Re: Conclusions

1/10/2001, Paul Riesz wrote:
    > These countries might not have achieved the ultimate ideal
    of justice, fairness and equality for everyone, but they
    have successfully addressed many of the gravest problems of
    neoliberal countries...
    
Dear Paul,

I don't dispute this.  In fact I agree with you that the
Scandanavian countries, and there are others, offer good
models for regulatory regimes, and even for social
attitudes, if we want to forumlate some kind of 'new world
ethical framework'.

The only thing I dispute is whether 'reformed capitalism' is
a meaningful name for the kind of system you're trying to
achieve.  Capitalism means, by definition, that the driving
engine of the economy is capital investment, attracted by
growth opportunities.  If we keep that paradigm, then the
pressure for economic well-being, requiring ongoing growth,
will always be eroding any regulatory regime.

Scandanavia today is being pulled increasingly into the EU
oribit, and it will more and more be homogenized into a
Brussels/German-controlled regime, with increasing invasion
by global corporations.  With a 'reformed capitalism', you
could try to regulate these neoliberal excesses, but they
are nonentheless examples of how the relentless pressure of
capital growth always finds ways to erode any kind of
obstacle.

It seems to me that we must move to an economic system where
stable businesses can be successful, and there aren't
built-in imperatives toward exploitation and growth.  We
need a financing model closer to that of credit unions,
rather than depending on private banks to provide financing
for purposes only of gain.  If we do these things, then we
no longer have a capitalist system.

I apologize for the accusation that you only repeat
yourself, and I invite you to prove I was wrong by
responding to the points I've raised.

regards,
rkm