A prominent economist presents a balanced view of what led to the current economic crisis without placing blame! A must see if you want to know the whole story, and not just a sound-bite. He also presents an interesting and surprising solution.

Sorry, the embed video function doesn't seem to work on this site.

Here is the YouTube link:  Capitalism Hits the Fan

Very interesting...........and enlightening.....set some time aside to view this folks...it is almost an hour long.......put a pot of coffee on........not exactly exciting stuff, but how can one make such a topic exciting anyways.

Capitalism is a very good idea, until the other persons money runs out.

We were never meant to be a capitalistic nation.

The antonym for Capitalism IS Communism!

No, the opposite of Communism is Democracy and Captailism is not democratic at all. It is in favor of those who have the most money and gives them the power to call the shots, not the people. Capitalism, just like Communism, allows for a heavily imbalanced justic system where the person with the most money gets the best defense, the best resources and the best services because they can pay for it and keep others from being able to do so. Capitalism allows for a covert of financed errosion of rights whereas communism errosion is out in the open and based on force. Capitalism is secretive and works off the principle, "He who has the gold, makes the rules" which is similar to communism except the words are changed. So, as I said before, the United States was never meant to be a Capitalistic Nation but a democracy.

Capitalism is what made America the Greatest country in the world. We are a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy!

I disagree. The founding fathers did not come to America for economic gain, they came to reclaim their human rights (i.e. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). And in reality prior to that those who came to the colonies were mostly prisoners just like the Austrailian colonies were, yet I digress. The first tangiable instance of the dysfunction of Capitalism we see occurs blatantly in Salem Mass which was Purtain run, the one of the main beliefs of Purtainism was God rewarded the faithful by prosperity. When that prosperity faltered, then it became the work of the devil (This was not a new invention mind you, because in England the Witch Craze claimed it's victims from among the poor, disabled etc. because they were evidence of God's displeasure and had evil's taint-therefore get rid of the evil and afflictions would pass.) The same thing happened in Salem, the lack of money meant the devil was among them and had to be purged. Who were the victims? Women, slaves, the sick and disabled and those not financially well off, as well as those who objected or questioned the establishment. To me it seems today we have missed this lesson, once again only this time the "Evil Ones" are groups like OWS, Prior to that it was the Vietnam Protestors, MLK and Civil rights protestors and the list goes on. What a shame we've learned absolutely nothing from history. Who was it that said if we didn't learn from history we were doomed to repeat it? Oh...probbably one of those evil anti-capitalists huh?

bvjack...the correct quote is “Socialism works only until you run out of other people’s money” by Margaret Thatcher. So true, so true!!

You've probably seen this before, but it bears repeating. It's a good lesson on socialism...

An economics professor at a college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich — a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Socialism — sharing the wealth”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

This could not be any simpler than that.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Thank You, Grayson!

First, let me say I never said Socialism was what I am advocating and I challenge anyone here to show me a statement where I said that. However, it does illustrate my point that because my view is not a traditional view the label is automaticaly placed upon me (not that I care mind you, you can call me anything you wish. I'm a big boy and you have a right to your opinion). That being said, I do have the expectation that when labels are placed, there is tangiable and solid support for placing that label (the professor in me coming out). So that being said, let me summarize my points:

1) Our founding fathers did not base the nation on the principles of Capitalism, they based them on Democracy.

2) The system of Captialism we have in place today has failed us. If it was working we would be in the economic mess that we are and our financial rating with the world would still be intact. Yes it is still up and running, but it is highly dysfunctional which means eventually it will fail.

3) It is a proven fact that wealth buys the best legal defense, best hospital care etc. which mean that while those without get treated, their treatment options etc are less in quality and scope, their legal defense is inadequate and more likely to cut corners etc. as opposed to someone who hads the means to draw out the system financially. This is not justice, it is weighing the scales of justice with money and amounts to legal bribery. Honestly, would you want a Public Defender handling your defense in court or OJ's Lawyer? One you get free, the other you pay for. They will enact their services accordingly.

4) If Capitalism was working as it should, the Anti Trust Laws of the US would be enforced, but all we have to do is looko at the big corporate companies like Microsoft, Any of the Oil Companies, B or A, etc. and we can see blatant violations of the anti trust laws but because they have the financial backing-they have been allowed to continue on their Merry ways and strangle competition any way they can. You can not multiple wealth by hoarding it either and not reinvesting it into the community around you.

Perhaps this link with illustrate better what I am getting at:

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/market-antidote-capitalism

Two rules to remember, no matter what label you give to the system.

1. You get what you reward.,
2. There is no free lunch.

In the American version of capitalism, people with money are getting rewarded with more money, as I see things, anyway.

People without money are getting punished with the curse of getting something for nothing.

People who are eating the free lunch don't have a clue as to who is paying or how someone else is paying. A very expwnsive free. Both for those who eat and for those who pay.

Maybe there is a thrid rule.

3. Don't put labels on something or someone. Use rules to explain the problem that can be solved.

First, thank you all for your continuing and thought-provoking contributions.

But another way to look at this problem was actually covered toward the end of the video.
Though he did not say it outright, there is an inborn human tendcy which will eventually defeat any system conceived by the mind of man.

That is: Humans will always try, and will find, a way around laws or rules they do not wish to be bound by.

There is no lock that can't be picked, no code that cannot be broken, no law that cannot be circumvented, no program that cannot be hacked, and no politician that cannot be bought - or, if not bought, then eliminated.

"What the human mind can conceive and believe, it can accomplish." David Sarnoff.

The only laws that man has not, so far, found a way around are the laws of the universe, like death and gravity. But someone, somewhere, is probably working on that right now.

Thanks, Jistenes.

Laws are made by man. Changing the laws we do not like in a peaceful manner is a strong point for the United States.

We seem to be slightly off track when people resort to demonstration in the streets.

You might think we were Egypt trying to overthrow a dictator.

Let them eat cake.

A true democracy would mean that if the majority voted to kill all red headed children then it would be ok. This country is exactlly what Mr. Bill said. A Republic.

Also Grayson thanks for correcting me on the quote by Margaret Thatcher.

Putting a label on the type of governmetn helps in defining the problem.

Agreed, the United States is a Repubic.

Or is it/

In a republic, as I understand republic, supreme power is with the CITIZENS. Citizens being those entitled to vote.

Since the citizens are busy with other things, they elect representatives to do the heavy lifting. The nitty grity of governing. The decision making. Powers of incorporpation, power to tax, power to enforce.

The question then is do those elected to represent the voters actually represent the citizens? Note the two words, voters and citizens. Two different animals.

For California rural counties, including Yuba County, my observation is that the elected representatives do not represent those eligible to vote. At best they represent those who actually cast a ballot for them. If you do not cast a ballot for them, you may not be represented. Don't cast a ballot at all. Don't expect to be represented. YOU have disenfranchised yourself.

In several cases, my observation is that the elected represent those who financed their election. Voters are merely an annoyance.

Have any of you noticed who your elected reresentatives actually represent? Who benifits from their action?

Cast a vote for the opponent. In some cases you don't stand a chance of being represented. The incumbent has an agenda and plays to his or her base to retain power.

Cast your vote based on what the papers say or what party your parents were in? You probably are not being represented.

Even if you did vote for the incumbent, expect that the incumbent will ihherit a civil service staff that was not elected.

That staff will see to it that government is conducted with a consent agenda. Little chance for the minority position to be heard.

What to do? What to do? Look a little more closely at what government is doing. Ask yourself what you think government should be doing. What you think government should be doing is your personal bull's eye. How close does the real world conform to your ideal?

In some cases, I wonder what the role of the elected representative is. If they merely rubber stamp the consent agenda, then maybe there is some redundancy. Do away witth the elected representative and hire the governmetn service directly. As in a special district. Or a free market.

What are the things you can do on your own without help from government? Land use? Unless you own all the land, expect to have a need for government. Or at least a venue to discuss how the land should be used. Be careful not to let outsiders get their nose in the tent.

Emergency service? Medical transportation? Education? Health? Fore and flood protection?

Should corporations be allowed to vote as if they were citizens? Should a board of directors in Zurich have the leverage to dictate how insurance laws are to be written?

Couple of things:

Rent the documentary 'The One Percent' by the heir of the Johnson & Johnson fortunes.

Google 'Alex Jones'

..and lastly, Corporations are NOT people!