Coming soon to a theater near you

Capitalism is in the throes of its most severe crisis in many decades. A combination of deep recession, global economic dislocations, and effective nationalization of large swathes of the financial sector in the world's advanced economies has deeply unsettled the balance between markets and states. But don't fret about the future of capitalism, which after all has an almost unlimited capacity to reinvent itself. The real question is not whether capitalism can survive it can but whether world leaders will demonstrate the leadership needed to take it to its next phase as we emerge from our current predicament. Read the rest of my latest Project Syndicate column here.

"That is why all prosperous societies are capitalistic in the broad sense of the term: they are organized around private property and allow markets to play a large role in allocating resources and determining economic rewards."

I don see this as the defining feature of capitalism. The defining feature is capital. The ability to attract capital to new enterprises by offering interest in return. That the enterprise is "owned" by private individuals or the state is a detail. We have had for profit, state owned, enterprises and they behave just the same as the privately owned ones.

Capitalism is now becoming obsolete because the secret sauce was the ability to harness natural resources without paying for them. Oil is priced at the cost of extraction, not factored in is the fact that it is irreplaceable.

It all about externalities which have been ignored.

We live on a finite planet and an economic system which is predicated on continual growth cannot survive.

We need to start designing a steady state economy, not a growth based one. Who owns the means of production is irrelevant.

"Capitalism" is in trouble because of the massive scientific failures of the macroeconomists, because of the massive scientific errors of the members of the Federal Reserve, because of the corrupt and irresponsible actions of the members of Congress and of the last Administration, and because of a truly screwed up regulatory regime.

The problem isn with "capitalism". The problem is with the macroeconomists who fail to explain the operation of the market in a non pseudoscientific fashion.

The problem is with the politicians and the government bankers and the regulators who fail to provide the market with the sound institutions and limited government with will allow it to function in a non pathological manner.

For myself, I find it much more useful to use the term "market", as in the different models of market (oriented, or friendly) economies.

However, when people in America use the term "capitalism", they are referring to the US and UK model of the market, and that I do believe is on its way out.

I am keenly interested in the social market economies of continental Europe, Germany in particular.

So if I were to write your column, I would probably have intend a similar meaning, but I think usage of the word "capitalism" will lead to misinterpretation by the general public, many who don even know there are different forms of market based economies.

I would like to support the position of the previous commentator. Capitalism is a word which was made popular by Karl Marx. What he meant by it was the idea that in market economies unregulated markets would eventually self destruct into a giant depression. The word itself implies that markets are inconsistent with democracy: that in a market economy ultimately all power winds up in the hands of those who own the capital or businesses. Money is power, unregulated markets lead to the concentration of money and power in a small social class who rule over the rest of us. The ideas of John Stuart Mill on social democracy, Thorsten Veblen on regulation of financial markets and of course Keynes on business cycle theory were, along with those of various other economists, the basis for the policies of the new deal in America and the social market in europe. These policies which are related in many ways became the foundation for the middle class societies of North America and Europe after world war two. Unregulated international markets are undoing the effects of these great social reform movements. While unregulated international trade can increase efficiency it allows many ancient evils to return from slavery to massive financial fraud and environmental destruction. Sadly few economists today are willing to take on the challenge faced by Mill, Veblen and Keynes to make market economies moral just and humane.

Dani Rodrik says "This model became frayed from the 1980s on, and now appears to have broken down. The reason can be expressed in one word: globalization."

Wrong, the model broke down because:

1. The financial regulators allowed the multiplication of the financial leverage of the banks based on the silly concept that perceived high risks gives way to a more risky behaviour than what is perceived to be of a lower risk and which, in relative terms, we know is absolutely false.

2. Financial regulators told for instance banks in Germany that they could count on Credit Rating Agencies being able to inform them accurately about the credit risk of securities backed by mortgages in California, and these risk adverse German banks were stupid enough to believe the regulators.

I think Greg Ransom note above as a point: the crisis is also a crisis of macroeconomics. WWI, similarly, brought into question the failure of philosphy, political scientists, and social sciences in general all that we know about human behavior could not prevent the scale of devastation. Yes, economics should be implicated. To be fair though, how much could macroeconomics do when there is so much imperfection in the information that came out of Wall Street, due partly to the super quant methodologies as well as in ego combined with lack of simple forthrightness.

I am wondering that since one of the biggest problems of Capitalism 2.0 was under appreciation of risk and lack of oversight, perhaps this is a great time to attach some sort of metric to these things. For example, hundreds, if not thousands, of defaulted derivatives contracts are now in and will be in bankruptcy courts. Monolines are also getting government support to stay afloat. Seems that at least how much, and some indications of how, risks were under perceived in the past can be approximated. And this is all information that isn public normally. And these instruments represent in dollar terms the price people paid for risk. And its good ammunition for debates soon to come if the data added up to something.

This is clearly replica watches the job for our legal fraternity to engage the establishment to necessary breitling watches steps by filing petitions in various courts. IF one fails another should be cartier watches filed taking every one to task. It is rolex watches useless to suggest ways and means to solve tag heuer watches the day to day problem to well paid employees tissot watches of government controlled establishments. Only active omega watches judiciary will resolve this problem.

Why is everyone just montblanc watches willing to accept power cuts? Don you think that patek philippe watches having continious power is your right? If people aren going to demand rado watches 24X7 power, don expect anything zenith watches to change. The government needs to look at other sources parmigiani watches of power generation. The only solution is more power panerai watches production. Nothing less.Coming soon to a theater near you

Capitalism is in the throes of its most severe crisis in many decades. A combination of deep recession, global economic dislocations, and effective nationalization of large swathes of the financial sector in the world's advanced economies has deeply unsettled the balance between markets and states. But don't fret about the future of capitalism, which after all has an almost unlimited capacity to reinvent itself. The real question is not whether capitalism can survive it can but whether world leaders will demonstrate the leadership needed to take it to its next phase as we emerge from our current predicament. Read the rest of my latest Project Syndicate column here.

"That is why all prosperous societies are capitalistic in the broad sense of the term: they are organized around private property and allow markets to play a large role in allocating resources and determining economic rewards."

I don see this as the defining feature of capitalism. The defining feature is capital. The ability to attract capital to new enterprises by offering interest in return. That the enterprise is "owned" by private individuals or the state is a detail. We have had for profit, state owned, enterprises and they behave just the same as the privately owned ones.

Capitalism is now becoming obsolete because the secret sauce was the ability to harness natural resources without paying for them. Oil is priced at the cost of extraction, not factored in is the fact that it is irreplaceable.

It all about externalities which have been ignored.

We live on a finite planet and an economic system which is predicated on continual growth cannot survive.

We need to start designing a steady state economy, not a growth based one. Who owns the means of production is irrelevant.

"Capitalism" is in trouble because of the massive scientific failures of the macroeconomists, because of the massive scientific errors of the members of the Federal Reserve, because of the corrupt and irresponsible actions of the members of Congress and of the last Administration, and because of a truly screwed up regulatory regime.

The problem isn with "capitalism". The problem is with the macroeconomists who fail to explain the operation of the market in a non pseudoscientific fashion.

The problem is with the politicians and the government bankers and the regulators who fail to provide the market with the sound institutions and limited government with will allow it to function in a non pathological manner.

For myself, I find it much more useful to use the term "market", as in the different models of market (oriented, or friendly) economies.

However, when people in America use the term "capitalism", they are referring to the US and UK model of the market, and that I do believe is on its way out.

I am keenly interested in the social market economies of continental Europe, Germany in particular.

So if I were to write your column, I would probably have intend a similar meaning, but I think usage of the word "capitalism" will lead to misinterpretation by the general public, many who don even know there are different forms of market based economies.

I would like to support the position of the previous commentator. Capitalism is a word which was made popular by Karl Marx. What he meant by it was the idea that in market economies unregulated markets would eventually self destruct into a giant depression. The word itself implies that markets are inconsistent with democracy: that in a market economy ultimately all power winds up in the hands of those who own the capital or businesses. Money is power, unregulated markets lead to the concentration of money and power in a small social class who rule over the rest of us. The ideas of John Stuart Mill on social democracy, Thorsten Veblen on regulation of financial markets and of course Keynes on business cycle theory were, along with those of various other economists, the basis for the policies of the new deal in America and the social market in europe. These policies which are related in many ways became the foundation for the middle class societies of North America and Europe after world war two. Unregulated international markets are undoing the effects of these great social reform movements. While unregulated international trade can increase efficiency it allows many ancient evils to return from slavery to massive financial fraud and environmental destruction. Sadly few economists today are willing to take on the challenge faced by Mill, Veblen and Keynes to make market economies moral just and humane.

Dani Rodrik says "This model became frayed from the 1980s on, and now appears to have broken down. The reason can be expressed in one word: globalization."

Wrong, the model broke down because:

1. The financial regulators allowed the multiplication of the financial leverage of the banks based on the silly concept that perceived high risks gives way to a more risky behaviour than what is perceived to be of a lower risk and which, in relative terms, we know is absolutely false.

2. Financial regulators told for instance banks in Germany that they could count on Credit Rating Agencies being able to inform them accurately about the credit risk of securities backed by mortgages in California, and these risk adverse German banks were stupid enough to believe the regulators.

I think Greg Ransom note above as a point: the crisis is also a crisis of macroeconomics. WWI, similarly, brought into question the failure of philosphy, political scientists, and social sciences in general all that we know about human behavior could not prevent the scale of devastation. Yes, economics should be implicated. To be fair though, how much could macroeconomics do when there is so much imperfection in the information that came out of Wall Street, due partly to the super quant methodologies as well as in ego combined with lack of simple forthrightness.

I am wondering that since one of the biggest problems of Capitalism 2.0 was under appreciation of risk and lack of oversight, perhaps this is a great time to attach some sort of metric to these things. For example, hundreds, if not thousands, of defaulted derivatives contracts are now in and will be in bankruptcy courts. Monolines are also getting government support to stay afloat. Seems that at least how much, and some indications of how, risks were under perceived in the past can be approximated. And this is all information that isn public normally. And these instruments represent in dollar terms the price people paid for risk. And its good ammunition for debates soon to come if the data added up to something.

This is clearly replica watches the job for our legal fraternity to engage the establishment to necessary breitling watches steps by filing petitions in various courts. IF one fails another should be cartier watches filed taking every one to task. It is rolex watches useless to suggest ways and means to solve tag heuer watches the day to day problem to well paid employees tissot watches of government controlled establishments. Only active omega watches judiciary will resolve this problem.

Why is everyone just montblanc watches willing to accept power cuts? Don you think that patek philippe watches having continious power is your right? If people aren going to demand rado watches 24X7 power, don expect anything zenith watches to change. The government needs to look at other sources parmigiani watches of power generation. The only solution is more power panerai watches production. Nothing less.Coming soon to a theater near you

Capitalism is in the throes of its most severe crisis in many decades. A combination of deep recession, global economic dislocations, and effective nationalization of large swathes of the financial sector in the world's advanced economies has deeply unsettled the balance between markets and states. But don't fret about the future of capitalism, which after all has an almost unlimited capacity to reinvent itself. The real question is not whether capitalism can survive it can but whether world leaders will demonstrate the leadership needed to take it to its next phase as we emerge from our current predicament. Read the rest of my latest Project Syndicate column here.

"That is why all prosperous societies are capitalistic in the broad sense of the term: they are organized around private property and allow markets to play a large role in allocating resources and determining economic rewards."

I don see this as the defining feature of capitalism. The defining feature is capital. The ability to attract capital to new enterprises by offering interest in return. That the enterprise is "owned" by private individuals or the state is a detail. We have had for profit, state owned, enterprises and they behave just the same as the privately owned ones.

Capitalism is now becoming obsolete because the secret sauce was the ability to harness natural resources without paying for them. Oil is priced at the cost of extraction, not factored in is the fact that it is irreplaceable.

It all about externalities which have been ignored.

We live on a finite planet and an economic system which is predicated on continual growth cannot survive.

We need to start designing a steady state economy, not a growth based one. Who owns the means of production is irrelevant.

"Capitalism" is in trouble because of the massive scientific failures of the macroeconomists, because of the massive scientific errors of the members of the Federal Reserve, because of the corrupt and irresponsible actions of the members of Congress and of the last Administration, and because of a truly screwed up regulatory regime.

The problem isn with "capitalism". The problem is with the macroeconomists who fail to explain the operation of the market in a non pseudoscientific fashion.

The problem is with the politicians and the government bankers and the regulators who fail to provide the market with the sound institutions and limited government with will allow it to function in a non pathological manner.

For myself, I find it much more useful to use the term "market", as in the different models of market (oriented, or friendly) economies.

However, when people in America use the term "capitalism", they are referring to the US and UK model of the market, and that I do believe is on its way out.

I am keenly interested in the social market economies of continental Europe, Germany in particular.

So if I were to write your column, I would probably have intend a similar meaning, but I think usage of the word "capitalism" will lead to misinterpretation by the general public, many who don even know there are different forms of market based economies.

I would like to support the position of the previous commentator. Capitalism is a word which was made popular by Karl Marx. What he meant by it was the idea that in market economies unregulated markets would eventually self destruct into a giant depression. The word itself implies that markets are inconsistent with democracy: that in a market economy ultimately all power winds up in the hands of those who own the capital or businesses. Money is power, unregulated markets lead to the concentration of money and power in a small social class who rule over the rest of us. The ideas of John Stuart Mill on social democracy, Thorsten Veblen on regulation of financial markets and of course Keynes on business cycle theory were, along with those of various other economists, the basis for the policies of the new deal in America and the social market in europe. These policies which are related in many ways became the foundation for the middle class societies of North America and Europe after world war two. Unregulated international markets are undoing the effects of these great social reform movements. While unregulated international trade can increase efficiency it allows many ancient evils to return from slavery to massive financial fraud and environmental destruction. Sadly few economists today are willing to take on the challenge faced by Mill, Veblen and Keynes to make market economies moral just and humane.

Dani Rodrik says "This model became frayed from the 1980s on, and now appears to have broken down. The reason can be expressed in one word: globalization."

Wrong, the model broke down because:

1. The financial regulators allowed the multiplication of the financial leverage of the banks based on the silly concept that perceived high risks gives way to a more risky behaviour than what is perceived to be of a lower risk and which, in relative terms, we know is absolutely false.

2. Financial regulators told for instance banks in Germany that they could count on Credit Rating Agencies being able to inform them accurately about the credit risk of securities backed by mortgages in California, and these risk adverse German banks were stupid enough to believe the regulators.

I think Greg Ransom note above as a point: the crisis is also a crisis of macroeconomics. WWI, similarly, brought into question the failure of philosphy, political scientists, and social sciences in general all that we know about human behavior could not prevent the scale of devastation. Yes, economics should be implicated. To be fair though, how much could macroeconomics do when there is so much imperfection in the information that came out of Wall Street, due partly to the super quant methodologies as well as in ego combined with lack of simple forthrightness.

I am wondering that since one of the biggest problems of Capitalism 2.0 was under appreciation of risk and lack of oversight, perhaps this is a great time to attach some sort of metric to these things. For example, hundreds, if not thousands, of defaulted derivatives contracts are now in and will be in bankruptcy courts. Monolines are also getting government support to stay afloat. Seems that at least how much, and some indications of how, risks were under perceived in the past can be approximated. And this is all information that isn public normally. And these instruments represent in dollar terms the price people paid for risk. And its good ammunition for debates soon to come if the data added up to something.

This is clearly replica watches the job for our legal fraternity to engage the establishment to necessary breitling watches steps by filing petitions in various courts. IF one fails another should be cartier watches filed taking every one to task. It is rolex watches useless to suggest ways and means to solve tag heuer watches the day to day problem to well paid employees tissot watches of government controlled establishments. Only active omega watches judiciary will resolve this problem.

Why is everyone just montblanc watches willing to accept power cuts? Don you think that patek philippe watches having continious power is your right? If people aren going to demand rado watches 24X7 power, don expect anything zenith watches to change. The government needs to look at other sources parmigiani watches of power generation. The only solution is more power panerai watches production. Nothing less.