What would the economic implications of salary capping be?

America is the heart of capitalism and has far greater regulation than we have. They used to have the Glass Steagall Act which prevented retail banks from having risky investment arms. I think it was that leftwinger Clinton who finally got rid of that good act.

In America lots of people went to jail - Bernie Madoff and Kenneth Lay of Enron was sentenced. They try to stop monoplies forming just as we do too with our Monoplies Commission. They have regulation to try to stop powerful people cornering the market. But things still go wrong as lobbyists convince their politicians to discard some of their regulation such as the Glass Steagall Act.

But none of this is due to capitalism, it is due to people and power as rabbitstew said. There are far more checks and balances in American capitalism with its Freedom of Information Act and its lawyers who sue companies for huge amounts if they endanger public health or defraud the public than there ever are in communist or fascist dictatorships where a small gang make all policy.

No, McCarthy falsely accused anyone who didn't believe in the capitalist status quo of being communist in the (successful) attempt to instill fear.

It was a bit like calling those opposed to the monarchy "nazis". Being anti capitalist does not make one a communist.

Also, you can't 'regulate people'. It's complete nonsense.

rabbitstew you were right when you said it is about people. It's not about capitalism, it is about people. It is those powerful people that need regulating. There is nothing wrong with capitalism, but those who exploit it for their own ends need regulation.

I'm afraid this is utter nonsense, and fails to take in to account the way different economic systems and rules and regulations which are in place that encourage, cause, help, or instead discourage and prevent abuses from taking place.

Unfortunately, one of the problems with the way things are set up right now is that sometimes the actors are acting 'rationally' given the defined constraints: if they know they can take huge risks and either be given a bonus if they fail and cost the banks billions and tens of thousands of jobs or be given an enormous bonus if they succeed, then they make the rational decision to take the huge risk.

The problem is a systemtic one. We are rewarding risk taking and not punishing failure. We are encouraging short-term thinking while ignoring the long-term consequences.

All these things require systemic change.

Changing attitudes is key. And in a way it has already started. Fair-trade isn't something that you participate in by buying the right coffee. It is something you are part of or not. Paying taxes is ethical. Tax avoidance is scummy. Tax evasion should be heavily punished.

Be individual or corporate.

'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It doesn't matter whether it's religion, capitalism or communism, their greatest ideas and principles are all wrecked by power hungry human beings intent on getting a bigger share of the cake than anyone else.'

rabbitstew you were right when you said it is about people. It's not about capitalism, it is about people. It is those powerful people that need regulating. There is nothing wrong with capitalism, but those who exploit it for their own ends need regulation.

'McCarthyist scaremongering benefits no one'

McCarthy falsely accused people of being communists.

Pointing out that East German communists shot their citizens who tried to escape to freedom and that millions died in gulags and that Cuban citizens drowned in samll boats escaping to freedom is not scaremongering, it is the facts. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and pretending that communist regimes have a good theory is against human freedom and supports serffom.

I agree it's all about changing attitudes. As I've always said, that is best done by leading by example, rather than continuing to behave in the same way but kicking everyone else about beneath you. You can't expect the weakest in society to change everyone else's attitude by forcing them to accept less and then carrying on as usual yourself.

No we need teh right type of regulation, not New Labour 'light-touch regulation' or socialist regulation and red tape on small businesses and enterprises struggling to stay afloat and give people employment. We need regulation that regulates the fat cats and knights them for 'services to the country' not just to banking.

We have laws in the land which are regulations. We need law and regulation, but not punitive ones that stifle enterprise. We need regulation that prevents fraud, reckless risks, moral hazard and financial collapse.

McCarthyist scaremongering benefits no one.

I am a pragmatist. Therefore I do not believe in a blanket law capping salaries. However I believe that a change in attitudes combined with education and changes in tax laws can deliver a better life for all.

Attempt much in the way of regulation and we start being accused of being anti-business and verging on communist.

'Is a form of capitalism that allows colossal multinational companies and banks to take over really that different from communism in the end? Or does it end up with the same result of a minority telling the majority how it is?'

That is crony capitalism and casino capitalism, not the capitalism that Germany have. We need regulation for crooks and raiders

'Germany's form of capitalism seems to have been more successful than our own.'

Yes, they don't believe in New Labour's 'light-touch regulation'.

Is a form of capitalism that allows colossal multinational companies and banks to take over really that different from communism in the end? Or does it end up with the same result of a minority telling the majority how it is?

'then have nots start to get peeved to the point of revolution'

the have nots did not rebel. A small gang of activists stirred revolution and were funded by rich capitalist outside forces. Germany helped Lenin back into Russia as they wanted revolution to weaken Russia so that Russia would pull out of the First World War, which is what happened.

Germany's form of capitalism seems to have been more successful than our own.

'I agree, the problem with communism is people rather than the theory'

Communism is tyrannical. That is the only way it can maintain its power and dogma. It extinguishes freedom and allows a small elite gang to determine the lives of millions of people. In East Germany they shot anyone trying to escape to freedom over the Berlin Wall that imprisoned their citizens.

not.

Oooh. Let's all hope Germany is capable of bailing us all out. How very capitalist of us.

The gulf between Thatcher's Britain and the Dickensian squalour and workhouses is immense. Most societies progress over time. All communist dictatorships will eventually fall as they are anti-human, anti-freedom and anti the human spirit, which is why they are so intent on forbidding the spiritual and forbidding the worship of God. They are purely materialistic and allow no spiritual aspects. They are evil and anti-human. Germany suffered hugely but recovered to now be teh powerhouse of Europ, capable of bailing all of Europe out. That would have been impossible if they had fallen prey to that band of middle class communist crooks and charlatans pretending that they were on the side of the proletariat.

For those who don't want communism, wouldn't it be a good idea to learn the lessons of history? If you create too great a divide between the haves and have nots and too great a proportion of have nots, then have nots start to get peeved to the point of revolution and then we're all left with a dreadful mess.

I agree, the problem with communism is people rather than the theory. That's the problem with capitalism, too.

I don't think Stalin counts as all communists.

Hmm. I don't see what's wrong with comparing Dickensian Britain to Thatcher's Britain, actually. Is your example supposed to prove that Western countries will always have cyclical severe slumps followed by excessive booms and that all Communist countries all eventually become capitalist?