Editor's Note: Kenneth Rogoff is Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Harvard University, and was formerly chief economist at the IMF. For more from Rogoff, visit Project Syndicate or follow it on Facebook and Twitter. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Kenneth Rogoff.
By Kenneth Rogoff, Project Syndicate
I am often asked if the recent global financial crisis marks the beginning of the end of modern capitalism. It is a curious question, because it seems to presume that there is a viable replacement waiting in the wings. The truth of the matter is that, for now at least, the only serious alternatives to today’s dominant Anglo-American paradigm are other forms of capitalism.
Continental European capitalism, which combines generous health and social benefits with reasonable working hours, long vacation periods, early retirement, and relatively equal income distributions, would seem to have everything to recommend it – except sustainability. China’s Darwinian capitalism, with its fierce competition among export firms, a weak social-safety net, and widespread government intervention, is widely touted as the inevitable heir to Western capitalism, if only because of China’s huge size and consistent outsize growth rate. Yet China’s economic system is continually evolving.
Indeed, it is far from clear how far China’s political, economic, and financial structures will continue to transform themselves, and whether China will eventually morph into capitalism’s new exemplar. In any case, China is still encumbered by the usual social, economic, and financial vulnerabilities of a rapidly growing lower-income country.
Perhaps the real point is that, in the broad sweep of history, all current forms of capitalism are ultimately transitional. Modern-day capitalism has had an extraordinary run since the start of the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago, lifting billions of ordinary people out of abject poverty. Marxism and heavy-handed socialism have disastrous records by comparison. But, as industrialization and technological progress spread to Asia (and now to Africa), someday the struggle for subsistence will no longer be a primary imperative, and contemporary capitalism’s numerous flaws may loom larger.
First, even the leading capitalist economies have failed to price public goods such as clean air and water effectively. The failure of efforts to conclude a new global climate-change agreement is symptomatic of the paralysis.
Second, along with great wealth, capitalism has produced extraordinary levels of inequality. The growing gap is partly a simple byproduct of innovation and entrepreneurship. People do not complain about Steve Jobs’s success; his contributions are obvious. But this is not always the case: great wealth enables groups and individuals to buy political power and influence, which in turn helps to generate even more wealth. Only a few countries – Sweden, for example – have been able to curtail this vicious circle without causing growth to collapse.
A third problem is the provision and distribution of medical care, a market that fails to satisfy several of the basic requirements necessary for the price mechanism to produce economic efficiency, beginning with the difficulty that consumers have in assessing the quality of their treatment.
The problem will only get worse: health-care costs as a proportion of income are sure to rise as societies get richer and older, possibly exceeding 30% of GDP within a few decades. In health care, perhaps more than in any other market, many countries are struggling with the moral dilemma of how to maintain incentives to produce and consume efficiently without producing unacceptably large disparities in access to care.
It is ironic that modern capitalist societies engage in public campaigns to urge individuals to be more attentive to their health, while fostering an economic ecosystem that seduces many consumers into an extremely unhealthy diet. According to the United States Centers for Disease Control, 34% of Americans are obese. Clearly, conventionally measured economic growth – which implies higher consumption – cannot be an end in itself.
Fourth, today’s capitalist systems vastly undervalue the welfare of unborn generations. For most of the era since the Industrial Revolution, this has not mattered, as the continuing boon of technological advance has trumped short-sighted policies. By and large, each generation has found itself significantly better off than the last. But, with the world’s population surging above seven billion, and harbingers of resource constraints becoming ever more apparent, there is no guarantee that this trajectory can be maintained.
Financial crises are of course a fifth problem, perhaps the one that has provoked the most soul-searching of late. In the world of finance, continual technological innovation has not conspicuously reduced risks, and might well have magnified them.
In principle, none of capitalism’s problems is insurmountable, and economists have offered a variety of market-based solutions. A high global price for carbon would induce firms and individuals to internalize the cost of their polluting activities. Tax systems can be designed to provide a greater measure of redistribution of income without necessarily involving crippling distortions, by minimizing non-transparent tax expenditures and keeping marginal rates low. Effective pricing of health care, including the pricing of waiting times, could encourage a better balance between equality and efficiency. Financial systems could be better regulated, with stricter attention to excessive accumulations of debt.
Will capitalism be a victim of its own success in producing massive wealth? For now, as fashionable as the topic of capitalism’s demise might be, the possibility seems remote. Nevertheless, as pollution, financial instability, health problems and inequality continue to grow, and as political systems remain paralyzed, capitalism’s future might not seem so secure in a few decades as it seems now.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of Kenneth Rogoff.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
That is a question I had never considered before. What is capitalism doing for me? is another way to phrase it.
Capitalism is moving towards endline .. get used to it .. just burry it without respect for the horrors on human rights and health it caused ... and get over it ASAP!! .. There is a whole of world waiting for us to reapir the damage we caused ..
Capitalism is headed toward endline? Look at Europe and the Austerity measures. Socialism failed them.
"Continental European capitalism, which combines generous health and social benefits with reasonable working hours, long vacation periods, early retirement, and relatively equal income distributions, would seem to have everything to recommend it – except sustainability."
Wait! You have to lose respect for Rogoff given inaccurate, politically motivated statements such as the above.
The most sustainable and successful European countries have the most of the above...the most extensive welfare states.....Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Germany, Netherlands, France. These countries also have allocated capital effectively by virtue of the state's role in developing productive industries. Other countries have had major crises and are in a mess exactly because they have moved to diminish the role of the welfare state ( Iceland, Ireland, Britain, Spain) and have suffered from uncontrolled and unproductive allocation of capital, for example to property.
Italy, Portugal and Greece have particular problems due less to the welfare state and more to do with inefficient state-business relations which need to be redefined to reduce cronyism and improve the quality of governance – so that explicit public interest objectives and performance characterise state-business interactions not personal connections.
This is a valid opinion, and as an American, I will take in to consideration.
It's easy to take something out of context when the presumption of an attack upon ones ideals surfaces.
I think you'll find that Ken Rogoff is one of the more objective thinkers in the economic world and his assertion that it's unsustainable, in principle, is widely held in academia – there are references to be found everywhere.
At no point did he say it wasn't working, or working well. The question is "How long can it work as it is currently work?".
Good point, pmacdonald. Te countries you mention, especially Denmark, also model environmental approaches that factor in the well-being of future generations.
I agree that better regulation is required to solve many of the problems of raw capitalism but not sure why you would include regulation on your list of market based solutions. The whole point of regulation is to address issues where no adequate market based solution exists, isn't it?
Capitalism is sustainable if we get back to a balanced approach. First we need adequate regulation. Problems we are experiencing now, in large part, are do to elimination of regs established during the Great Depression. These regs helped sustain us for sixty+ years. Investment banks and others operated like a kid in a candy store, grabbing what ever looked good. They were unethical, illegal, and criminal. The investment banks were like scammers of the old west. They salted the mine (loaded gold into shot gun shells and fired into a worthless mine). They then sold that worthless mine as a profitable gold mine. The worthless gold mine in this case were the derivatives and stock swaps. The banks sold derivatives as AAA investments knowing they would fail. They then bet against them by insuring against loss, or selling short on the investments.
We need to provide 95-99%ers more of the company resources for worked performed. Henry Ford paid employees up to 3 times the standard pay. Increase salaries by a lower amount, and issuing stock with each paycheck. Employees gain some ownership giving them future gains as the company grows. This does not cost the company because no cash is paid out. Stockholders will share gains with employees that are generated by employee effort. Stock over time will supplement retirement & Social Security benefits. Some precedent has already been established by company's contribution to 401K plans in the form of company stock.
This is a more equal share of assets not only for employees, but for the economy as a whole. 70% of our economy starts with consumer spending. Currently, consumers do not have the resources to spend us back to a growing economy. Too many are unemployed, or partially employed which is a negative impact on the economy, budget deficit, and the national debt.
Evaluate the "too big to fail companies" for divesting of business/assets and reduce the risk to the economy.
These measures would be a start to short and long term improvements.
I heard an economist (Wolf or is it Wolfe? ) suggest that by democratizing the work force, we would find sustainable solutions. Wolf suggested that one day per week, or even half day, rather than work, employees meet to determine problems & solutions, i.e. "What are we doing? " How can we do it better?" "What are our major problems & how can we solve them?" "What will this look like in the future" "What are the positive/negative impacts of our work/products on the health of the planet and its inhabitants" He argues that such meetings would reshape policies & therefore, the economy. For example, workers would not agree to having their work out-sourced; nor would workers likely agree to huge bonuses & bailouts.
In a perfect world, everyone would be trading freely with everyone but we don't live in a perfect world.
Capitalism per se is not threat to mankind. On the contrary prosperity helps mankind develop and progress. Ordinary people only resent capitalism if they fall victims to Darwinism and see no equal distribution of chances and resources. Here plays a welfare state a role to provide social transfers to the disenfranchised.
It's not true that the "European Continental Capitalism" lacks sustainability. Germany, France, Holland and Switzerland have a capitalist system with the blessing of their governments.
Quasi socialism is a virus. It infects the system and eventually grinds it to a halt.
Atlas shrugged long ago in Western Europe.
Are you paying attention, Amerika?
Automation is going to kill capitalism and any monetary social structure once and for all. http://www.thevenusproject.com
Sounds like a load of BS to me.
Me, too.
Automation has in fact played a significant role. Where humans were once the major taxable base, much has been replaced by machinery and automation. If machines were made to pay their fair share of taxes with respect to labour and the corresponding GDP, things may have come out different. But given the corruption of out governments, maybe not.
Dumb comment. This (view of automation) was Marx' and Engels historical analysis and dialectic. It has proven to be an incorrect analysis.
I think it's a legitimate point but I would include cheap foreign labor as well. Daniel Pink's books A Whole New Mind and Drive talk about this a lot. Also, here is a blog post on this very subject.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-07/opinion/rushkoff.jobs.obsolete_1_toll-collectors-robots-jobs?_s=PM:OPINION
One thing is certain. The world will not be the same tomorrow, as it is today.an incredibly troubling thought without a primal instinct...faith.
Primal instinct? Faith is a result of brainwashing small children for the most part, their is nothing instinctive about believing in myths absent teaching them.
There not their, sorry my iPad incorrectly guessed my typo ... Lol
actually I recieved my faith when I was 22, My electricity had just been cut off due to none payment. my priorities back then were much funner. anyways I picked up A book written by watchmen nee called a normal cristain life. He was a preacher in china. spent years of his life inprisoned for his beliefs. after reading this book I then decided to dedicate my life to teaching people the free gift jesus died to give us. and yes it is primal. the kingdom of heaven is near. it is in my heart and on my mind. You cant say it does not igsist you may argue that it is manufacterd but you would be wrong. since the night I gave my life to god. My prayers have been answerd numerous times.
Faith is the license believers give themselves when reasons fail.
licence to what? faith is nurtured through open honest answer seeking. answers to the kinds of questions that will never be asked by any kind of single cell organism. ever. not even a dog a trillion years from now will ever ask himself who, and why, he is? So you tell me who is the crazy one, they guy who believes that we are distant uncles to single cell organism's or the guy who believes we have been created for a purpose. have you seen the fossil samples that "scientist's" have based there intire theory on? rediculous I couild find a rock down at the lake that looks just like it. invest your time into figuring things out for yourself instead of believing insicure theory's. without having all the facts.
I am sorry. I feel that primal will be the way it goes. Most of our resources come from other countries. China has invested heavily in most of Africa and middle east (Iran) and is already flexing muscle to get any resource it can in the Indian ocean/ south east asia.
Once China wants to take over from us in the middle east/elsewhere – it will be a time of increasing tension and conflict.
USA will be a sustainable economy only if we produce most of what we need right here... we will be poorer but more secure.
Faith is of no use here
faith is what your country was built on. every single person who built the laws in your country was a believer. 200 odd years later the blessings they recieved are being taken away. And given oddly enough to the country were cristianity is spreading like wild fire. I'm talking about that pure selfless cristiantiy not the prosperity crap alot of your pastors are carrying on about these days. "faith is of no use here".... no, I am sorry your forfathers would highly diagree
The sustainability of capitalism is an old issue. And like any method or formula, the equations of capitalism require somewhat of an idealistic setting and proper adjustments are needed along the way. One only needs to consider our current global setting, economic, and financial situations to determine the future of capitalism, and by the looks of it, capitalism has more or less stalled out in a heap of global debt with no feasible or realistic solution for recovery.
Capitalism would be sustainable if it weren't for it's addiction to growth. The need for growth will leave us all on a used up husk of a planet.
Growth is what puts beer in your fridge and food on your table. When you stop growing, you're dead.
Of course it's unsustainable. Economics completely ignores the physical world around us. You eventually run out of resources, and the ability to sustain a population. That means no further population growth, which means no new customers to sell your products and services to. Stagnation. A few solid, non fluff, science classes should be a requirement for business majors.
Wrong. Malthusian economics were proven wrong many many years ago.
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
This applies to one man or to mankind as a whole.
And what use is it to a socialist when Atlas shrugs? What's the price to the common man?
You're seeing it in Western Europe right now.
Are you paying attention, Amerika?
Dr. Rogoff,
I encourage you to pick up a copy of Joseph Schumpeter's "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy." In the work he asks this very question, and even posits that capitalism can become so successful that it leads to something akin to underemployment, discontent, and ultimately a socialist-style method of macro economic production (although, he does not necessarily hope this will happen).
He also introduces the term "Creative Destruction," which I find rather similar to the notion of "Disruptive Innovation" espoused by one of your fellow Harvard faculty, Clayton Christensen. Not exactly the same–Christensen emphasizes technology in particular–but the general idea that entrepreneurial spurts lead to new market standards that inherently lead to an "out with the old, in with the new" cycle that could lead to fruitful investigations. Investigations, that may help us understand the tipping point of societies, the creation of bubbles, and the migration of capitalist societies to socialist ones; these will inherently fail, and the cycle will start anew.
I think if the current trend of the rich getting richer, and the poor being left further behind, eventually many developed countries could become pro-socialism. This is unavoidable when once thriving ordinary citizens are now facing harsher financial environment – and gradual deprivation of their share of their country's wealth and prosperity.
But before this could happen, there would be massive political upheavels in many capitalist systemsy. Something akin to the Arab Spring but different in essence because the targets would be the fabulously rich and wealthy people, the so called 1%..
people should stop blaming capitalism and start blaming themselves. the economy is s**t because of people waste without thinking.
They elect to join labor unions without thinking, too.
Biological analogy is a huge BS flag in economic theory.
The cornerstone of economic theory is 'rational economics' which is BS in itself. People do not spend 'all' of their money rationally. They spend a lot of it based on emotion. According to rational economics, a bubble couldn't exist because people would never pay 250,000$ for a house that was worth 150,000$ the year before, for example. Rationality requires good information which is hard to filter anymore.
The idea behind capitalism is that it forms a very efficient meritocracy system. The people with the best business ideas, the best business strategies, and the best talent rise to the top. Companies that fail to use a meritocracy will lose to businesses that do. There are ways that this can fail. If the business climate governments set up, either too much regulation or too little, allow inefficient companies to use unfair business practices and rise to the top, then we lose our meritocracy. The other way is for foreign governments to use subsides and other "unfair" tactics to beat out key sectors of our economy. At that point, the foreign companies can use a monopolistic control over supply chains and prices to make sure that no company in the US can start up to compete. The dilemma then becomes for us, do we use subsides to prop up our own businesses to avoid the second problem, or by doing that, will we unfold the very meritocracy advantage that drives our economy in the first place.
Deep Blue,
Well said. Do you revert to an isolationist-style of foreign policy? It's quite a complicated scenario, because let's face it: American's like cheap goods; who doesn't?
To a degree, supporting local businesses surely helps, but I think that's more fashionable than effective when sectors like manufacturing are largely outsourced at this point (this is particularly sad for myself, living in what was the belly of the United States industrial beast a century ago).
There is still an American advantage in terms of knowledge production, but that too is beginning to slip, and ideas make fewer people wealthier (most are not able or willing to risk entrepreneurship, but the mid-level jobs are funneling out of here).
As my Poppy used to say, "Oh Hell."
I think if private, public, large or small public trading company pays REASONABLE salaries, bonuses & benefits to their top executives without ties to short term profits, a lot can be accomplished. Nowadays all tops executives, board members, supervisory committees are colluded: "you scratch my back and I will scratch yours". We have a new kind of thieves, who steal "legally" by seizing their companies monies in terms of huge bonuses, pay, benefits, etc. and no one says anything about these abuses.
I think if private, public, large or small public trading companies pay REASONABLE salaries, bonuses & benefits to their top executives without ties to short term profits, a lot can be accomplished. Nowadays all top executives, board members, supervisory committees are colluded: "you scratch my back and I will scratch yours". We have a new kind of thieves, who steal "legally" by seizing their companies monies in terms of huge bonuses, pay, benefits, etc. and no one says anything about these abuses.
Capitalism is and has been sustainable. The problems arise when quasi socialist liberals infect the system and attempt to inflict their interpretation of social and economic justice via the redistribution of wealth from those who create and earn it to those who couldn't care less.
And if you don't believe that, take a long, hard look at Western Europe.
I think the more important factor affecting modern capitalism is that our economy needs constant growth, otherwise we fall into recession or depression. Historically however, growth of any kind has necessitated the expenditure of various resources. So far we have been able to match needed growth and available resources. However, resources are not unlimited. My point is that it is dangerous to have a system based on indefinite growth. As a cautionary tale, bacterial populations initially grow exponentially, plateau as available nutrients are used, then the population crashes and the majority die.
Food for thought.
I agree with "oh really". The only problem with capitalism is governments interference to try to change it into socialism because of more government regulations and this communist notion of redistribution of wealth which is against everything America stands for. The problems we have had have nothing to do with capitalism, but everything to do with this socialistic Obama government making up their own rules as they go along trying to make government bigger and control the people more. Capitalism works if left alone. By the way, look at your local newspaper, there are a ton of jobs out there if people want to work, but why should they because uncle Barack will take care of them. What this administration is doing is disgusting and Obama is either completely over his head or evil or both. Get him out of the white house if you want to save capitalism.
The author confused capitalism with free markets. Capitalism, in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism is defined as "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."
Capitalism when combined with free markets and globalization is a powerful engine responsible for the huge wealth created for the last 30 years across the world.
Notice in the definition the words 'individuals' and 'corporations'. The recent recession was not a result of failure of capitalism as many people believe, but a result of government interferences in the market place. By definition, capitalism can not fail. Whenever there is an imbalance in the allocation of capitals, the market will behave in such a way to counter the imbalance. Whenever an ecomic bubble is created, it will burst sooner of later by the market force. That is the beauty of capitalism, it is like a free standing pendulum, it will swings from one extreme to the other, it will always try to maintain its equilirium. When the pendulum is at its extremes, we have recession.
The interference by government however was to remove safety guards, I.e. regulations, set up to prevent banks from acting like criminals. So ironically your are correct for reasons you didn't intend. Those regulations were set in place by government and worked. As others have pointed out, our economic crisis was caused by deregulation allowing banks to sell worthless assets and then bet they would fail. Add to that the banks actively selling mortgages to those they knew they shouldn't be and you have a catastrophe that was made purely by removing what you would consider a government intrusion, the regulations. It is in the end all about balance. The enemy is greed.
The World is not sustainable. Wait until the resources start running out including food...the armies will be lining up to battle for mineral deposits
pmcdonald has it right. The European countries with the strongest social support are NOT the ones having economic problems. And they also have a stronger economy than the U.S. The myth that a strong social support system is not sustainable needs to be expunged from america's mentality. If anything, strong social support, if done intelligently, strengthens economy.
Obama's p.r. team pushed for CNN to run this story. Anything to undermine our Economy..
Support your argument, otherwise it is just a silly right-wing snippet.
Capitalism is not sustainable because it misses one very important part and that is LOVE .. so what is capitalism based on now – GREED not a good starting point or? ... modern slavery where 1 benefits from many .. it is far more dangerous than any socialist/communist system before. Why is there shortage of food in the world if we produce only in Europe enough to feed everyone? why do we throw away half of it? This is the real face of capitalism ... bad system for bad people!!! ..
This issue of sustainability is an old one. As less experienced countries gain abilities they undercut prices. So domestic industries die. Like steel. So innovation becomes a lifeblood. But what about the factory workers? What can they do? Since only a small percentage of people are smart enough and well placed enough to become managers. But this growing inequality rap is largely false. Since where else but America do poor people have cars, telephones, multi-bedroom apartments, etc. Plus well more than enough to eat. Issue rather is "What can they do?" Especially since the factories are long-gone. Well... maybe they can clean things? Or fix things? Or if anybody else has any bright ideas. Or maybe the Progressive companies can hire them and come up with some way to get them to create more value than they produce. Which is tough with all the requirements, regulations and extra costs associated with hiring low-skill people.
I think it's more to do with the failures of central banks and fiat money as opposed to capitalism per se.
Capitalism is fine thanks very much. Demcracy on the other hand is in real trouble.
Did you mention capitalism is a system that works by financial bubles?
Oh, you did mention it, en passant. Sheesh...
"Is capitalism sustainable?": LOL! Capitalism is the exploitation of everything to its uttermost with the achievement of the most profits imaginable with in a lifetime trumping all other considerations, particularly those having to do with the environment and people, as citizens, customers, and especially employees, which, tellingly, are referred to openly as, "human resources".
I thought this a good debate. Capitalism works at its best when people are at the very least moral in their dealings and voluntarily give up some of thier fruits to the less fortunate. US we are very lucky. No matter how you slice it we all have a chance to be president, or a doctor, or a lawyer etc. If you are stuck doing factory work then that is by your own hand. If you dont like it...do something about it! As for the rest of the world good luck in finding your own way, since we (USA) is appearantly the world worst enemy these days I am tired of hearing it and dont care to fix your problems. If you want our help, I am happy to give it, otherwise I couldnt care less. Thats America. Thats the American Dream. God Bless America!
You lost me at "indeed, it is far from clear."
There is nothing wrong with capitalism, just as there is nothing wrong with socialism. It is the capitalists and the socialists you have to watch out for.
Here is a simple answer. Capitalism assumes continuous unlimited growth in a limited world. Even when only Europeans and Americans and some small Asian nations became capitalist, it already caused massive climate change. Imagine what will happen when 3 billion Chinese and Indians join the party.
Capitalism, does not work well when most of the people are poor. As in my town, in Oklahoma USA they are ether
rich or poor, mostly poor. They open new places, but most of the people here cant afford it. It is really that bad!
When they lowered taxes, that was bad. What happened? The taxes that helped pay some of the rent & payed for food stamps went down. The rent went up & the food went down, so many people got their cars repossessed to save money, about $400, no payment, insurance, fuel.... This summer in 110 deg heat I seen a mom with kids & a baby in a stroller walking down the road. Every month the numbers grew & grew. And so did METH, the Meth labs have really went up after these taxes got lowered! It was not like this ever before the taxes got lowered.
In ther infamous words of Gordon Gecko...Greed is good...But the problem with greed is that it has to have limits, otherwise the chasm between rich and poor will continue to widen. I understand the economic reality that Democrats are currently trying to reign in and I understand what the republicans are trying to do as well. The reality is there HAS to be oversight and at time intervention. The people whom we rely on to drive our economy have but one goal, and that is to increase their bottom line in favor of their particular company or corporation. This is not a bad thing. However, as Wall Street has demonstrated – repetedly – When their high dollar gambles do not turn out as they hoped....millions of people are effected....and in turn – the entire global economy is effected. In addition, it seems that Republicans believe that we are in the midst of creating a 'Nanny State'. This is rediculous in name alone. There comes a point when an individual, who has contributed to the U.S. via a lifetime of work and therefore taxes, is not able to work or contribute anymore....and then what happens to them? Where do they go? Do we leave them on the street? Do we relegate them to an undignified existence at the tail end of their lives? Because, unfortunately there are probably more individuals who are unprepared for the end of their working lives than there are prepared individuals. This obviously is unfortunate however sometimes life throws curveballs at us all and will drain away your savings and investments because the immediate future necessitates this course of action. So what then? Not everyone has the financial ability to put away for those perverbial rainy days or that glorious thing known as retirement. There is a solution. If the we continue to boast about how great this country is yet we cant seem to figure out an equitable solution for EVERYONE, we need to start watching the things we say because our words must begin to match our actions.
Asking if capitalism is sustainable is like asking if freedom itself is sustainable. Of course it is.
To the question of "is capitalism sustainable"? Not in it's current model.
As private and public deleverging takes the market back to baseline by 2016. Pre-1982 levels.
The American-Anglo capitalism model will shift to a American-Asian capitalism model.
The center of finance will move west. The most likely location will be Seattle.
Thanks for making me to attain new thoughts about personal computers. I also hold the belief that certain of the best ways to help keep your mobile computer in best condition is by using a hard plastic case, as well as shell, which fits over the top of your computer. A majority of these protective gear are usually model targeted since they are made to fit perfectly in the natural outer shell. You can buy them directly from the seller, or via third party places if they are readily available for your mobile computer, however only a few laptop could have a covering on the market. Once again, thanks for your recommendations.