Comments

Tom,

Now what?

Maybe America can go back to the basics a la Peter Schiff. Get back to producing things (instead of consuming mindlessly) and saving. Mr. Schiff was an economic adviser to Ron Paul, but in a purely economic context, shouldn't we be getting back to the fundamentals of making things? And saving instead of spending every last dime on things we really don't need?

Our parents and grandparents learned these things from the Great Depression. I suspect we will be re-learning these lessons again soon and the sooner the better.

Posted by Timothy Mund at November 26, 2008 12:56 PM

Now we enter an era of "social capitalism." Old timers might recognise it as interventionism: it's when we try to combine the best of both worlds and avoid the worst of each. I can't think of a successful example but, hey, it's a new world with new rules and new ways. And it's up to us to make it work.

Posted by Mark JF at November 26, 2008 1:02 PM

With all due respect, I am immeasurably upset and saddened to what is happening to the USA and its great people. A great deal of it has to with the root causes that led to Sep/11/2001.

Andy
www.AgostiniWorks.blogspot.com

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at November 26, 2008 2:23 PM

Make no mistake, I do not despair for the United States. If it has an epic strength, and it does, it is resilience--born in particular of our immigrant heritage.

Posted by tom peters at November 26, 2008 2:42 PM

I really do like what Iaccoca did in the past with the $1 a year. Those auto execs should have carpooled to the hearings in a hybrid (symbolism matters) and come with a detailed plan. All anyone remembers from the hearings is that they flew in private jets and their smug attitudes. To paraphrase the Bard, "First, we fire all the CEOs!"

Posted by Howard Alford at November 26, 2008 3:15 PM

Most excellent post. Thanks for that.

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 26, 2008 3:16 PM

Yes Tom, I agree about the epic resilience - but sometimes the key is also to understand our weaknesses as well as our strengths. My concern (as a Brit) is about not just the USA, but also our whole Western civilisation - that we're not willing to really look at the down-sides of our actions. Particularly our corporate actions.

You've recently high-lighted the appalling performance of US healthcare companies. And watching the movie "The Corporation" and reading the even better book of the same name, the real standard of corporate behaviour is revealed. And whether we have left-wing or right-wing policies, we aren't going to have stable planet based on that morality.

But hey we've only been at this since the Industrial Revolution - 300 or so years and only really getting going in the last 50 years.

And we have a future of hundreds of thousands of years on this planet.

So wouldn't a sensible response to all of the financial and environmental damage be to take the long view. We now know that Capitalism doesn't work in the long term, socialism doesn't work in the long term.

William Blake said, at the start of the Industrial Revolution, "I must devise my own system or be enslaved by another man's."

Hmmm...

Posted by Mike Bennett at November 26, 2008 3:29 PM

In one of the rare examples of good judgment, George W. Bush may well be sitting this out, knowing that there is no more he can do. His time is limited and anything he does now will make matters worse and need to be undone by the Obama Administration. It's better to let the new economic team work with the outgoing one in order to staunch the bleeding until January 20th.

Posted by Ken Montville at November 26, 2008 3:57 PM

Mike, I take total exception. I wiil defend capitalism to my last breath--but market imperfections including, as Alan Greenspan ruefully noted, hyper-greed must be ameliorated by the State.

Posted by tom peters at November 27, 2008 8:42 AM

Capitalism works great - as long as there is
a Communist country to borrow money from.

Posted by zed at November 27, 2008 12:49 PM

Partly, my point is here:

www.slideshare.net/andresagostini/a-challenging-snapshot-summary-by-andres-agostini-arlington-virginia-usa-presentation

Andy

www.AgostiniWorks.blogspot.com

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at November 28, 2008 12:50 AM

Hi Tom For me there's a very interesting dynamic here. You are clear about defending Capitalism to your last breath. And many senior business people would say something similar. And Capitalism has certainly done great things getting us to this high state of development – and, just to be clear, I'm not against it myself. Indeed I set up and grew a small company to 30 people using your work – particularly the Seminar book – Crazy Times call for Crazy Organisations.

And yet there is also a very large number of people who are very fed up with Capitalism – they aren't doing well on it. The poor of the world, the ones on the receiving end of company pollution, the ones on the painful end of the current financial collapse, the ones who get to do demeaning or soul-destroying jobs, the ones whose development is blocked by the West's self-interested trade development rules.

And the planet isn't doing too well. If we brought the entire world up to USA average levels of consumption (not the level of the affluent) we'd need 5 planets – according to WWF.

And, whilst I agree that hyper-greed is a factor, I think that what they call in "The Corporation" movie "externalities" is also a major issue. Taking no responsibilities for externalities like pollution and social justice and CO2 emissions is fine for companies in the current system because there is no cost implication for the company. So companies ignore them.

But hardly anyone is talking about how we do all this better. Why don’t we start to think about a Capitalism that is great for the current losers as well as the current winners? That gives us a land-base that will support us for thousands of years?

I'm frightened by where we're headed as a species - and no-one takes it seriously enough to look at it in depth. Paul Simon sang a long time ago -

"Everybody got the runs for glory
Nobody stop and scrutinize the plan"

Posted by Mike Bennett at November 28, 2008 12:35 PM

Mike and Tom - a fascinating exchange - thank you for educating me.

I do not pretend to be fully acquainted with the academic arguments about capitalism or socialism.

I guess my beliefs are heavily influenced by being brought up in a working class family here in England. My late beloved Dad was a front line self-taught engineer in a diesel engine factory. When I was a teenager in the 1960’s I remember Dad, a staunch union man, often talked to me about how management were just not in touch with workers and “all that management was interested in was money and the bottom line.” – A bit stereotypical I guess when I look back now but definitely said from Dad’s heart.

As a consequence he voted Labour and hey presto his son i.e. yours truly became a life-long socialist. I’ve never lost Dad’s basic view of life and somehow cannot even bring myself to even contemplate voting Conservative. Call me old fashioned if you like :-)

I’ve therefore always felt in my own heart that socialism is really the way. I still do and yet I recognise it has its faults. I still feel it is the best way to try and ensure the people at the ‘bottom of the pile’ (however we describe that and regardless of how they got there) is the best way. I'm not convinced of the 'trickle down' wealth argument from capitalism.

I wonder if either of you can see a third way rather than the traditionally polarised views that pervade about either ‘socialism’ or ‘capitalism’ – is there another way or does it really matter what the label is in 2008?

We have got to this financial mess and to get out of it can we see a new dogma established or can we simply combine the best of the two …

Am I making any sense?

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 28, 2008 5:44 PM

Combine the best of the two - now that makes sense!
Do what works.

Posted by zed at November 28, 2008 9:29 PM

I don´t despair for Americans. The strength, resilience, and ingenuity that will be required rates ad infinitum. Citizens must come together on this cause unambiguously and with the greatest sense of urgency, urgency of BIBLICAL proportions. America is the essence and the epicenter of the West.

I am immeasurably interested in America’s well-being. Had it been by the US, the lingua franca is the Western Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere would not be Shakespearean, but Nazi.
Without a rogue USA –also using abundant SOFT POWER—the world is not viable at all.

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at November 29, 2008 2:03 AM

Hi Zed - and thanks. I guess my simple theory about most arguments (over whose turn it is to make the coffee through to world wars) is to identify and capitalise on and use those aspects we agree on. We can then have a constructive discussion about where we differ. In so many things I see parties come to metaphorical or even real blows just because that which divides becomes the only dogma. And that leads to words like ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ rather than words like ‘diversity’ and ‘difference.’ But then … I do see things very simply, and before anyone pulls me up for being soft on ‘evil’ – that’s completely different of course (e.g. Hitler) – I’m also a realistic idealist Zed :-) - does that make sense? I think it was Groucho Marx who famously said "Those are my principles .... and if you don't like them ... I have some more." Have a great weekend - best from the right hand side of the pond Zed.

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 29, 2008 3:57 AM

There is no doubt that words like "diversity" and "difference" will begin the dialogue, but there are also some very complicated issues to address. Religion, politics, inequity, and internal strife are no simple matters and it will take just thinking and just actions to lessen the forces of evil. It will also take the spirit of love. Love is the great transcedence. Love is the great equalizer. Love is just. "For God so loved the world."

Evil for me is as simple as unjust policies and thoughts that are perpetrated in some matter or another throughout our respective communities, the nation, and the world. Evil is not only that which exists outside of ourselves but those impure thoughts that lurk within and those unjust unnoticeable actions that we commit daily. Atrocities, inequities, and a herd mentality are not created in vacuums; they are not perpetrated in secret.

We tend to hold Hitler as the greatest evil in the world where for centuries such evil has been perpetrated throughout the world even over longer periods, where many more masses have lost life over time in systematic ways. (Any lost of life to me is too many.) This categorization of evil does not help. How does each of us contribute to the consciousness of others for good or evil? I am the other; the other is me. What would we like the world to be?

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 29, 2008 8:44 AM

I was tempted to listen to all the Capitalism detractors, starting with Obama, they are all eloquent and almost convincing.
Then I look around my house, found the telephone, the AC, the TV, the DVD, the computer, the electric bulb, the fridge, the microwave, the pills in my medicine cabinet, went outside and saw automobiles, airplanes in the sky. Outside I realize that I could scream to the top of my lungs what kind of SOB's Bush and Obama are and the Secret police will not come for me, I won't be sent to Guantanamo for expressing my opinion in the most disguntingly colorful way. Then I realized that all pro socialists and Capitalism haters had not given the world a single pill to alleviate my headaches, not a single product to make my life comfortable. They have made speeches, suppress any illusion of freedom, prison (and even kill)anybody who express a free opinion. Then I became thankful for Capitalism, yes I do thank God for American raw capitalism.
I'm 55, lived 27 years in a communist country, 28 in USA, I feel qualified to express this opinion.
One more thing, refer to the Governator speech at the 2004 Republican Convention ("Then I am a Republican!")
We will come out of this crisis, we need technological changes, the real change in technology and lifestyles that will create new jobs and wealth, by the way, talking about the Governator, I read in Fast Company that California may reach grid parity by 2012, look for the good news and expect government to sit out and just nudge on the right direction.

Posted by ricardo ortega at November 29, 2008 9:40 AM

All are valuable comments here. The Human Race has always longed for progress, upping its living standards for centuries. In the process, the world stage has become a TREACHEROUS PROBLEM like never before (if one to see more on what I mean, please go to http://www.slideshare.net/andresagostini/a-challenging-snapshot-summary-by-andres-agostini-arlington-virginia-usa-presentation).
One can use a plain, lay way to envision it. This is fun and stress-less but, once you capture a womb-to-tomb vista of the world, one can easily realize that the world civilization is into a life-to-death CHALLENGE, hugely and increasingly complicated.

It means that the almost-700 billion inhabitants HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED FOR THEIR OWN SURVIVAL. In my opinion, zero magic solution, just hard, brainy work, from everyone.

There are too many out-crying fronts. Behind the complexity of these daring problems –if mitigated and terminated–there is a WEALTH OF OPPORTUNITY. Incidentally, this is not the “Society Of Knowledge” for free. It is very expensive, since one must mortgage their intellectual capital endlessly and to the utmost.

I did not give birth to hominids, nor a consider myself the supreme intelligence in the universe (let’s just abide by facts and figures, as an amicable unasked suggestion); they were occupying the land and evaluating. A mind + A body + An opposable finger (thumb) + a rock can equate to a great deal of fine and terrible things.

Those, today, gain critical mass when the 7 billion wishes to breathe and make a living and enjoy some life standards, literally “de luxe.” The adage, “one thing at the time” will NOW be replaced by “a plentiful cluster/bunch of dramatic things in real time.”

As people have evolved and progress, they have compounded the past into the present. This “present” is infinitely more complex than OTHER PRESENTS. Now, we reached a canonical milestone that require each one of us to do the best we know NON-STOP.

Back in eighties life was much easier, say, in the West. It is difficult not to feel nostalgia for those times. A great Scotsman speaks about this in length. He, Eamonn Kelly, works for Global Business Network (GBN). He authored a great book, “Powerful Times…” ZERO EASINESS AND NONE SIMPLE SOLUTIONS, NEVER EVER. One apologizes, not me.
We have been called to act upon many techniques and methods.

But to get the maximum output, the musical must choreographed and, above all, acted at "Esprit de corps" unison. I am into frictionless capitalism, though I seriously doubt that the worldwide stock markets will be the same. By the same token, I, too, strongly believe in assisting the people as an extremist humanitarian. I’m a centrist + independent (without ideologies) and within TRUE DEMOCRACY VALUES AND PRACTICES.

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at November 29, 2008 11:22 PM

Can I suggest "Confessions Of An Economic Hitman" by John Perkins as one intriguing insight (of many possible choices) into the international practices that have helped to keep the US capitalist system so "successful". I think Trevor would appreciate the book, and I'm certain Ricardo wouldn't.

Posted by Rob at November 30, 2008 2:16 AM

Hi Rob - maybe that’s a book I should add to my Christmas list – thanks for the recommendation. It certainly looks fascinating from the Amazon reviews. As I said in my earlier comments I do not profess to be very knowledgeable about the relative merits of the arguments about which is the better system - capitalism or socialism. My point remains that the way ahead could be to develop something that uses the best of both approaches. I just feel polarisation is unhelpful – particularly at times of crisis. Of course I greatly respect Ricardo’s experience of living in both communist and capitalist systems and from my limited reading communism different to what I mean by socialism. I know that after World War Two in Britain the radical Labour (Socialist) government gave us universal healthcare by the creation of the National Health Service (NHS) as part of the new Welfare State in 1948. No government for the following 60 years has dared to even remotely suggest dismantling the NHS because they know it is a vote loser. I want to see some regulation (even if only ‘light touch’) of wealth distribution because I remain completely unconvinced about self-regulated ‘trickle down’ re-distribution. And maybe it’s another naive question from me, but it seems at the very least ironic, that almost ANY government 'regulation' whatsoever of business is seen by some as big brother, restrictive interference .... but only when things are going well whilst the sun is shining economically. We all then see the reality of government being the life saving umbrella when the rain comes (bail outs and nationalising banks). Sound to me a bit like running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. So why not just a meeting in the middle is still my main question?

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 30, 2008 5:45 AM

Perhaps it is not a question of capitalism vs. socialism but how the market is "played." Perhaps capitalism in itself is not the culprit but how the overall system was changed from investing to mere speculating by a larger number of people. Before fewer people were engaged and perhaps many more were not actively shorting.

About seven years ago I read, Reminiscences of a Stock Operator, about the life of "The Boy Plunger," Jesse Livermore (1877-1940). The book was given to me by a very successful friend who calls himself a "stock operator." He sees himself as such since he has created all of his own stock charts over the past 25 years and does not consider himself a mere trader or speculator. He is a stock operator. (I have always failed to see the difference when the activity remains the same and produces the same results. A name by any other name is still a name.)

While I thought the Livermore story was very interesting, I also wondered of the intrinsic societal value of such shorting. And to be quite honest I was also pretty grossed out by the name given Mr. Livermore. It had an incredible ruthless ring, as did many of his activities on the market appeared to a novice. There was an unsettling nature to his successes. His bankruptcies and eventual suicide were disturbing as well.

Perhaps speculation of this kind is a game that is too risky for the whole of society, for it takes the will out of companies that are regrouping or struggling to stay afloat. Its ultimate effect is the loss of jobs. Maybe shorting worked for years when the system was not duly challenged, but when there are great number of people now betting on the failure of companies by selling short, maybe this can be quite detrimental to business and society.

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 30, 2008 10:11 AM

To me it seems that capitalism alone cannot solve large problems. For example, if we do become energy independent, it won't happen due to market forces alone. There are very solid long term economic reasons to become energy independent and to build green technologies, but the finantial rewards are too far out in the future for market forces alone to get us there. Once there is money available that is targeted towards green tech, market forces will drive these technologies, but the money needs to be from the government at least for the first decade or so.
Market forces alone would have never developed the space program. The initial investment would have been much too high for market forces to have taken us into space. The attention span of market forces is too short. The roots of the internet would never have been set without government money. Without government money, there would be no interstate highway system.
Its really nothing more than a mix of cooperation and competition. Government support can be thought of as cooperation - market forces can be thought of as the energy that comes from competition. Competition and cooperation need to coexist.

Posted by zed at November 30, 2008 7:35 PM

As the socialist/capitalist rhetoric heated up, I decided to go back and see what Peter Drucker had said. Here are two quotes that I find amazingly forward looking. The first is from The New Realities, written in the mid-1980's and the second from Post-Capitalism, early 1990's. I apologize for their length, but Drucker is worth it.

"Keynes, the post-Keynesians, and the neoclassicists alike cast the economy in a model in which a few constants drive the entire machinery. The model we now need would have to see the economy as "ecology," "environment," "configuration, " and as composed of several interacting spheres: a "microeconomy of individuals and firms, especially transnational ones; a "macroeconomy" of national governments; and a world economy. Every earlier economic theory postulated that one such economy totally controls; all others are dependent and "functions." In the marginal-utility world of the neoclassicists, the microeconomy of individuals and firms controls the macroeconomy of government. In the Keynesian and post-Keynesian worlds, the macroeconomy of national money and credit controls the microeconomy of individuals and firms. But economic reality now is one of three such economies. And soon the economic region (as in the European Economic Community), may become a fourth semi-dependent economy. Each, to use a mathematician's term, is a partially dependent variable. None totally controls the other three; none is totally controlled by the others . Yet none is fully independent from the others, either. Such complexity can barely be described. It cannot be analyzed since it allows of no prediction."

"To give us a functioning economic theory, we thus need a new synthesis that simplifies - but so far there is no sign of it. And if no such synthesis emerges, we may be at the end of economic theory. There may then be only economic theorems, that is formulae and formulations that describe or explain this or that phenomenon and solve this or that problem rather than presenting economics as a coherent system. But there also then would be no "economic policy" as the term is now understood, that is, no foundation for governmental action to manage the business cycle and economic conditions altogether."

"Economic policy requires that lay people such as politicians understand the key concepts of economic theory, but economic reality is much too complex for that. It is already difficult, if not impossible, to give answers understandable to a lay person to the simplest economic question. If there is not again a simple economic theory - or at least one capable of simplification - then there can be only "economic policies" aimed at a specific problem, such as an inadequate savings rate. There can be only what might be called "economic hygiene" or "preventive economics." These would aim at strengthening the basic health of an economy so that it could resist even severe bouts of economic crisis rather than at curing a crisis or managing it." (The New Realities, 156-158.)

"Only a few short decades ago, everybody "knew" that a post-capitalist society would surely be a Marxist one. Now we all know that a Marxist society is the one thing that the next society is not going to be. But most us also know - or at least sense - that developed countries are moving out of anything that could be called "capitalism." The market will surely remain the effective integrator of economic activity. But as a society, the developed countries have also already moved into post-capitalism. It is fast becoming a society of new "classes," with a new central resource at its core. ... the real, controlling resource and the absolutely decisive "factor of production" is now neither capital nor land nor labor. It is knowledge. Instead of capitalists and proletarians, the classes of the post-capitalist society are knowledge workers and service workers." (Post-Capitalist Society, 5-6.)

I draw comfort from Drucker's recognition that there is no simple, easy, quick fix. We are in the midst of a gargantuan transition economically that cannot be simply reduced to whether we are for or against free markets. I cast my vote for freedom any day. However, I also cast it for responsibility, individually, corporately and politically. Oh, to read Drucker's commentary on the past few months.

Posted by Ed Brenegar at November 30, 2008 10:27 PM

Great postings. This is getting ever-better. I like to share, for mind expansion, as follows: “He that will not apply NEW REMEDIES must expect NEW EVILS «changed changes that disrupt our long-held systems of beliefs, cosmovisions, ethos, and comfort zone»; for time is the greatest innovator.” —Sir Francis Bacon

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at December 1, 2008 12:46 AM

Trevor, keep a pinch of salt handy as well, but it's a fascinating read. If you enjoy it, Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" will also appeal. I agree about the tendency by some to regard any government intervention as the full-blown arrival of their Marxist/Leninist/Socialist demons. To call Obama a detractor of capitalism seems, well, just a little over the top. As TP points out, all the current government "remedies" are happening on GW's watch.

Zed, completely agree. It's just something that is conveniently skated over in the free-markets-are-great narrative.

Posted by Rob at December 1, 2008 1:53 AM

The postings of Mr. Drucker are quite interesting. I also wonder that if when we speak about a democratic system are we intrinsically speaking about an economic one. Do we readily equate democracy with capitalism? Do we equate freedom with economics? Do we equate fairness with socialism? How about communism with capitalism? What is China?

While we most certainly have the "microeconomy of individuals and firms, especially transnational ones; a macroeconomy of national governments; and a world economy," there remains the necessity of how we do business on these fronts as well as the manifold risks and randomness that Nassim Nicholas Taleb writes of to consider. "A single observation can disportionately impact the aggregate, or the total."

The beauty of the U.S. Constitution is the sense of freedom, the forever striving for it out of which came a system of capital that required an innate necessity for self-regulation and corporate responsibility. We have faltered. The corporate is the body, fitly joined as the human body. Systems are what people make of them, theorems aside. Actions are more relevant; they determine systems in the long run.

Regarding theorems as opposed to systems, Mr. Drucker appears to declassify systems by finding solutions to various problems that can't be classified within a system, thereby eliminating the system. But we know that people will always cling to systems; we will forever create a system out of a theorem. Our tendency seems to be to solidify things by creating systems, ways of doing things, often times making them fit even if they don't.

Human nature seems to forever look for stability; we are forever looking for order. Hence, we create systems of all kind rather effortlessly. The key is to determine as we go along what needs fixing and what needs changing and do it. When we don't change, bureaucracy is created; malaise initiated. Bureaucracies are outdated systems within systems. We know this. The question is how to change. Tom Peters deals with this beautifully. We change daily through small actions and bold initiatives, even as we build newer systems—ways of being.

The beauty in the modern democratic system, out of which capitalism sprung, is the sense that we are forever becoming "a more perfect union." Equally as so, we are forever becoming a more perfect corporate body. Here is Tom Peters' quote for today: "Democracy does not demand economic equality but it does demand, front and center, a widespread perception of fairness." The U.S. democratic system was not perfect when the union was formed, but there was that "widespread perception of fairness" that built a great nation and will reinvent it still.

The perfect law of liberty is the law of love.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 1, 2008 5:49 AM

It’s time to save capitalism from capitalists!!!

Posted by K.Sriram at December 3, 2008 5:02 AM

Rob and Zed

I came across an interesting discussion the other day on Radio here in England - oddly enough about football (soccer). It was about the relative merits of a 'capitalist' approach where the richest football clubs in England just get richer whilst clubs at the lower end, go to the wall .... versus a 'social/co-operative' approach for the greater good of the entire football league in England whereby all 92 clubs get a share of the money sloshing around the soccer world in England right now. The concept of socially responsible capitalism was put forward. Now that to me sounds something like the ‘middle ground’ that I was suggesting – I’d just never come across a name for it …

Socially Responsible Capitalism … Yes I definitely like that .. I think I will write something on my own Blog about that

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 4, 2008 8:37 AM

Trevor, it's interesting that in the Home of the Free (market) USA, the NFL actually has a much less unfettered approach. The way they manage draft picks each season stops a couple of super-teams dominating the League though outright purchase power. There is a recognition that everyone gains from a more evenly-matched set of teams fighting it out. Greater good at work? No sponsors' logos plastered all over the kit either, which I've always liked.

Posted by Rob at December 4, 2008 9:50 AM

PS Trevor, I think you'll find that the concept of Socially Responsible Capitalism goes back at least 100 years, Lord Leverhulme's Port Sunlight being a good example. I attach a link to the website.

http://www.portsunlight.org.uk/

Posted by Rob at December 4, 2008 10:03 AM

To a large extent capitalism has always had a social conscious shown by large foundations associated with large companies that do a huge amount of good across the country and the globe that support issues from health to nation building to the arts. Faith based organizations do this as well, but through the capital of those who are a part of such a system.

A profit incentive is necessary for good to occur in the form of products, services or humanitarianism en masse, a redefinition of the term perhaps not. (Does anyone remember what the costs of medicine and products were before the free market? Abysmal?) We are social beings. Perhaps we need be reminded of this through the form of regulations and laws that enforce ethics. "The law is for the lawless."

Can anyone simply explain to me the British system? Early yesterday morning I watched the State Opening of the British Parliament on C-span with all of the pomp and circumstance and was somewhat alarmed and amused, with all due respect, by the Queen's continual reference to "my government will" do this and that. Whose government is it? I suppose that such a reference at this point is a mere formality. Or, is it?

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 4, 2008 10:21 AM

Hi Rob - Thanks for the education – and thanks for the link to Lord Luverholme. I will follow through with some more reading on Socially Responsible Capitalism. I clearly need to broaden my mindset! As a life long supporter of the Labour party (and a little confused, if not quite disillusioned about what they now stand for) maybe Socially Responsible Capitalism is the direction I ought to be headed …. Which party stands for that would you say? I also like the sound of the way the US free market regulates collaboration in their football. Did you notice by the way that Aston Villa this season have a Hospice as the name on their shirt – now that’s socially responsible capitalism in my book. How I wish all teams would follow Villa’s example and show some acknowledgment of the community rather than use the shirt to blatantly advertise commercial enterprise and I do include my beloved Manchester United in that criticism. What a great discussion Rob thanks again – one of the joys of this Blog – indeed any Blog is the educational value! viagra with mastercard buy

Judith – the State Opening of Parliament is a long standing British institution that goes back almost to when Adam was a boy. Apparently in 1536 Henry VIII was the first monarch to attend State Opening in person. You ca see the history at this BBC link with a helpful A-Z Parliament video that only lasts a couple of minutes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/82023.stm

We Brits tend to be very proud of ceremony despite its antiquated and, some will argue, out of date pomp. Personally I like it and am very proud of my heritage - 'ceremony' is one thing we do well in Britain.

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 4, 2008 11:43 AM

Judith, it's as simple as the rules of cricket. Britain is a constitutional monarchy, over which the Queen reigns but does not rule. The Government governs in her name, hence the "my". The Queen summons and dissolves parliament, which consists of the Sovereign (QEII), the Lords and the Commons.

cheap brand viagra in usa In any case, it is certainly not the people's government at present.

Posted by Rob at December 4, 2008 11:50 AM

Thanks, Rob and Trevor. My mother was truly one who followed international politics and was somewhat intrigued with the British system and the pomp and circumstance. I have been less so. But I remember waking very early to catch major international events as a kid and being asked what I thought of what was occuring. Some things don't die easy, though I just so happened to catch the Queen's State of the Parliament address yesterday morning. Now, if I only knew the game of cricket.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 4, 2008 12:32 PM

Trevor, also try googling New Lanark.

Posted by Rob at December 4, 2008 12:48 PM buying viagra online to australia

I see dear Rob that you too have a penchant for sharing what you have come to know. Others will determine whether it is wisdom or not, valuable or not, be it truncated or elongated. I assume your desire is not to monopolize, but to share. There appears to be a considerate thought leader there, regardless of particular use of language or style. Without specific judgement of your intentions, I hear you and I'm appreciative.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 4, 2008 1:37 PM

Rob – I looked at the New Lanark link and ironically I am aware of Robert Owen from a previous life when I worked in services for people with a learning disability for ten years of my NHS career. Some of the young people were placed in Robert Owen Foundation homes if my memory serves me correctly. Mr Owen certainly sounds like my kind of man. More learning – thanks again Rob - appreciated.

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 4, 2008 2:07 PM

1. I beg to differ with Tome Peters on his title"Modern America". This has to be substituted with "Present America", insted.

2.According to me,if the socialists are "going berserk",its all due to democarts remaining in retreat,re-treating themselves at the cost of.....(I leave the guess to you).

3.If Bill Clinton did not bat well when"Dotcom" bubble was pricked- put it this way,Bill Clinton "could not bat" as his bat was cracked and could not use it(Clinton must have also felt the prick in him probably)But who is responsible for this- Guess for yourself.

4.I would like to expree it this way"Bill Clinton gave welfare through Workfare."

5.If Bill Clinton got NAFTA passed that's his smartness,and those who fiercely resisted had utterly failed.Good and big opprtunites comes seldom in life and those who make use of it are smarter and rest are otherwise.

6.Yes. Trusted friends of Bill Clinton-Newt Gingrich & Co & Allan

7.George W Bush - I will mention as a "Complete Rag" rather than a "Conservative Rag".

8. Its too late to talk of this old woman(Margeret Tatcher).Allow her to take rest.

9.Mr. Bush sitting in the balcony of the white house and enjoying the natural breeze has to be a baloney ? what else?

10.Now you have to wait for Obama to take cahrge and work, to write about "Future America".

With Regards, Tom.

J.K

Posted by J.Kannan at December 5, 2008 1:06 AM

I had no intention of commenting, however I don't understand the Bush attacks,or the dissatifaction with the market. This country was founded on freedom and morality, this system is a result of those values. Granted we have strayed from those values, that is an undeniable fact, and I am quite unhappy about that. I believe in fairness, but also in personal responsibility, I cannot see any fairness in redistribution of wealth even though I might have a great deal to gain from it's implimentation. NAFTA was a bad idea, it forces American manufactures to have to compete with companies who have no regulations, humanitarian or enviromental, all while importing their products with no tarrifs. My company spends a great deal on safety, enviromental,& human resources, all the while producing a product that exceeds all associated standards, meanwhile having to compete with those who don't. Clinton was asleep at the wheel, he ignored opportunities & he ignored threats to our safety. American has ponyed up the money, blood & resources to combat evil, and spread liberty throughout the world hand in hand with her allies. And now her freedoms are in jepordy, as our new administration offers it's change, which sounds like more beaurocratic waste. I would rather be hungry and free (in an American Constitutional sense) than to bet a fat subject of a beaurocratic monster. How long will it take for small business owners to do the math and determine that they can cut a few jobs, decreasing their income to fall below the new tax line and still come out better off. Just the threat of higher taxes on business owners has increased unemployment in my area, as I see an increase in the number of applicants. If just the ideas have hurt us then how bad will the policies hurt us. Those who expect something for nothing have finally outnumbered the working class.

Posted by j sweeten at December 18, 2008 11:01 PM