Capital Commerce

Stiglitz: Will Capitalism Survive The Wall Street Apocalypse?

By Matthew Bandyk

Posted: June 12, 2009

A few days after writing about how we're not heading towards socialism in the US, Joseph Stiglitz is in Vanity Fair saying that might not be true about the rest of the world. He argues that the lesson many countries in the Third World might take from the financial crisis is that capitalism is fundamentally flawed. Following that realization could be a shift back to socialism--maybe not back to old Soviet-style politics once embraced by much of the Third World, but to "a variety of forms of excessive market intervention," Stiglitz says.

It's a trend worth thinking about, but I think Stiglitz takes it a bit too far: He wants to portray the economic history of the Third World as a pendulum swing from extreme socialism to extreme capitalism, with the pendulum now ready to swing back the other way.

The former Communist countries generally turned, after the dismal failure of their postwar system, to market capitalism, replacing Karl Marx with Milton Friedman as their god. The new religion has not served them well.

I'm going to assume that when he says "former Communist countries," he means countries that were once parts of the Soviet Union. It's true that countries like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have made extremely liberal economic reforms, and have also experienced massive economic contractions due to the financial crisis. But is there any evidence that they would have done better if they hadn't made those liberal reforms? One can point to several other countries that retained socialist policies, but were just as bruised by the global recession--Ukraine, Argentina, and Ecuador, for example.

More fundamentally,  the idea that the developing world has become a libertarian paradise that failed is just not backed up by the facts. The Cato Institute publishes an annual Index of Economic Freedom, that basically gives every country a score based on how close they are to laissez-faire.  If you look at this map of the world according to the Index, you'll see that generally speaking, the countries that were in the Soviet sphere of economic influence during the Cold War still have massive government intervention in their economies--in particular, most of Africa and Latin America.

If these countries learn the wrong lessons from the financial crisis, it will not be a sea change as much as a continuation of many of the same policies.

The World Needs a True Centrist Equation

The world needs a centrist solution to the global economic crisis. Such a model DOES exist, it is right in front of our nose. Why can’t we try enhanced profit-sharing so that workers can have 20% of net profits, then give the business a tax credit for profit-sharing. Isn’t this a business friendly reinvestment in private enterprise?

And does anyone disagree that if household income rises substantially that this would increase the exchange of goods and services? Could we not call this a built-in stimulus? Would it not also make mortgages and health care more affordable? And if Fred, flipping burgers, suddenly sees more money than his salary, doesn’t that make it easier to achieve self-sufficiency “on-the-street”? Doesn’t it also compete with the drugs and guns underground economy? Isn’t this real supply-side economics and economic democracy?

Would it not pay for itself with increased productivity, a greater GNP, and a wider tax base, which would increase withholdings and thus replenish the safety net programs?

Would it not also lean out government and reduce its burdens? Isn’t this the missing link for both conservative and liberal aspirations? It is right in front of our nose. Isn’t this an investment in our workers, who are our families?

Haven’t the government, banks, and business failed at being reliable stewards of the worker’s savings and investments?

Where is the flaw in this logic?

Why can’t we try this on a local or statewide trial-run to see if it would work?

Are liberals and supply-siders afraid to put their money where their mouth is?

see http://www.profitsharinguprising.com to read a free online treatise that outlines this strategy.

This is a strategy that could unite the left and right; it is a politically centrist concept.

Please help spread the word to our representatives, the current administration, to friends, to business owners, and to everyone. This is a win-win for everyone. This could be the new more humanitarian model of capitalism that was meant to be.

— Darian Lance Smith

Darian Lance Smith of NC @ Jun 17, 2009 17:29:40 PM

Survival of capitalism?

Capitalist economic system is not eternal. Marxian socialism had the same fate. Both the systems have internal contradictions which do not permit them to last eternally. Absence of 'Free market' is the main reason in both the systems for collapse. Either state (USSR) or private particpants have been bestowed with lot of privileges (patents, trademarks, copyrights etc) which make the market NOT free. The prices are determined not in the market but in factories. This is fundamentally wrong as per economics theory of 'free market'.

Unless this flaw is removed from the economic system, the survival of capitalism is not possible. People have tolerated this for quite some time in view of some income coming for some ones from jobs. This cannot continue when the reforms take place in the capitalist economic systems.

Poverty due to widening gap between rich and poor will make the economy unstable all the time. Revolts against taxes and rich cannot be ruled out in such a situation. State supporting capitalists and stock markets means it is against common citizens. State is dutybound to ensure steady income for all the citizens all the time. Today the state efforts are to save the gamblers and fraudesters instead of common men in the real economy. Gorbachev had understood this position of exploitation by the state and as such he though a hardcore communist demolish the systems within two years. Same would happen in the case of capitalist economic systems.

D G Bokare @ Jun 14, 2009 09:59:08 AM

Thanks, Matt

for referral to another interesting map.

I'm betting that the pendulum will swing back some to social emphasis, and that would be a good thing.

Of course no one wants old Soviet "central planning" stuff, but over-favoring the corporations to the exclusion of citizens is like a city that gives away too much to attract a new plant. Sooner or later, it doesn't work out so well and the locals start wondering why they are paying more taxes but their corporations are not.

Right now we have Republicans still yelling about lowering American tax rates on corporate earnings to match places like Ireland (at 12.5%, I think) that overshot to the down side. It's unrealistic and the recent crisis may help drive that point home everywhere.

Muser of NM @ Jun 12, 2009 13:52:10 PM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

Capital Commerce

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!