@Ghostmaker: "@warsprite, nowhere is actually communist, according to Jamiet."

I hope that wasn't an attempt to ridicule me, Ghost. Remember that YOU have previously used the argument that nowhere is truly capitalist.

@diplomat61: "press freedom is important"

Very important, yes. That's why Rupert Murdoch's dominance of the media industry is a Bad Thing. Fox News is not the free press.

If capitalism and its greatest example, the US, is so wonderful how come the poverty rate in the US is so high?

@Hammac - Are you sure it is?
Clearly there's relative poverty, but absolute?

@Hammac: who said the US is the greatest example?

@JamieT: much as I dislike Murdoch's empire, including Fox News, I don't think it dominates the media industry in the US or UK. Italy, where Berlusconi uses his political power to influence coverage of his businesses and vice versa, is a much more serious case.

My apologies for implying that you believe China has a communist system. I have not read your previous posts on that subject.

@J&D: I wonder what's likely to happen to it if the new government demands the BBC cut back though - there's been talk that Murdoch could be the real beneficiary.

@figle "Are you sure it is?"
Well I guess not totally sure - lies, damned lies and statistics etc. - but there are quite a number of places where US poverty is documented as being noticeably worse than other industrial nations such as Sweden, France, Germany and at the last count was even worse than the UK.
On the other hand the argument that relative poverty is somehow acceptable doesn't take away the problems it causes within a country. Try telling someone struggling: to feed their children; to buy books for their children to help them out of poverty; etc. not to worry because people in Africa are suffering more.

"and at the last count was even worse than the UK" - woo, we're moving up :D
Oh I know that, you're right there. I guess my point is that the capitalist society in the US still leaves people in a good situation. Also, all the other nations you listed are capitalist, so as far as criticising the ideology I don't think that's a very secure argument.
Scandinavia in general is known for being good to its citizens, their welfare state support is second to none.

Interestingly, according to wikipedia (haven't had time to check their sources), since China's economic reforms (ie starting to move from Communism to capitalism) poverty has decreased by more than 50%

@Figle: I am concerned about the future of the BBC under the Conservatives and the potential increase in Murdoch's power as a consequence.

I think that alot of times the problems with very hardline communism is that they simply have distribution problems. It is a *huge* job to get money, food, and whatever else into the hands of millions of people. So alot of times people get forgotten, the people on top get greedy, ect. Capitalism, while very much rewarding greed and other "bad" motives automatically distributes the wealth (to an extent) in its nature.

@Jman. I think there is more at fault in communism than distribution problems alone. I used to work in China and was impressed by the relative success of the authorities in delivering education and health care, and yet how much they fell short of what we would call acceptable. Running a country that size must be incredibly difficult, however well intentioned the leaders are.

@diplomat:
"To answer the original question:
- strong legal penalties discorage bad or careless behaviour. Sadly, the existence of penalties does not stop it completely (if it did, all jails would be empty)
- senior executives who screw up won't get hired by another company
- long term share options are the best way to prevent short termism
- consumer awareness on things like working conditions and green policies drives good corporate behaviour
- thus, press freedom is important (one of the things lacking in China)"

There are no really strong legal penalties. We are very pro-corporation in America, and do what we can to limit harm to them.
Senior executives that screw up routinely get hired at other companies. Sometimes they have to take a little time off first.
Long term share options may be a good solution, at least to cause a little more caution.
Most consumers don't do much to change their actions based on corporate behavior, until a concerted campaign is lead against that corporation. Like Walmart.

As for the BP rig...under testimony before Congress, they said part of the safety mechanism had been accidentally(?) replaced with test equipment, that the battery running the dead man switch was actually dead, and that the full shutoff may have never been strong enough to ever engage.

Oh, and the punitive damages against Exxon for the Valdez were vacated just a couple years ago by the Supreme Court. They had to pay for the cleanup, and that is all.

@diplomat: I think the rise in listeners for 6-Music since the axing plans were leaked is quite telling. It will be hard to cut down if the BBC they get such noticable support.
There's also a questionaire on their website from the BBC Trust. If you have time you really should complete it - they're asking people's views.

@Tantris: "how do we change the justice system?" would be a better question if the current system does not adequately punish wrong-doing. However, are you sure that it is so pro-business? is the tobacco settlement a one-off? My understanding (from Europe) is that the damages culture, class-action lawsuits, etc. in the US is a big driver of corporate behaviour.

As for the BP rig, you question whether the use of test equipment was accidental. Why on earth would it not be? Who would have gained by doing it deliberately? I accept that all concerned should have done a lot better, taken more care, made more checks, etc.

@Figle: will do, although as a non-resident who enjoys BBC output without paying a license fee that feels a bit cheeky.

which tobacco settlement? The MSA?

I @Tantris: I am thinking of the one bought by states against the big firms, I don't know what it is called.

@diplomat:
Tobacco still isn't regulated, and it is still making a profit. They lied about the product for what, 40 years? Most of the big awards outside the settlement(that the companies agreed to), have been reduced or eliminated by higher courts.

"@Ghostmaker: "@warsprite, nowhere is actually communist, according to Jamiet."

I hope that wasn't an attempt to ridicule me, Ghost. Remember that YOU have previously used the argument that nowhere is truly capitalist."

No it wasn't. It was just allowing warsprite to add the argument that "true communism" is impossible right away rather than a day later.

@Jamiet I never said China was a pure communist but it is closer than most countries. Being closer than others it should show improvement over others not worse. Like most communist you attempt to stifle others views.

diplomat66 I never claimed capitalism is anyway near perfect. In fact the very ideal of uncontroled capitalism is as bad as communism. The best lies some place in the middle between total control and total freedom. The catch is finding that balance.

@Warspit: "I never claimed capitalism is anyway near perfect" and I never said you did. In fact, I agree with you.

@diplomat66 Sorry. Became defensive.

diplomat61*

@ Warspite: "Like most communist you attempt to stifle others views."

Please explain what you mean by this?

@Dip - I live in the UK & don't pay the licence fee either. If I had the spare funds I would, but as I am under no legal obligation (I consciously avoid live TV whilst at university, and instead watch iPlayer) I will be looking after my loan!
http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_iplayer/tvlicence

@Jamiet Telling someone to shut up sounds like that to me.

ANYWAY, my problem with deregulating government, and allowing people to make their own choices (in this regard) is a bad idea because businesses will align together to control the masses. Say in a free market, it is assumed that businesses and consumers have complete knowledge of a product, something we don't even have now with a government that supports consumers (or so is claimed). However, if one company, through any means, becomes more powerful than other companies, it can not only consume others, it is now closer to creating a monopoly, as it is unlikely that other businesses will join to bring down the first.

Now if this company engages in illegal/shady/unethical practices, it is possible that someone could find out and inform everyone, and they will stop buying from that company. However, this company could be powerful enough, they could influence news outlets, media sources, etc to not inform the public or even denounce and slander the person/people trying to expose these practices. Word will get out - maybe through old fashioned means such as pamphlets, etc - but people will be so bombarded by messages from other sources, that they will just forget. Even if enough people find out, and say a law suit is created, the business will not only be able to hire the best lawyers, they will be able to, and most likely try to, buy out the opposing legal team. Even if prosecuting lawyers decide not to take the bribe, the business's allies in the media will be able denounce and defame them, and removing public support.

And what about businesses that rely heavily on government contracts, such as the arms manufacturers? The government is unlikely to remove contracts with these companies if they indulge in unethical practices, otherwise the US government would have no PMC's in Iraq, but that's a different matter. One could say that the people will vote them out during the election, but within the 3-5 years between elections, what is the likeliness of people remembering some bad business practices from years ago. And who's to say that the other party will stop dealing with the company in question? Democrats/Republicans, Liberal/Labour (in Australia), act pretty much the same.

Therefore, my belief is that IF we are going to live in an almost free-market economy (it probably won't change for a while, no matter what I want), then the government should have enough regulation to stop corporations, and the people themselves should become more active to stop inter-business collusion, and collusion between governments and businesses.

@Figle: the days when I was a student are a long way behind me, I am old enough for my son to be at university - eek. Good luck with your studies.

@Largeham: yup, pure capitalism would be bad too.