Will Capitalism survive in an Obama administration?

[Pastrymouse]

Started by Sramana Mitra(Entrepreneur, Strategy Consultant, Author of Entrepreneur Journeys)
Place of discussion LinkedIn Government&NonProfit Forums

Members of the Discussion:

1.DAVE MASKIN(WireNames.com - Corporate entertainer & trade show traffic builder)
2.Luís Lima [LION](Field Sales Relationship Manager at Cisco Systems)
3.Bill Nigh(Information Technology and Services Professional)
4.Toby Marie Walker(Independent Consultant, Acclivus PDP)
5.John Nagle(Owner,Site Truth)
6.Lee Schlesinger(Consultant at CHS Payroll)
7.Greg Poulos(President, Bluefin Productions Inc.)
8.Les DeGroff(Software Quality Assurance Lead)
9.Frank Feather(CEO + Business Futurist + ex-Banker ► Keynote Speaker + Strategy Consultant)
10.Vivek Gupta(Professional Staff at Compuware)


Question:
Will Capitalism survive in an Obama administration?


Answers:

DAVE MASKIN:
Yes


Luís Lima [LION]:
It would survive on any. Do you think a country which ows trillions to the banks allow for them to fall completely? The banks would become credors for the USA (which is what the UK is saying it will do in Iceland).

It will survive, but not this idiotic version of it. If someone thinks this 700B will do anything to support I-Wanna-Be-Filthy-Rich-Fast dreams, think again

The world would colapse in 2 years


Bill Nigh:
Of course. Look at who surrounded him in the recent financial crisis.


Toby Marie Walker:
No, I believe we are moving towards a form of corporatism.

Symptoms of Corporatism

* Fervent nationalism/patriotism - the country is more important than the individual!
* Public agencies being run like businesses, segregated and less accountable.
* Monopolies and Oligopolies (banking, Oil, etc..)
* Large corporations successfully lobbying Governments.
* The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
* Favors given to campaign contributors.
* People in power receiving perks or freebies from large corporations
* Limited sources of media. (Fairness Doctrine)
* Governments pressuring other Governments to make legislation which benefits corporations, but not citizens


John Nagle:
Capitalism is having trouble surviving the Bush administration.

The trouble with deregulation is that companies were given what they wanted, not what they needed.
Links:

* http://www.downside.com


Lee Schlesinger:
I read the blog and I my opinion you already have your answer. I believe that you are concerned how capitalism will fair under an Obama administration.

First, the president has only some of the control. If Congress is more than a rubber stamp, they have power. The Federal Reserve chairperson has authority, too.

My next point is that most economic designs fail when implemented in their pure form. When capitalism is not restricted, monopolies arise and stifle competition thus able to raise prices as high as the market will tolerate.

I wish to address some of the terms you use and how I perceive them:

Anti-business - unwilling to give CEOs what they want. A nation's ruler wants people employed and that means businesses to succeed. Businesses oppose constraints. Wall Street got the rules relaxed. This consequence is only $700 billion (estimated).

Anti-free trade - tariffs exist or may be created. I want my products to be able to undercut local products. I also want to export jobs to the cheapest places that I can find.

Anti-globalization - distaste for nations setting policies and rules. When Motorola first wanted to sell cell phone technology in Japan, the requirements were provided. When Motorola saw the standard, they thought it was to keep foreign companies. Then, they found out that Japanese companies met the standard. Motorola improved quality to meet that standard and had many years of success.

Big government - taxes are too high and/or rules are too demanding. In a don't tax me and don't watch me environment, abuse is rampant. Government taxes cuts have ballooned the deficit. If a company went deeply into the red, any responsible accountant would say "this cannot continue".

Unlimited spending - government is or will be coming to me for money. The Iraq War has not been part of the federal budget. That is irrational spending. Companies need accounting to be able to forecast. The unexpected will occur and cause havoc in the accounting department. The current U.S. policy would be like a company not budgeting for security. Everyone know the cost is there. Omitting it is financially irresponsible.

In conclusion, I believe that long term success happens when companies are pushed to do what they do not want. When these restrictions are well chosen, companies do better. Originally, telephone technology had competing companies. This required businesses to have a phone for each company. Government intervention created a regulated monopoly. Besides simplifying the system and giving benefit and savings to the consumer, innovation came from Bell Labs. (The transistor is one example).

If a company is focused on the continued success and a desired to persuade customers by understanding preferences, the government becomes an inconvenience and not important.

Lee


Greg Poulos:
Yes.

But obviously you disagree.

Feel free to ask, or answer, but asking and answering at the same time is kind of pointless!


Les DeGroff:
I tend to use a non-standard view of what capitalism means, with less focus on the markets, and more focus on what controls and mediates production.
Considering intellectual property, technology, and finance, aspects, capital is going to continue to dominate. Resources, commodities may make some gains, even extreme gains like energy producers, but labor will continue to be hard pressed.

Frank Feather:
Absolutely. It will become stronger as the mess gets cleaned up.

Quite frankly, anyone who questions this does not understand how economies work, nor how the US economy works, nor the nature of the globalized economy.

Sorry, but that is the way I see it.


Vivek Gupta:
In my opinion this is a very pure form of capitalism where the government is investing in the corporate world. And mind you so is Warren Buffett. You do the math.
The risks of the government maybe more than Buffett's, but the returns would be as well. Thats again, what a businessperson would do.