Capitalism didn't deliver the 5-day week. Capitalism didn't put an end to child labour. Capitalism didn't bestow upon workers health and safety laws. Capitalism didn't offer us universal healthcare or welfare benefits. Capitalism certainly didn't legislate against environmental pollution.

The truth is it was the democratic struggle AGAINST Capitalism which brought about the above. And it was a long and bitter fight.

Forget about places such as the US or the richer EU countries where Democracy has placed constraints on the rampant consumption of big business. Let's look at the nations where Capitalism is unfettered and functions with ruthless efficiency. Let's look at capitalist Nigeria, or capitalist Indonesia, or capitalist El Salvador. Precisely WHAT has Capitalism "offered" those countries?

Oh, and in case you haven't realised: most of the world is capitalist. And most of the world is poor.

What is the alternative - socialism has been abandoned as simply unworkable, communism the same even China has seen huge growth since adopting a capitalist approach.

Capitalism has also brought about huge increases in living standards and massive developments in areas such has healthcare and drug development. Most of the world isn't poor compared to fifty years ago and certainly not compared to 200 years ago. Increased standards of living enable individuals to move up Maslow's scale which enhances democracy, would you say we have a more democratic society since the move from feudalism to capitalism?

Again I ask what is the alternative to capitalism as a means of wealth generation?

There isn't one of course and there aren't too many who would argue against it as a means of wealth generation.

However the one single duty of any government of any colour should be to distribute tax income around its populace in an equitable manner so that the extremities of wealth and poverty are at least evened out to as much an extent as possible during any given government lifespan.

The sight of a government minister on TV this morning failing to criticise the 4000% headline interest rates charged by payday loan companies left a very bad taste int he mouth even after the interviewer suggested that the only reason they won't criticise is because the government is "in cahoots" with the payday lenders - a statement which was vigorously denied by the minister - the follow-up question of "Could you name the payday lenders who contribute to your party coffers then ?" was never asked unfortunately.

OK, it's a bit boring but I'll repeat what I have I have said many times ... capitalism is like fire or water, it's a great servant but a bad master.

Capitalism is a facilitator, not a fault-free god, it has to be free enough to work but has to be restrained to prevent immense harm.

When you free it up too much you end up with ..
a) Employees underpaid, overworked, commoditised and insecure, with worker set against worker, where capital gets the rewards and labour shoulders the burden ... until ...
b) Huge financial crises which affect everyone, not just the main protagonists ... indeed the protagonists will likely walk away untouched by it all, to spend more time with their money and waiting until the mugs allow them to do it all over again.

Blair and Brown, in thrall to the tax revenues coming in from it, failed to regulate the financial sector.
The conservatives, in opposition, wailed that there was too much regulation.

Now we have the coalition tinkering at the edges and not regulating, indeed Cameron is using the possibility of "relaxing" employment law as a gobbet of meaty sustenance for his ever-greedy and squawking backbench nestlings.

As Mugump said, capitalism did NOT deliver to the populace, it was legislation that did that ... and Cameron/Osborne are clearly not in favour of keeping those restraints as their party donors (in line with party ethos) are keen to get back to the golden days of situation a) above.

Ah, Sal – good to see you back. Perhaps you can provide straight answers to the questions you were ducking a few days ago. You'll find the most recent episode here. Or is this going to be another example of pooh-poohing other comments, but without ever offering even a semblance of an alternative and never (see above) being prepared to even admit that there are major problems?

Ah, Sal – good to see you back. Perhaps you can provide straight answers to the questions you were ducking a few days ago. You'll find the most recent episode here. Or is this going to be another example of pooh-poohing other comments, but without ever offering even a semblance of an alternative and never (see above) being prepared to even admit that there are major problems?

Good that you mention China's adoption of the capitalist approach.
China won't say how many children are working in its industries and there have been some high-profile revelations (e.g. Apple recently) of Chinese goods sold in the West.
Capitalism doesn't have legislation against child labour built into it, and a number of Western companies have only done anything about it when their brand looked like being tarnished.
The examples we have seen should tell us that business just won't ask the questions if the price is right, only when they stand to lose in some way will that happen.

I'm sure the people of Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Venezuela (and other South American nations), will be interested to hear there are no alternatives to the capitalist model as laid down by the US & IMF.

I'm sure the innumerable relatives of people bombed, shot, tortured and/or murdered (by the US or US-backed proxies) in nations such as Chile, Cuba, Nicarague, Panama, Libya, Yugoslavia, Italy, Greece etc. will be interested to know they didn't live in functioning alternatives to the capitalist model as laid down by the US & IMF.

The problem isn't a lack of alternatives. The problem is the US won't tolerate any.

It's important to point out that not only did capitalism not deliver such benefits to the populace - it fought tooth-and-nail to oppose and suppress each and every one of them (often employing the most ruthless and brutal methods).

Mugwump wrote:It's important to point out that not only did capitalism not deliver such benefits to the populace - it fought tooth-and-nail to oppose and suppress each and every one of them (often employing the most ruthless and brutal methods). ... apart from, of course, the usual handful of more enlightened (often Quaker) employers. (Just giving credit where it's due). Like this chap, who recognised that legislation was the way to do it , otherwise those who incurred cost to their business and reduced the competitiveness of their business through their philanthropy would eventually go out of business, helping no-one. http://www.calderdale.gov.uk/wtw/source ... elden.html But still we see (as you say) fierce opposition from the blinkered captains of industry every time an improvement is proposed or introduced (e.g. the opposition when the minimum wage was introduced, the current calls to "repatriate" employment law from the EU etc etc). I await Sal's response.

Mugwump wrote:It's important to point out that not only did capitalism not deliver such benefits to the populace - it fought tooth-and-nail to oppose and suppress each and every one of them (often employing the most ruthless and brutal methods). ... apart from, of course, the usual handful of more enlightened (often Quaker) employers. (Just giving credit where it's due). Like this chap, who recognised that legislation was the way to do it , otherwise those who incurred cost to their business and reduced the competitiveness of their business through their philanthropy would eventually go out of business, helping no-one. http://www.calderdale.gov.uk/wtw/source ... elden.html But still we see (as you say) fierce opposition from the blinkered captains of industry every time an improvement is proposed or introduced (e.g. the opposition when the minimum wage was introduced, the current calls to "repatriate" employment law from the EU etc etc). I await Sal's response.

It will be interesting to see what happens in China now that labour costs are increasing, to the point that more UK companies are bringing manufacturing back here. Couple that with China's increased investment in Africa, the Chinese population aren't going to be too happy when they lose their jobs to black children, working on subsistence wages