main argument behind the deregulation policies of the previous years. I believe that Soros has created a new foundation to investigate those myths, he has enlisted the likes of Stieglitz and other luminaries.

[John Borah]

06:23 PM on 10/28/2009

I have written a book on the conflict between capitalism and the Constitution. It is too bad you haven't read it and I am having trouble getting it published. You start out wrong. Concepts of capitalism by Adam Smith have existed for a long time but it has become more defined by Milton Friedman since the 1950's and Alfred Sloan, the head of General Motors from 1937 to 1956 who stated, "The primary object of the corporation...is to make money, not just to make motor cars." Several cliques and dogmas set forth the culture and rules for maximizing profits, the primary goal of capitalism. First is, "The business of business is to make money. 2) Growth is the key to success. 3) The primary responsibility of the corporation is to the stockholders. 4) Advocate competition but take all steps necessary such as mergers and acquisitions to maintain market dominance. 5) Plan and build for obsolescence. 6) Buy overseas, outsource production and lay off employees as there is no responsibility to labor. 7) The consumer is to be managed by sales, advertising, persuasion as effectiveness overrides objectivity. 8) Oppose unions as they restrict management. 9) Reduce taxes. There are more. These dogmas have created an unfortunate culture that encourage a loss of conscience of the American public, a lack of accommodation among our peoples, selfishness, greed, a loss of a sense of fairness, the loss of quality of product, cheating, corruption and more. Good luck. John D. Borah

[sds2008]

03:12 PM on 10/28/2009

The problem with Capitolism as has been practiced lately is that Corporations, especially banks, have been allowed to grow too big. They have been allowed to grow to the point where they can squeeze their competition, making money expensive to borrow, and in general using market power to their advantage. In other sectors, like communications, they have controlled the message, so it is difficult for journalists to even write unbiased stories depending on who their employer is. To make matters worse, banks have used the bailout money to buy other banks, thus growing even bigger, and consolidating, which serves to add to barriers to entering the market. The solution is for Obama to trust bust a la Teddy Roosevelt, any bank which doesn't pay back the money. This solves at least two different problems. It reduces the size of those large corporations, which was the reason we had to bail them out in the first place, and gets some of our bailout money back. There could also be some way to reward banks who use the money to actually make loans.

[ez14livin]

12:48 PM on 10/28/2009

I would suggest that a fair amount of the social breakdown in this country is related to salaries that are completely out of whack: from sports stars to hollywood actors to CEO's.

Back when taxes were at 90% (under a REPUBLICAN president), CEO families did not necessarily live substantially different lives than their employees. Yes maybe they were on 'the other side of the tracks', but they were not in a different state taking a helicopter to get to their office.

Even in capitalism I see nothing wrong w/ there being some sort of formula for determining CEO wages, maybe along the lines that it can only be 50x the lowest paid worker. If the CEO wants a raise, then the employees get one too.

CEO salaries have come about by destroying this country, not adding value; cutting costs by shutting down companies, selling the assets or moving production to countries where they are willing to work for pennies a day and don't factor in the cost of pollution and other long-term problems that will inevitably occur based on the managerial ethics being demonstrated today.

The only people who might question this are those who know they are profiting unreasonably by 'what the market will bear' knowing all along that the market is being manipulated and miss represented at every step of the way.

A salary cap is NOT un-American. These are PUBLIC companies that should be operating for the PUBLIC good as well as for shareholder gains.

[eMarkM]

11:34 AM on 10/28/2009

I'm glad to see you making the distinction between Capitalism and Corporatism. Reading through these comments it's obvious many people here think they're one in the same. Capitalism is simply free people freely exchanging with others in a system that respects property rights. As such, those who are able to accumulate capital better than others will, of course, create inequality of outcome.

As I read through these comments I'm struck by the idea that many of you seem to have that the economy is some fixed pie. So if Bill Gates has $50 billion in MSFT stock, that must mean he's impoverished millions. That would be naive, as capitalism makes the pie bigger by adding the wealth of things like computers and software that didn't exist before. So while there are huge inequities, it's this process of capital accumulation that makes possible affordable, mass-produced computers, TVs, refrigeration, A/C, indoor plumbing and all the modern conveniences that didn't even exist 100 years previously.

The poor in capitalist countries live better than the lower classes have ever lived at any time in history. It would not have been possible if "greedy capitalists" hadn't been allowed to keep their capital, reinvest it in their businesses and create the kind of production processes that allows the masses to be able to afford the things of modern life.

[ssg13565]

11:05 AM on 10/28/2009

The trouble with booms and busts is that it is inefficient.

If you do a little arithmetic, you will find that an investment that has a constant rate of return will end up giving you more money in the end than a highly volatile investment with the same average rate of return.

Unregulated capitalism has built-in mechanisms to create booms and busts. It is quite likely that an economy with the right amount of regulation will eventually surpass one with completely unregulated capitalism. When other countries surpass us in economic progress, then we might finally wake up to the fact that our strategy has been less than optimal.

[valread98036]

10:36 AM on 10/28/2009

What new rules and regulations will you enforce for small businesses applying for small business loans?

How will this ensure new jobs for our community?

How can you report good earnings for the stock market when people are still being forced out of their homes, and loosing their jobs?

How can banks and Wall Street recieve bonuses from our tax payor dollars, while everyone else is struggling to make their bills and take care of their families?

Why put the loss of banks on the taxpayor when the responsibility of failing should be on the shoulders of the banks and Wall Street?