BASIC CAPITALISM
Still
the only Economic System with any Hope of Success
How to make it work
Social-Capitalism
Stes de Necker
Introduction
Capitalism is
an economic
system in which trade, industry, and the means
of production are privately owned and
operated via profit
and loss calculation (price
signals) through the price system. Central
characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital
accumulation, wage labour and, in
some situations, fully competitive
markets.
In a
capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices
at which they exchange assets,
goods, and services.
The degree
of competition,
the role of intervention and
regulation, and the scope of state ownership vary across different models of capitalism. Economists, political economists,
and historians have
adopted different perspectives in their analyses of capitalism and have
recognized various forms of it in practice. These include laissez-faire or free market capitalism, welfare
capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, "third way" social democracy and state capitalism.
Each model
has employed varying degrees of dependency on free markets, public ownership,
obstacles to free competition, and inclusion of state-sanctioned social policies.
The extent to
which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private
property, become matters of politics and of policy. Many states have
a mixed
economy, which combines elements of both capitalism and centrally planned economics.
Capitalism
has existed under many forms
of government, in many different times, places, and cultures. Following
the decline of mercantilism,
mixed capitalist systems became dominant in the Western world and
continue to spread.
History of
Capitalism
Capitalism
was carried across the world by broader processes of globalization such
as imperialism and, by
the end of the nineteenth century, became the
dominant global economic system, in turn intensifying processes of
economic and other globalization. Later, in the 20th century, capitalism
overcame a challenge by centrally-planned economies and
is now the encompassing system worldwide, with the mixed economy being
its dominant form in the industrialized Western world.
Industrialization allowed
cheap production of household items using economies
of scale, while rapid population growth created sustained demand for
commodities. Globalization in this period was decisively shaped by
nineteenth-century imperialism.
After
the First and Second Opium Wars and
the completion of British conquest of India, vast populations of these regions
became ready consumers of European exports. It was in this period that areas of
sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific islands were incorporated into the world
system.
Meanwhile, the conquest of new parts of the
globe, notably sub-Saharan Africa, by Europeans yielded valuable natural
resources such as rubber, diamonds and coal and helped fuel trade and investment
between the European imperial powers, their colonies, and the United States.
The
inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea, the
various products of the whole earth, and reasonably expect their early delivery
upon his doorstep. Militarism and imperialism of racial and cultural rivalries
were little more than the amusements of his daily newspaper.
What an extraordinary episode in the economic progress of
man was that age which came to an end in August 1914.
The global
financial system was mainly tied to the gold standard in this
period. The United
Kingdom first formally adopted this standard in 1821. Soon to
follow was Canada in
1853, Newfoundland in 1865, and the United States and
Germany (de jure) in 1873. New
technologies, such as the telegraph,
the transatlantic cable, the Radiotelephone, the steamship and railway allowed goods
and information to move around the world at an unprecedented degree.
In the period
following the global depression of the 1930s, the state played an increasingly
prominent role in the capitalistic system throughout much of the world. The
post-war boom ended in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and the situation was
worsened by the rise of stagflation.
Monetarism, a modification
of Keynesianism that is more compatible with laissez-faire, gained increasing
prominence in the capitalist world, especially under the leadership of Ronald Reagan in the
US and Margaret
Thatcher in the UK in the 1980s. Public and political interest
began shifting away from the so-called collectivist concerns
of Keynes's managed capitalism to a focus on individual choice, called
"remarketized capitalism".
Modern
Capitalism
In capitalist
economic structures, supply and demand is an economic model of price
determination in a market.
It concludes that in a competitive
market, the unit price for
a particular good will
vary until it settles at a point where the quantity demanded by consumers (at
current price) will equal the quantity supplied by producers (at current
price), resulting in an economic
equilibrium for price and quantity.
The four
basic laws of supply and demand are:
If demand
increases (demand curve shifts to the right) and supply remains unchanged, a
shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
If demand
decreases (demand curve shifts to the left) and supply remains unchanged, a
surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
If demand
remains unchanged and supply increases (supply curve shifts to the right), a
surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
If demand
remains unchanged and supply decreases (supply curve shifts to the left), a
shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
The price (P)
of a product is determined by a balance between production at each price
(supply, S) and the desires of those with purchasing power at
each price (demand, D).
This results
in a market equilibrium, with a given quantity (Q) sold of the product. A rise
in demand would result in an increase in price and an increase in output.
The initial
usage of the term capitalism in its modern sense has been attributed
to Louis Blanc in 1850
("..what i call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital
by some to the exclusion of others.") and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861
("Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does
not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour.").
The use of
the word "capitalism" in reference to an economic system appears
twice in Volume I of Das Kapital, p. 124 (German edition), and
in Theories of Surplus Value, tome II, p. 493 (German edition). Marx
did not extensively use the form capitalism, but instead those
of capitalist and capitalist mode of production, which appear
more than 2600 times in the trilogy Das Kapital.
Democracy and
Capitalism
The
relationship between democracy and
capitalism is a contentious area in theory and in popular political movements.
The extension
of universal adult male suffrage in
19th century Britain occurred along with the development of industrial
capitalism, and democracy became widespread at the same time as capitalism,
leading capitalists to posit a causal or mutual relationship between them.
However, in
the 20th century, according to some authors, capitalism also accompanied a
variety of political formations quite distinct from liberal democracies,
including fascist regimes,
absolute monarchies, and single-party states. Democratic peace theory
asserts that democracies seldom fight other democracies, but critics of that theory
suggest that this may be because of political similarity or stability rather
than because they are democratic or capitalist.
Moderate
critics argue that though economic growth under capitalism has led to democracy
in the past, it may not do so in the future, as authoritarian regimes
have been able to manage economic growth without making concessions to greater
political freedom.
States with
capitalistic economic systems have thrived under authoritarian or oppressive
political regimes.
Singapore has
an open market economy and attracts a great deal of foreign investment, but
does not protect civil liberties such as freedom of speech and expression.
The private
(capitalist) sector in the People's Republic of China has grown exponentially
and thrived since its inception, despite having an authoritarian
government.
Augusto Pinochet's rule in
Chile led to economic growth and high levels of inequality by using
authoritarian means to create a safe environment for investment and capitalism.
In the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty of
the Paris
School of Economics asserts that inequality is the inevitable
consequence of economic growth in a capitalist economy and the resulting concentration
of wealth can destabilize democratic societies and undermine
the ideals of social justice upon which they are built.
Marxists, anarchists (except
for an archo-capitalists),
and other leftists argue that capitalism is incompatible with democracy since
capitalism according to Marx entails "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" (owners
of the means of production) while democracy entails rule by the people.
Short Definition
of Capitalism
Capitalism is
"production for exchange" driven by the desire for personal
accumulation of money receipts in such exchanges, mediated by free markets.
The markets
themselves are driven by the needs and wants of consumers and those of society
as a whole. If these wants and needs were (in the socialist or communist
society envisioned by Marx, Engels and others) the driving force, it would be
"production
for use".
Contemporary
mainstream economics, particularly that associated with the right,
holds that an "invisible
hand", through little more than the freedom of the market,
is able to match social production to these needs and desires.
In general,
capitalism as an economic system and mode of production can be summarised by
the following:
Capital
accumulation:
Production
for profit and accumulation as the implicit purpose of all or most of
production, constriction or elimination of production formerly carried out on a
common social or private household basis.
Commodity
production:
Production
for exchange on a market; to maximise exchange-value instead
of use-value.
Private
ownership of the means of production:
Ownership of
the means of production by a class of capital owners, either
individually, collectively or through a state that serves the interests of
the capitalist class.
High levels of wage labour.
The investment of money to
make a profit.
The use of the price mechanism to
allocate resources between competing uses.
The Profit
Motive
The profit motive is a
theory in capitalism which posits that the ultimate goal of a business is to
make money.
Stated
differently, the reason for a business’s existence is to turn a profit.
The profit
motive functions on the rational
choice theory, or the theory that individuals tend to pursue what is
in their own best interests. Accordingly, businesses seek to benefit themselves
and/or their shareholders by maximising profits.
In capitalist
theoretics, the profit motive is said to ensure that resources are being
allocated efficiently. For instance, Austrian
economist Henry
Hazlitt explains, “If there is no profit in making an article,
it is a sign that the labor and capital devoted to its production are
misdirected: the value of the resources that must be used up in making the
article is greater than the value of the article itself." In other
words, profits let companies know whether an item is worth producing.
Theoretically in free and competitive markets, maximising profits ensures that
resources are not wasted.
Labour
In a Marxist
analysis of the capitalist economy, the reserve army of labour refers to
the unemployed and under-employed. It is
synonymous with "industrial reserve army" or "relative surplus
population", except that the unemployed can be defined as those actually
looking for work and that the relative surplus population also includes people
unable to work.
The use of
the word "army" refers to the workers being conscripted and
regimented in the workplace in a hierarchy, under the commanding heights of the economy.
Prior to the
start of the capitalist era in human history (i.e. before the 1500s), structural
unemployment on a mass scale rarely existed, other than that
caused by natural disasters and wars. In ancient societies, all people who
could work necessarily had to work, otherwise they would starve; a slave or a
serf by definition could not become "unemployed".
There was
normally very little possibility of "earning a crust" without working
at all, and the usual attitude toward beggars and idlers were harsh.
Children
began to work already at a very early age. Indeed, the word
"employment" is linguistically a product of the capitalist era.
A permanent
level of unemployment presupposes a working population which is to a large
extent dependent on a wage or salary for a living, without having other means
of livelihood, as well as the right of enterprises to hire and fire employees
in accordance with commercial or economic conditions. The expression
"unemployed" in English, in the sense of "temporarily out of
work", dates back to the 1660s; reference to "the unemployed" as
a group was first made in 1782; and reference to "unemployment" as a
general condition is first attested in 1888.
The first
recorded discussion of the reserve army of labour is in a manuscript written
by Karl Marx:
"Big
industry constantly requires a reserve army of unemployed workers for times
of overproduction.
The main purpose of the bourgeois in relation to the worker is, of course, to
have the commodity labour as cheaply as possible, which is only possible when
the supply of this commodity is as large as possible in relation to the demand
for it, i.e., when the overpopulation is the greatest. Overpopulation is
therefore in the interest of the bourgeoisie, and it gives the workers good
advice which it knows to be impossible to carry out. Since capital only
increases when it employs workers, the increase of capital involves an increase
of the proletariat, and, as we have seen, according to the nature of the
relation of capital and labour, the increase of the proletariat must proceed
relatively even faster. The... theory... which is also expressed as a law of
nature, that population grows faster than the means of subsistence, is the more
welcome to the bourgeois as it silences his conscience, makes hard-heartedness
into a moral duty and the consequences of society into the consequences of
nature, and finally gives him the opportunity to watch the destruction of the
proletariat by starvation as calmly as other natural event without bestirring
himself, and, on the other hand, to regard the misery of the proletariat as its
own fault and to punish it. To be sure, the proletarian can restrain his
natural instinct by reason, and so, by moral supervision, halt the law of
nature in its injurious course of development." - Karl Marx, Wages,
December 1847
Marx
discusses the army of labour and the reserve army in Capital, Ch. 25, Section
IV. The Army of Labour consists in those working-class people employed in
average or better than average jobs. Not every one in the working class gets
one of these jobs. There are then four other categories where members of the
working class might find themselves: the "stagnant pool",
the floating reserves, the latent reserve, and pauperdom.
Finally, people may leave the army and the reserve army by turning to
criminality, and Marx refers to such people as "lumpen-proletariat."
The stagnant part
consists of marginalised people with "extremely irregular
employment". Stagnant pool jobs are characterized by below average pay,
dangerous working conditions, they may be temporary. Those caught in the
stagnant pool have jobs, so the modern definition of the employed would include
both the army of labour plus the stagnant pool. However, they are constantly on
the lookout for something better.
The modern
unemployed would refer primarily to the floating reserve, people who
used to have good jobs, but are now out of work. They certainly hope that their
unemployment is temporary ("conjunctural unemployment"), but they are
well- aware that they could fall into the stagnant pool or the pauper class.
The latent part
consists of that segment of the population not yet fully integrated into
capitalist production.
In Marx's
day, he was referring to people living off of subsistence agriculture who were
looking for monetary employment in industry. In modern times, people coming
from slums in developing countries where they survive largely by non-monetary
means, to developed cities where they work for pay might form the latent.
Housewives who move from unpaid to paid employment for a business could also
form a part of the latent reserve. They are not unemployed, because they are
not necessarily actively looking for a job; but if capital needs extra workers,
it can pull them out of the latent reserve. In this sense, the latent forms a
reservoir of potential workers for industries.
Pauperdom is
where one might end up. The homeless is the modern term for paupers. Marx calls
them people who cannot adapt to capital's never ending change. For Marx,
"the sphere of pauperism", including those still able to work,
orphans and pauper children, and the "demoralised and ragged" or
"unable to work".
Under the
system of wage labour, the workers sell their labour power under a
formal or informal employment
contract to a member of the capitalist class. These
transactions usually occur in a labour market where wages are market determined. In
exchange for the wages paid, the work product generally becomes the undifferentiated property of
the employer, except for special cases such as the vesting of intellectual
property patents in the United States where patent rights are usually vested in the
employee personally responsible for the invention. A wage labourer is
a person whose primary means of income is from the selling of his or her labour
in this way.
Wage labour
has often been compared to slavery. As a result, the term 'wage
slavery' is often utilised as a pejorative for wage labour.
Similarly,
advocates of slavery looked upon the "comparative evils of Slave Society
and of Free Society, of slavery to human Masters and slavery to Capital," and
proceeded to argue persuasively that wage slavery was
actually worse than chattel slavery. Slavery
apologists like George
Fitzhugh contended that workers only accepted wage labour with
the passage of time, as they became "familiarised and inattentive to the
infected social atmosphere they continually inhale."
Adam Smith noted that
employers often conspire together to keep wages low:
The interest
of the dealers... in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always
in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public…
[They] have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public… We
rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though
frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that
masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters
are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform
combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate… It is
not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all
ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into
a compliance with their terms.
The eternal wage struggle
·
Workers
demand the highest wages (cost) for the least amount of output (work)
·
Employers
demand the highest output (work) for the least amount of cost (wages)
Aristotle made the statement "...the citizens must
not live a mechanic or a mercantile life (for such a life is ignoble and
inimical to virtue), nor yet must those who are to be citizens in the best
state be tillers of the soil (for leisure is needed both for the development of
virtue and for active participation in politics)", often paraphrased
as "all paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind."
Cicero wrote in 44 BC
that "…vulgar are the means of livelihood of all hired workmen whom we pay
for mere manual labour, not for artistic skill; for in their case the very wage
they receive is a pledge of their slavery."
Somewhat
similar criticisms have also been expressed by some proponents of liberalism, like Henry George, Silvio Gesell and Thomas Paine, as well
as the Distributist school
of thought within the Roman
Catholic Church
The majority
of criticisms against the profit motive centre on the idea that profits should
not supersede the needs of people. Michael Moore’s film Sicko, for example, attacks the healthcare
industry for its alleged emphasis on profits at the expense of patients.
Moore
explains:
“We should
have no talk of profit when it comes to helping people who are sick. The profit
motive should be nowhere involved in this. And you know what? It’s not fair to
the insurance companies either because they have a fiduciary responsibility to
make as much money as they can for their shareholders. Well, the way they make
more money is to deny claims or to kick people off the rolls or to not even let
people on the rolls because they have a pre-existing condition. You know, all
of that is wrong.”
Another
common criticism of the profit motive is that it is believed to encourage
selfishness and greed. Critics of the profit motive contend that companies
disregard morals or public safety in the pursuit of profits.
Free-market economists
counter that the profit motive, coupled with competition, actually reduces the
final price of an item for consumption, rather than raising it. They argue that
businesses profit by selling a good at a lower price and at a greater volume
than the competition. Economist Thomas Sowell uses
supermarkets as an example to illustrate this point: “It has been estimated
that a supermarket makes a clear profit of about a penny on a dollar of sales.
If that sounds pretty skimpy, remember that it is collecting that penny on
every dollar at several cash registers simultaneously and, in many cases,
around the clock.”
Economist Milton Friedman has
argued that greed and self-interest are universal human traits. On a 1979
episode of The
Phil Donahue Show, Friedman states, “The world runs on individuals
pursuing their separate interests.” He continues by explaining that only in
capitalist countries, where individuals can pursue their own self-interest,
people have been able to escape from “grinding poverty.”
Capitalism
and Economic Growth
Many
theorists and policymakers in predominantly capitalist nations have emphasised
capitalism's ability to promote economic growth, as measured by Gross
Domestic Product (GDP), capacity
utilization or standard
of living.
This argument
was central, for example, to Adam Smith's advocacy of letting a free market
control production and price, and allocate resources. Many theorists have noted
that this increase in global GDP over time coincides with the emergence of the
modern world capitalist system.
Between 1000
and 1820, the world economy grew six fold, a faster rate than the population
growth, so each individual enjoyed, on the average, a 50% increase in wealth.
Between 1820 and 1998, world economy grew 50-fold, a much faster rate than the
population growth, so each individual enjoyed, on the average, a 9-fold
increase in wealth. In most capitalist economic regions such as Europe,
the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the economy grew 19-fold
per person, even though these countries already had a higher starting level,
and in Japan, which was poor in 1820, the increase per person was 31-fold. In
the third world there was
an increase, but only 5-fold per person.
Proponents
argue that increasing GDP (per capita) is empirically shown to bring about
improved standards of living, such as better availability of food, housing,
clothing, and health care. The decrease in the number of hours worked per
week and the decreased participation of children and the elderly in the
workforce have been attributed to capitalism.
In his
book The
Road to Serfdom, Freidrich Hayek asserts
that the economic
freedom of capitalism is a requisite of political freedom. He
argues that the market mechanism is the only way of deciding what to produce
and how to distribute the items without using coercion.
Milton Friedman, Andrew Brennan and Ronald Reagan also
promoted this view. Friedman claimed that centralized economic operations are
always accompanied by political
repression.
In his view,
transactions in a market economy are voluntary, and that the wide diversity
that voluntary activity permits is a fundamental threat to repressive political
leaders and greatly diminish their power to coerce. Some of Friedman's views
were shared by John
Maynard Keynes, who believed that capitalism is vital for freedom to
survive and thrive.
Freedom House, an American
think tank that conducts international research on, and advocates for,
democracy, political freedom, and human rights, has argued "there is a
high and statistically significant correlation between the level of political
freedom as
measured by Freedom House and economic freedom as
measured by the Wall Street Journal/Heritage Foundation survey."
Many economic
and political theories advocate for an economy without the profit system and
thus the profit motive, but all of these have ended
in authoritarianism as in the case of Communism, Marxism and Socialism.
Communism
Economic
and social system in which all (or nearly all) property and resources are collectively owned by a classless society
and not by individual citizens.
Based
on the 1848 publication 'Communist Manifesto' by two German political
philosophers, Karl Marx (1818-1883) and his close associate Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), it envisaged common ownership of all land and capital and withering away of the coercive power of the state.
In
such a society, social relations were to be regulated on the fairest of all principles: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Differences
between manual and intellectual labor and between rural and urban life were to disappear, opening up the way for
unlimited development of human potential.
In
view of the above, there has never been a truly communist state although the Soviet Union of the past and China, Cuba, and North Korea of today stake their claims
Marxism
A system of economic, social, and political philosophy
based on ideas that view social change in terms of economic factors. A central tenet is that the means of production is the economic base that influences or determines the political life.
Under
Marxism, outdated class structures were supposed to be overthrown with force (revolution) instead of being replaced through
patient modification. It held that as capitalism has succeeded feudalism, it too will be
removed by a dictatorship of the workers (proletariat) called socialism, followed quickly and inevitably by a classless
society which governs itself without a governing class or structure.
Developed in the 19th century jointly by two lifelong
German friends living in London - Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) -
it forms the foundation of communism.
Socialism
An economic system in which goods and services are provided through a central system of cooperative and/or government ownership rather than through competition and a free market system.
Make Capitalism work
There
is a widespread belief that free markets do not benefit the common person, let
alone the poor: they are only an instrument for the rich to get richer. Not
only is this belief false, but in fact the opposite is true. Free markets are
the single most important tools to eliminate poverty and spread opportunity.
The
problem is that people do not distinguish enough between true free market
capitalism, which implies competition and equal access, and the failed version
experienced in many countries where powerful elites protect their position by
denying fair access to markets. Particularly in developing countries, ordinary
people never see the benefits of properly working capitalism.
To
make them work for all, markets need political support to provide the right
amount of rules and regulations that will allow them to flourish; a government
that is not too interventionist and not too laissez-faire.
While
there is no single proposal that will preserve the system of free enterprise,
the following three mutually reinforcing broad policy objectives must be
maintained:
1. keep
borders open to the flow of goods and capital;
2. encourage
the transfer of productive assets into efficient hands;
and
3. maintain safety nets focused on individuals.
In
2014 the Nobel Prize for Economics was awarded to the French economist Jean
Tirole of the University of Toulouse. Tirole
was awarded the Nobel Prize for his contribution on how states could regulate
big industries.
As
the financial news agency Bloomberg’s news report put it: “Regulators can use
Tirole’s research to encourage powerful companies to become more productive,
while preventing them from harming competitors and customers.”
And Robert Litan of the Brookings Institute in Washington DC added: “He
believes that markets don’t always work and worries how to fix them.”
Capitalism
can work properly only when the market is truly free, when the playing field is
as level as you can get it.
Monopolies, in other words, are bad for capitalism. They work against
affordability and efficiency.
An example: when a single airline flies between two cities, it has an effective
monopoly. And therefore the company could charge passengers an arm and a leg.
Now another airline enters the market, with cheaper air fares. You can bet
anything that the first airline will not only improve its service, but that its
fares will tumble as well.
Inequality is a scourge
In a report published by the Credit Suisse Bank, about 48% of global wealth is
owned by 1% of the world population and the gap is getting bigger.
It also confirms the conclusions by British development agency Oxfam, according
to which the richest 85 individuals in the world own about the same as the
poorest 3.5 billion of the world’s population.
For several reasons, this is not a healthy situation. It is devastating for
societies’ internal cohesion. It deprives economies of millions of middle-class
consumers and depresses growth.
It certainly is not a level playing field. It is not a free market, but a
skewed one. And that is not healthy capitalism.
The question is: what do we do about it
Certainly
not what the ruling ANC in South Africa is doing; shout about poverty and allow
the playing field to get ever more uneven.
About 18 million poor people receive
state allowances and it did not solve the problem. It brought relief to people,
because those people do not go to sleep hungry any more, but it created
dependency.
Hand-outs don't alleviate poverty
Small peasants do not grow crops anymore, because they know the state will pay
a few hundred Rand out every month. The ANC hasn’t developed a culture of
entrepreneurship, on the contrary, they have destroyed that culture.
Basically the same message can be read into a report by the Fraser Institute of
Canada. For the last 20 years, this institute has analysed the extent to which
151 states’ economies are free against an index consisting of 42 distinct
variables. These are grouped in five areas: size of government, legal structure
and security of property rights, access to sound money, freedom to trade
internationally, and regulation of credit, labour and business.
Studies based on the report have shown that, virtually without exception, countries
with institutions and policies more consistent with economic freedom have
higher investment rates, more rapid economic growth, higher income levels, and
a more rapid reduction in poverty rates”.
The report shows that the poorest in economically free countries make much more
money than those in un-free countries.
Not surprisingly, Venezuela – the country with which both the ANC and the EFF
flirt so happily – is regarded as the world’s most un-free economy. And as it
happens, the Venezuelan economy has just about collapsed during the past few
years.
As for South Africa, in 2012 the country was placed 93rd with a rating of 6.73
out of 10. This contrasts badly with its ranking of 57th in 1990, before the
ANC came to power.
To summarise
Create what I will call Social-Capitalism
Firstly,
tackle the big players and their monopolies.
Secondly,
inequality that is too severe is bad in every respect.
Thirdly,
do not try to alleviate poverty by hand-outs. You may address the immediate
problem, but in the long run you create even more problems than you solve.
Fourthly,
integrate those social practices that can be integrated into the capitalist
structure meaningfully (like health and education for instance) responsibly,
without creating a socialist economy.
And lastly, take the long view: free the economy.
Be truly
capitalist.
