Capitalism Is Dead. Now What Do We Do?

Capitalism is dead.

And I'm not surprised.

I'll explain why in a minute, but first here's Capitalism's obituary. It's the New York Times' lead story on the bailout of A.I.G....

WASHINGTON -- Fearing a financial crisis worldwide, the Federal Reserve reversed course on Tuesday and agreed to an $85 billion bailout that would give the government control of the troubled insurance giant American International Group.

The decision, only two weeks after the Treasury took over the federally chartered mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is the most radical intervention in private business in the central bank's history.

With time running out after A.I.G. failed to get a bank loan to avoid bankruptcy, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, convened a meeting with House and Senate leaders on Capitol Hill about 6:30 p.m. Tuesday to explain the rescue plan. They emerged just after 7:30 p.m. with Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke looking grim, but with top lawmakers initially expressing support for the plan. But the bailout is likely to prove controversial, because it effectively puts taxpayer money at risk while protecting bad investments made by A.I.G. and other institutions it does business with.

Hmm... "...the bailout is likely to prove controversial, because it effectively puts taxpayer money at risk while protecting bad investments made by A.I.G. and other institutions it does business with."

Controversial? No. Not to me. Confirmational. That's what it is.

It confirms that our nation is not willing to let Capitalism be Capitalism, except for us little guys of course. But here's the thing. If Capitalism isn't Capitalism for the Big Guys, then it isn't Capitalism for the little guys either.

Just like there's no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, there's no such thing as having a little Capitalism over here and a little Socialism over there. You can't have two economic systems operating in one country at the same time, at least not if "all men are created equal" is written in that country's founding documents.

Sorry, my friends. You either have Capitalism or you don't.

And here in the USA, we no longer have it. It's dead.

Think about this. Our government has just decided -- without asking any of us, including our Congressional representatives -- that $85 billion more of our money should be used to cover the actions of (and pardon the unsophisticated language here) stupid, greedy, criminal people. Stupid, because they didn't have a clue that what they were doing would have such negative consequences. Greedy, because all they could see were short term dollar signs in front of their eyes. Criminal, because they just robbed you and me of $85 billion dollars by holding a "we're too big to fail" gun to the head of the US government.

They should have let A.I.G. fail, because -- if that had brought about the collapse of the global economic system -- that would have just sped up our journey to a point of systemic collapse we are destined to reach anyway. I say destined to reach not because it's God's will but because no system can continue to function when its fundamental design is flawed. You see, the current global economic system is based on a fundamental assumption that -- while it was true when the system was first set up -- is no longer true today.

Let me give you another way of thinking about this. If a car that is designed to handle any road condition at any speed suddenly finds itself traveling across the water, it will quickly sink below the surface even as its wheels keep spinning. And, if the driver remains oblivious to the fact that there's no longer a road under his or her car, that driver will die.

We are no longer on land, my friends. We are in a car when we should be in a boat (or maybe an airplane). The global reality has shifted, but our political leaders are largely blind to this reality. They think we're still on dry land.

More about all this in a minute. But first, back to the US economy...

The funny thing is, I've known that a significant portion of the US economy is Socialistic for years. "What are you talking about?", you ask? "The Military Industrial Complex," I answer.

You do know that all military weapons are purchased using "cost plus" contracts, in which businesses are guaranteed a profit, don't you? And that literally every weapons system comes in over its original budget... and that those cost overruns are absorbed by the government, not the arms manufacturer? There is no Capitalism in the Military Industrial Complex. It's all Socialism, justified by the concept that these weapons are so important to American security that the companies that manufacture them have to be guaranteed a profit, so they don't accidentally go out of business. (By the way, I worked in contracting years ago at the Army Corps of Engineers. So, I know something about how military contracts work.)

Now, getting back to the death of Capitalism in America as a whole, don't be so sad. You know the expression: "From every emergency, there's a chance for something new to emerge."? Well, that's where we are.

We are in one hell of an emergency. And - if you'll step back for a minute - you'll see it's the opportunity of a lifetime.... the opportunity to stop using what no longer works and figure out what does.

And now I'm going to surprise you by (partially) agreeing with John McCain. He says we need a Commission to study the problem. And I agree. But we don't need a Commission of the kind John McCain suggests we have. His Commission would consist of financial experts. And that won't do. Because financial experts are experts in the past.

We need to bring specific, outside of Washington expertise to the party. But they must be experts in the future, not the past.

And what kind of people are experts in the future?

Designers. That's what kind.

Designers know how to envision what's possible from the best of what we know how to do today. They know how to take a clean sheet of paper approach to figuring out how to fulfill a particular need.

Designers know how to take a system that no longer works... determine what assumptions (or design principles) used to build the system are still correct and which are incorrect... substitute new assumptions or principles where necessary... and develop and implement a new design appropriate to the reality of today.

We need people like that... people who know that a tipping point has been reached... that the ground on which our old economic system has stood has disappeared... and that, as a result, the old system is totally dysfunctional. But at the same time, these experts must know how functional - how elegantly functional - our new economic system can be!

We have a chance for something new... something beautiful... to emerge from this emergency! But to do this, we need people who understand how to take a culture through a Great Transition... a transition based on recognizing we're no longer on dry land, as I mentioned above.

So, if we are no longer on dry land, where are we?

Well, the "dry land" of the past is the zero-sum, fixed pie, scarcity of resources based economic model that has existed since the beginning... since the time when two groups of cave dwellers fought over a watering hole that contained enough water for only one group to survive. Humanity has been on that "dry land" for a long, long time. But science and technology - including the power to capture limitless amounts of energy from the Sun - has progressed to the point where we can live in a society based on an economic systems based on abundance (not scarcity).

A world where it's possible for all survival needs to be met. That's where we live now. Call it water or air, it's definitely not the dry land of the past.

And that's why Capitalism has died. Because it is a system that is compelled to try and make more and more money based on Darwinian principles that are no longer true. They were true when Capitalism was created, but they are obsolete now. This death was inevitable, because the mismatch between the world Wall Street thinks exists and the world that really exists is so fundamental... the methods needed to continue making money in a world of the past had become so complicated... that self destruction was only a matter of time.

If the universe is a giant clock, you can only last for so long if you don't work the machinery the way it's designed to work. You will blow up the clock if you don't change what you're doing.

"Oh, but humanity can never learn to stop fighting with itself," some people might say. "That's a fundamental part of how things work too."

"Really? Is a baby born wanting to fight? Is it born wanting to kill others of its own kind? No, fighting is a learned response," I say in return.

A big job? Yes, making this change will be a big job. But with the death of Capitalism, we have been given a great opportunity to take the first steps.

And with the choice of Barack Obama -- a man who knows cross-cultural, systemic, and bi-partisan issues and who does not see the world through warrior eyes as John McCain does - we have the opportunity to take a huge step (politically) in the direction of making this change.

But it's going to take more than electing Barack Obama to support the rise of a New Economics from Capitalism's grave. Barack has said this election has never been about him. And he is right. We must all contribute to this process, by learning what a post-scarcity-based world can be like, including the interpersonal skills of "interdependent living" such as those in the classic book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen R. Covey.

Beyond the personal, I suggest you study the works of two masters of large-scale systemic change: Drs. W. Edwards Deming and Russell Ackoff. They developed much of the management theory needed to organize such a transformation. Dr. Deming's last book was called "The New Economics". And Dr. Ackoff's recent book "Idealized Design" is the other book I would start with as.

In the popular jargon of my friend Renee Mauborgne's book "Blue Ocean Strategy" (co-authored by W. Chan Kim), what I am suggesting is that the death of Capitalism gives us the opportunity to develop and implement a Blue Ocean Strategy for America's sociopolitical economic system.

This will be a sociological change as much as it is a financial system change. Humanity has lived in a "you or me" world for many, many centuries. Changing to a "you and me" world (as Buckminster Fuller used to call it) will be the great adventure of the 21st Century.

Thanks to the death of Capitalism, that adventure is an idea whose time has come. Let's look for leaders who understand the need to figure out how to live in this new world. Leaders like Barack Obama. And leaders (hopefully) like the person you see in the mirror every morning.
---------------------
Addendum: 10:30am Eastern

As I think about AIG saying "We're too big to fail" to the Feds, I am reminded of America's long-standing policy not to negotiate with terrorists. Well, it sure feels as if the Feds have just agreed to the demands of certain financial terrorists: people who threatened to destroy our way of life if they weren't paid $85 billion. Disgraceful... and further proof that the America we think we live in... an America of ethical, Capitalistic principles no longer exists. If AIG needed $85 billion, they should have held a big charity event and asked the American people for the money... not taken it from us by using threats of the harm they would create if they didn't get it.

Addendum 2: 12:15pm Eastern

While I responded right after a specific comment, I'll state it here so it's clearly visible to everyone. I am not advocating Socialism replace Capitalism in America. I say Socialism already exists in portions of our society, but that does not mean I think it is the solution. The solution I am advocating is a New Economics designed by people who know how to take a "clean sheet of paper" approach to problem solving.. and who will develop an economic model appropriate to an abundance-based (rather than scarcity, zero-sum based) world view. This new economic model has no name because it has not been invented yet. The closest thing I've seen to what this might look like is the concept of Developmental Economics as described by systems thinking experts such as Dr. Russell Ackoff.

I hope this clarifies things for you all.

Comments

[MikePelizzari]

Dream on, Steven G Brant. Abundance based on solar energy might blossom for a while, until the next burst of population growth turns that abundance into scarcity. When will you (or any news commentator, for that matter) acknowledge that the problem has almost nothing to do with choice of economic system, but practically everything to do with overpopulation relative to the biosphere's limited capacity to sustain a food chain top-heavy with humans?
Limitless amounts of energy from the Sun + finite surface area of the Earth = competition between food growers and energy producers. Nobody is exempt from this equation, not Socialists, Capitalists, Libertarians, Natural-Lawyers, Reds, Greens, or Blue Ocean Strategists. Except perhaps Breatharians, who have no need for agriculture because they subsist on air and sunshine. Why don't we all become Breatharians? (LOL)
Seriously, the exponential growth of human populations must inevitably be curbed, either intelligently by social or family planning, or catastrophically by collapse of the biosphere stressed beyond its limits. The only alternative to limiting our numbers is to expand outward to other planets in the solar system, and after that to the stars, where the historical growth of human populations can be sustained indefinitely. So far, however, no other planets have been discovered that are capable of sustaining life without a great deal of global engineering ("terraforming"). Who would volunteer to leave this green Earth on interminably long voyages to far-flung balls of dust, to engage in the Herculean task of establishing biospheres elsewhere?

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi Mike,
Looks like this is your first comment on The Huffington Post. Welcome.
Having said that, I urge you to take a look at the math of what you've written again. I don't know why you think there's not enough surface area on Earth to capture the energy we need from the Sun (since a report on the world's deserts issued by the UN last year said that a solar energy installation constructed in the sub-Sahara could provide all the electricity humanity needs)

I know there are many people committed to the Limits of Growth philosophy. I just got done debating one of them on a fostering sustainable development listserv group I belong to.

The problem is, such thinking ignores the entire concept of innovation combined with cultural development (AKA cultural evolution).

It really is possible for humanity to "grow up"... if presented with a reason for doing so that appeals to its self interest. A lot of people are going to suffer if our system remains one based on scarcity. This does not need to happen. It is not pre-ordained or anything like that. "We the people" have the power to change the direction in which society is headed.

Thanks again for writing. I urge you to study how humanity has evolved throughout history, before you consign us all to being stuck with beliefs that are no longer scientifically accurate.

[MikePelizzari]

Hi Steven, thanks for welcoming me.
I agree there's plenty of land for us to capture the energy we need today. I acknowledged as much in my second sentence ("Abundance based on solar energy might blossom for a while, ..."). My concern is not with the immediate future, but with future generations if population continues to grow at historic rates.
Imagine Earth in the year 3000 inhabited by 30,000 billion people. Solar power is not "limitless" as you claim, but is only 25 watts per square foot when averaged over the day and night hemispheres. Covering the land with 100% efficient solar collectors would yield 1400 watts per person. I forgot clouds: they would reduce this to perhaps 1000 watts, a small fraction of today's per capita consumption. Those solar collectors would leave no room on land to grow plants. No more crops, forests, jungles or grasslands, no more animals other than people, their pets, and zoo specimens. Food would all have to come from the sea. There would be 506,000 people per square mile. That number could drop to 150,000 per square mile if floating cities could somehow cover the oceans without blocking the sunlight needed to sustain aquaculture.
Do you really believe some "concept of innovation combined with cultural development" could emerge within the next millennium to enable such a huge population to live sustainably on the Earth "with abundance"? If so, your faith in technology and the pliability of human culture borders on religious fanaticism.

[jannike]

What on earth do you mean, it is not possible to use both systems? This is what the Scandinavian countries always have done, making some of the most prosperous and safest countries in the world, Denmark being seen as the best country in the world year after year.

[prairiepopulist]

I think capitalism has been dead for a long long time and what we have now is corporate fascism. I can't envision how we are going to get rid of that to start over to design a new economic system that benefits all people and life forms on earth.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbdtXJp4bO4

A must see! Grace Jones Corporate Cannibals: An anthem for our time!!!

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

"Now what do we do?"

The survivalists will get the last laugh on this one, rather like the way a stopped clock is right twice a day. Pay close attention to the ones the media call the "kooks." BE A KOOK! Follow the lead of the Amish: If you have "paper assets" SELL THEM (they're phony anyway) and pay off your debts. BUY COMMODITIES: Canned goods. Toilet paper. LAND. If you don't hold title to your property you don't own it, period. So do what is necessary to OWN IT OUTRIGHT.

Create a "community currency" in your town, a scrip to keep the local economy moving after everything falls to crap. Plant a garden. Dig a well. Buy camping gear and a gun. Make nice with your neighbors and circle the wagons, because this is the big-un: Come to an agreement for how you'll respond when Blackwater rolls into town.

There is no point in analyzing what went wrong as if somehow "policy errors" caused the crisis. This crisis was 100% planned by the gitgo. The fiat-money Ponzi scheme - central banking itself - is specifically designed to ensure an orderly flow of the fruits of OUR labor into the hands of the banking class. You mean you didn't know?

[Rule Of Law]

So, Steven as intrigued as I am by your positive outlook and genuine responses to the posters here, please set one thing straight for us, if you can.

According to my reading, the Federal Reserve is just another bank, not a government entity (I know--we read "quasi-governmental" all the time, but let's be real). So when the FED says that it has taken nearly 80% of AIG in return for a bridge loan, doesn't that mean that all the Media that have reported this as meaning that WE the People now own AIG are lying?

And, if the FED is using our money to buy companies for themselves and their member bank/Owners, then isn't that the first place we need to address our efforts in changing this system that might yet bankrupt this country?

The FED, imho, must be eliminated, and all central banks made illegal. The Founders felt this way as did Presidents Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson (after allowing it) FDR, and Kennedy. They can't all have been wrong.

How say you?

[research]

Ron Paul, Kucinich and others have discussed this very idea.

We should discuss it once the GOP is out of power.

I like the idea of nationalizing the fed, and growing the money supply by lending directly to citizens at the nice 2% fed rates.

Build up,

Not trickle down.

[Rule Of Law]

Bush's entire strategy for cementing the power of these banks is to create such a tangled web of loans, bailouts, and promises that they can never be untangled--short of revolution. I thought the economy would see a Depression after the elections in order to enforce the class war they wage. I must admit, they are smarter than I thought and I did not see this move coming. They will destroy the economy and the middle class and our liberty, lose the election--this time--in return for the enormous profit and power these moves of the last week will give them and their financial masters.

And in 4 years or 8 years they will be back, powered into office by these same malignant financiers.

[ErnestineBass]

Hear! Hear!, research.

America should have severed the bloody umbilical that bound us to European banking cartels the minute our Revolutionary War debt was paid in full.

But noooooooo...we continued to allow "international" banking entities to borrow U.S. taxpayer revenue reserves at low interest rates, only to have those entities turn around and loan that money right back to us at double the interest rate.

Madness. Bloody FN madness.

[Rule Of Law]

research, if by nationalizing you mean eliminating and returning to a Jeffersonian government rather than a Hamiltonian one, I'm with you. We have no need for central banks--why trade one form of royalty for another? And since this is intended to be the land of the People, then it only makes sense that the money flowing to Washington being ours produced from our efforts, should be used to continue the furtherance of those efforts to the benefit of all.

Eliminate the Central Bank

Remove the protections Corporations currently enjoy and tax them accordingly.

End lobbying, period. A legislator should Know his district and its needs.

Bust up the banks, Teddy Roosevelt style, and remove forever their opportunity to dominate.

And never allow any company to become too big to fail!

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

Here's the downside to asking if FED should be eliminated: It's like asking if the buggy whip should be eliminated, rather than asking if we should shift from using a horse and buggy to get around to using a (ready to go, because the technology works) hybrid Prius automobile.

A more technical way of saying this - from the world of systems thinking - is that the FED is a subsystem of the overall system. To talk about improving what the FED is (by possibly eliminating it) is "sub-optimizing the system". We need to examine the entire economic system, of which the FED is only one part. We need to examine the fundamental assumptions that underlie the entire system.. see which of those assumptions are no longer true... and redesign the system in accordance with what we know to be true today, not what was true in the past.

When running a business that is no longer making money, you don't ask whether or not the Human Resources department should be eliminated or not. You ask whether there is something fundamentally wrong with the product or service you are offering to the public.

The buggy whip manufacturers had to learn they were in the transportation support business, not the "horse motivation" business. Then they could stop making buggy whips and start making something related to automobiles.

[Rule Of Law]

Your analogy is of the tail wagging the dog kind. The FED, and its multinational banking partners, is the fountain from which all of our economic woes flow, not some sub-part of the system to be debated along with ledger entries. They differ from your whip maker in that they produce nothing--nothing that is, except debt! And that debt is the most powerful and cruel product which enslaves our entire economy and sets the stage for the corporate raiding we see happening now.

The entire system needs to be torn down and replaced with one that takes into consideration the efforts of labor and consumer, and is regulated--stringently. I won't go into specifics--everyone here has their pet list and mine won't be that different. But the Central Bank must end.

But, first,The Federal Government--meaning the People--must return to its Constitutional role as the maker and disseminater of our currency, and interest on that money must be rigidly controlled. The notion of making money with only money is a poisonous perversion of an economy and there are better ways.

There is no improving the FED. I wanted to hear your position on its legality and responsibility for our current crisis. You've sidestepped that, and I believe that I know why--to challenge the banking interests that run the world has led in the past either to wars or assassination. To challenge them today...one may as well speak of revolution, and be done with it.

[kaski]

"Despite warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefor, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." Woodrow Wilson
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson." Franklin D Roosevelt
The Federal Reserve is not a quasi-owned entity but rather a totally, privately owned commercial bank owned by 12 American families that own and control our government and operate on total greed, fear and paranoia, and control of power. "We the People" are no better than slaves to this cancer on humanity. They must be stopped!!

[Visceral]

I disagree with your point about how the perception of scarcity is a outdated way of thinking and how the belief that technology will open the doors to an earthly paradise is a new green philosophy.

In my mind, the myth that has held sway since the Industrial Revolution has been of limitless energy and resources that new technology will make available to everyone, creating a utopia. Profligacy was mainstreamed, standards of living rose, and a system was created that depended on ever greater harnessing of natural resources and delivering them to insatiable consumers.

What you promise the brave new world of sustainability will make possible was the original promise of industrial capitalism.

What we are re-learning is that we live in a zero-sum, fixed pie, scarcity of resources world, and that the way to survive and thrive is to be frugal and efficient. Peak Oil, soil depletion, collapsing populations, all say the same thing: there's only so much out there. I either make do with less, make better use of what I have, or kill you and take yours.

Most people will have to choose the first; the elite will choose the last, returning us to the genocidal territory and resource wars of the dawn of civilization; the nerds are working at the second, but that door is closing fast as the population grows and the resource base is diminished by habitat destruction, climate change, and overexploitation.

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for writing. I don't know your background, but your point of view is that of those people who have never studied the work of technology development experts such as William McDonough ( http://www.mbdc.com ) or Amory Lovins ( http://www.rmi.org )... and who have never read the seminal works of whole systems thinker Dr. R. Buckminster Fuller ( http://www.bfi.org )

Your're "We are re-learning that we live in a zero-sum... world" is inaccurate. That "lesson" can only be "learned" by someone who is blind to the work of people such as McDonough and Lovins.

The Sun is a limitless source of energy. It is a resource... but not one that is physically located here on Earth. That is why so many people have trouble "seeing" it. They are used to "resource" as meaning only things found on Earth. That is a major perception weakness... but not a "terminal illness" as far as the future is concerned. It can - like many of our problems - be solved by education that includes instruction in "critical thinking" - the ability to challenge conventional wisdom, based on the knowledge that new things are discovered every day... and that some of them are capable of making old assumptions about the way things work obsolete.

[Crowhaul]

Very nice piece. Developmentalism - or an envisioned version of it - can work. In fact, it was working beautifully throughout South America until the Interventionists (you know who I'm talking about) decided it didn't fit their world view. And the good news is that it's on the rise again...

[GhiaccioPronto]

Capitalism is dead, Obama is the one.

OK thanks. glad you cleared that up.

[mosh]

Let's hope unbridled capitalism is dead because it is killing our democracy.

All citizens should read David Cay Johnston's book, 'Free Lunch', it is an agonizing eye opener. Corruption, greed, lobbyists controlling washington that is the disease infecting our nation. Capitalism is dying a slow death starting two and a half decades ago with the advent of ronald reagan.

[Sundialsvc4]

The only thing that this does not clarify is ... what does "candidate-X" have to do with it?

Nice plug, but... it doesn't. Not for either one of them.

You see, they're Senators. Right now, they can walk into the Senate chamber and cast a vote. Every time they did that, every time they showed-up and said something, the Library of Congress put it all on record. You can look anything up at http://thomas.loc.gov. But you're not going to find "change" there. In fact, you're not going to find any real "differences." No matter what either of them say on the campaign trail, "by their fruits shall ye know them."

After World War II's bountiful largess, the defense industry did not want the powder-game to end. So, it didn't. No one asked questions... and "borrowing" paid for everything. As you said, guaranteed profit, and plenty of that profit made it right back to pockets on Capitol Hill.

Sixty years later, we're broke. On the one hand, it looks like "$85 billion of taxpayer money" got spent... but it's not taxpayer-money. It's just "money." "Borrowed" from nowhere at all. "Existing" because they proclaim that it does.

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

I mentioned Barack Obama because he is better equipped than John McCain by far - both from experience and temperament perspectives - to be able to be "part of the solution, not the problem."

I realize you are pessimistic about any politician helping make things better, but I believe Barack can. I met him a year ago, at an event at which Ted Sorensen (JFK's speech writer) spoke. Barack is definitely capable of seeing the world through new eyes. I do not believe John McCain is capable of doing that.

[WASanford]

"We are in one hell of an emergency." is an understatement. Today, after the bail out AIG closed at two bucks and a nickel. That's down from yesterday's close of around three dollars and sixty five cents or a buck sixty and more than a forty percent drop on the day after AIG was "saved" with our money.

And we're not through with this by a long shot. Later this year and next there's a ton of option ARM's that are scheduled to reset and we will see a flood of foreclosures that will make this year's look like a splash in the kiddie pool.

Capitalism is not dead but it has certainly failed us. A true democracy can afford some socialism., Let's stop being afraid of the word. Stop jumping when someone calls government provided health care socialized medicine when what we want IS socialized medicine. I'd be happy as a clam to have the government as my banker.

[mosh]

Government has been in the pocket of corporate lobbyist for the last quarter century. This is no longer a government for and by the people it is a government for and by big interests. Unfortunately, even the media is not immune, the mainstream having been bought up and consolidated by a few big firms. Capitalism is dead and has been since Ronald Reagan. Will our democracy be the next victim?

[WASanford]

Don't overlook the fact that the current "system" is collapsing. At the nadir, we will have an opportunity to take our government back. The first step in doing that is enacting publicly financed campaigns making it illegal for anyone to donate anything to one of our "representatives."

[deliriousgod]

someone has written a book about the end of the privilege of capital and the beginning of the privilege of labour, to be brought about by the movement of the babyboomer demographic into retirement and into a needy predicament as they vacate skilled jobs and become dependent on less populated replacement generations who have been watching this selfish spectacle and learning how to look out for #1 when such time arrives that they are in the power seat. These are the very last years for the Woodstock generation to create the socialist Utopia they require to care for them in the inferior position they will soon occupy. Nothing could be clearer from the events of the past few days than that you can't take the money with you, you can't depend on investments in a bank for your future; only investments in society and youth have any prospect for providing comfort and security for the future.

[CroatianCritter]

What we actually have is government endorsed capitalism or as many economists call it, corporatism or fascism. Every economic policy that has been created over the past 2000 years has been a step forward for our evolutionary process. Capitalism, like every other financial idea along the lines of socialism or feudalism, can work but it requires hard work on the part of the population and ever important market and public regulations to keep the greed under control. We lost that in this country and now we are feeling the result. Empires always fail and we are falling hard. It IS TIME FOR NEW IDEAS and a NEW DIRECTION.

[dve2z]

right on. Even me (software engineer, never interested in economy, politics) - I found myself reading these kind of books this summer:
"The Coming Collapse of the Dollar and How to Profit from It" (Turk, Rubino)
"America's Bubble Economy: Profit When It Pops" (Wiedemer et al)
and other..

I do believe this is a Pivotal Time. Climate change/energy crisis/monetary system crisis.
It is remarkable how all of this at crossroads. Is this because Bush administration was oblivious to the trends? I think so.

One of the books I read talks about evolution of monetary system. It suggests that the world is moving from a bunch of single-government fiat currencies into a single, world wide currency. The evolution may or may not involve the disastrous crash of the current monetary system.

I think with Obama the crash would be avoided, under McCain (clueless altogether, or on a different agenda) the crash is inevitable.