Outline and explain, with evidence.
@Persian: No the concept of being selfless and following Nationalism lead to the holocaust. Subjugation of the ego and this concept of 'being part of something bigger than yourself' is despicable. "Be a mindless drone!"
EDIT: Working conditions differential isn't the fault of capitalism but the fault of countries for not having more open immigration policies. You seem to have a very childish interpretation of what capitalism is. Do you also think neo-liberalism has failed and we're living in a 'brutopia'?
You put a lot of faith into theories...
The idea of capitalism states that everyone can satisfy their wants through the markets, and through economies of scale the dominating consumption will relfect the dominating beliefs and be almost synonymous with democracy.
However we by no means have a perfectly informed market, nor is it perfectly competitive. Additionally this system does not reflect any emotional (moral) response from humans (empathy) often resorting to reason to sort out conflict.
As such we only want to help out when we can imagine the problems, and mostly when they are in our own backyards (
Ross Gittins). To follow the Marx dialectic the proletariat have been exported to NICs (newly industrialised countries ~ India/China) and we no longer relate to them.
Furthermore externalities like diseconomies of scale and environmentalism aren't always factored into our economic relationships, they become so called "part of the package" and we accept them as fundamental truths.
Again you blame income and condition differentials on immigration barriers, but I hope you realise that by more immigrants coming into the country you reduce state wealth of that country, as in as more people live within a confined space there are less people to benefit fromthose resources. So immigration is not an answer to poverty... We need more sustainable population levels plus to develop developing countries (by promoting internal consumption).
Otherwise (through the method you suggest) we would face a decline in standards of living (over an extended period of time) and developing countries would receive less money in aid. (This hypothesis has a historical base, FDR had a similar point of view as he realised that the exploration of the west was unsustainable).
As far as I know it's common knowledge that recessions increase wealth and income gaps become quintile groups of the economy (general trend, apologise for the lack of citation). This, in my opinion, constitutes appeasing old money (as their wealth [at least] relatively increases).
Appeasing new money would be the bailout and buyout programs that were planned for the investment backs. I am in two opinions about this but I'm leaning towards that these banks should have been allowed to fail, the senior executive made to face charges on failure to disclose information or failure to inform customers, because in your laissez fair economy I doubt a fraud of this magnitude would be impossible without criminal behaviour.
In closing money is completely theoretical. It allows for a more flexible system of barter and even inheritence. However within our modern complications we have forgotten the basics of the system (and the whole thing needs an overhaul). I don't see how "under consumption" should ever be a problem, because it suggests that a certain level of consumerism is a necessity (fairly non liberal aye?).
I don't think we are a brutopia and I believe neo-liberalism was destined to fail (being based on theoretical concepts rather than practical applications)... and further we need to re-examine the core assumptions of our models and see what will be most beneficial for the continuance of our race.
