Why Do People Criticize Capitalism?

[Smurf]

I feel so wholly enriched now, with the knowledge that your pity will be with me. Like a shining star to guide me in the darkest of nights.

I was thinking light at the end of a tunnel actually.

 

[alexandra]

How could a system based on greed possibly result in prosperity for all? Many people simply refuse to look past the strangeness of the theory (QM, anyone?) and flat-out refuse to accept the fact that it works.

The reason some people argue against this position is that it is not supported by the data. Below is just one recent example (published September 2005) of data that claims that far from prosperity for all, there has been a general decline in prosperity and living standards.
The paper, The Scorecard on Development: 25 Years of Diminished Progress, is published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. The first paragraph of its Executive Summary states:

This paper looks at the available data on economic growth and various social indicators — including health outcomes and education — and compares the last 25 years (1980-2005)1 with the prior two decades (1960-1980). The paper finds that, contrary to popular belief, the past 25 years (1980-2005) have seen a sharply slower rate of economic growth and reduced progress on social indicators for the vast majority of low- and middle-income countries.
More: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/quality/2005/09scorecard.pdf

 

[loseyourname]

The reason some people argue against this position is that it is not supported by the data. Below is just one recent example (published September 2005) of data that claims that far from prosperity for all, there has been a general decline in prosperity and living standards.

Now there is a devious argumentative tactic, equating these two statements:

1) The rate of prosperity growth has slowed over the last 25 years relative to the 20 years prior; however, prosperity is still growing.

2) The proposition that prosperity is increasing across the board is false.

I can only assume that you were yourself fooled and are not intentionally trying to deceive the board with this fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Art]

Now there is a devious argumentative tactic, equating these two statements:
1) The rate of prosperity growth has slowed over the last 25 years relative to the 20 years prior; however, prosperity is still growing.
2) The proposition that prosperity is increasing across the board is false.
I can only assume that you were yourself fooled and are not intentionally trying to deceive the board with this fallacy of equivocation.

I presume your hair-splitting is also not a deliberate attempt to subvert opinon on this board.

The rate of change has declined thus the trend is regressive i.e. negative..

 

[Smurf]

It's an interesting correlation that the date given for the change (1980s) is the around the same time Reagan and Thatcher started on their privatization binge.

 

[loseyourname]

I presume your hair-splitting is also not a deliberate attempt to subvert opinon on this board.

The rate of change has declined thus the trend is regressive i.e. negative..

The growth of the growth is regressive, sure, but we still have positive growth! Her contention was that because the rate of change of growth was regressive, we do not have positive growth. She made a false claim. Why is it hair-splitting to point out when someone makes a false claim?

 

[loseyourname]

It's an interesting correlation that the date given for the change (1980s) is the around the same time Reagan and Thatcher started on their privatization binge.

If I had to guess, I would say that the slowing of growth is probably due to the massive military buildup over this same span of time. Trillions of dollars have been funneled into operations that could have been more profitably allocated elsewhere.

 

[Smurf]

If I had to guess, I would say that the slowing of growth is probably due to the massive military buildup over this same span of time. Trillions of dollars have been funneled into operations that could have been more profitably allocated elsewhere.

What does government military spending have to do with slowing economic expansion and sharp fall in GDP growth? I would think that the privatization would have lessened the effect the government could have.

 

[Art]

The growth of the growth is regressive, sure, but we still have positive growth! Her contention was that because the rate of change of growth was regressive, we do not have positive growth. She made a false claim. Why is it hair-splitting to point out when someone makes a false claim?

I disagree. The central premise was to question the supposed correlation between prosperity and capitalism as claimed in Russ's post. I believe she did that successfully and cited a credible source to substantiate her position. If capitalism created growth then we would expect the more capitalism we have the more growth we would have whereas there is clearly either no correlation between the two or if there is a correlation it is negative.

 

[loseyourname]

I disagree. The central premise was to question the supposed correlation between prosperity and capitalism as claimed in Russ's post. I believe she did that successfully and cited a credible source to substantiate her position.

That doesn't mean you disagree. At least, you shouldn't disagree, given that all I said is that she equivocated on the meaning of the term "growth" and thus ended up making a fallacious argument. This is simply a matter of technical analysis and really isn't up for debate.

On the other hand, she may nonetheless be correct in her conclusion. That is a separate matter, however. Granted, I did say she made a "false" claim, when what I meant was that she made a "fallacious" claim. I apologize for my mistake.

If capitalism created growth then we would expect the more capitalism we have the more growth we would have whereas there is clearly either no correlation between the two or if there is a correlation it is negative.

You're going to have to help me here as to how she successfully demonstrated a correlation between increased capitalism and the slowed rate of growth. All she demonstrated was a slowed rate of growth. She didn't correlate this with anything other than the time span over which it occured.

 

[Smurf]

You're going to have to help me here as to how she successfully demonstrated a correlation between increased capitalism and the slowed rate of growth. All she demonstrated was a slowed rate of growth. She didn't correlate this with anything other than the time span over which it occured.

A timespan which involved mass privatization and increased free market and de-regulation across the world.

You know, I'm looking at parts of this report, it's really very very detailed and well written. Excellent find!

 

[loseyourname]

What does government military spending have to do with slowing economic expansion and sharp fall in GDP growth?

It takes a good deal of wealth out of the economy and places it in dead-end projects and destruction that eats up money.

I would think that the privatization would have lessened the effect the government could have.

Not given the way in which privatization has occured. All we have seen is that instead of using government monies to fund government-run programs, we now use government monies to fund privately run programs. However, the funds are still publicly raised, and there are questions as to how competitive the process that leads to the receiving of government contracts really is. Publicly subsidizing your friend's company is not the same as true privatization, which would entail programs being placed within a competitive marketplace that is privately funded (through consumer revenue, not taxation).

 

[Art]

That doesn't mean you disagree. At least, you shouldn't disagree, given that all I said is that she equivocated on the meaning of the term "growth" and thus ended up making a fallacious argument. This is simply a matter of technical analysis and really isn't up for debate.
On the other hand, she may nonetheless be correct in her conclusion. That is a separate matter, however. Granted, I did say she made a "false" claim, when what I meant was that she made a "fallacious" claim. I apologize for my mistake.

To borrow a term from Smurf's thread. This is

Argument By Selective Reading:
making it seem as if the weakest of an opponent's arguments was the best he had. Suppose the opponent gave a strong argument X and also a weaker argument Y. Simply rebut Y and then say the opponent has made a weak case.

You're going to have to help me here as to how she successfully demonstrated a correlation between increased capitalism and the slowed rate of growth. All she demonstrated was a slowed rate of growth. She didn't correlate this with anything other than the time span over which it occured.

To borrow another term from the aforementioned thread

Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension):
attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.

Alex did not lay claim to a correlation between the two and I specifically stated the possibility of zero correlation in my post so why would you expect me to defend a non-existant position??

 

[Smurf]

I thought we agreed fancy language was the devil's work?

 

[alexandra]

The growth of the growth is regressive, sure, but we still have positive growth! Her contention was that because the rate of change of growth was regressive, we do not have positive growth. She made a false claim. Why is it hair-splitting to point out when someone makes a false claim?

LYN, I did not misunderstand what I read, and I did not try to make any false claims. As Art points out - the point is that unregulated capitalism, 'free market' policies such as privatisation, etc. are showing worse results than the earlier period of capitalism, which some on this board insist on misnaming (I wonder to what purpose) 'socialistic'. Yet many people I argue with on these boards claim that an unregulated global market economy shows *better* outcomes. According to this document, this latter statement is false. It's not a long document - only 26 pages, and the Executive Summary is only two pages long. Read it if you're interested in what it says.

alex

 

[alexandra]

If I had to guess, I would say that the slowing of growth is probably due to the massive military buildup over this same span of time. Trillions of dollars have been funneled into operations that could have been more profitably allocated elsewhere.

This may be true for some countries, but I wonder if it is true for all? I don't know - just asking the question.

 

[loseyourname]

To borrow a term from Smurf's thread. This is

Nope, I've addressed every single claim she's made in this thread, and in pretty much every other thread she's posted in. In fact, I pride myself on giving full and detailed responses to just about everything. If you haven't read them all, I cannot be blamed.

To borrow another term from the aforementioned thread Alex did not lay claim to a correlation between the two and I specifically stated the possibility of zero correlation in my post so why would you expect me to defend a non-existant position??

Here is her claim:

Below is just one recent example (published September 2005) of data that claims that far from prosperity for all, there has been a general decline in prosperity and living standards.

To back this up, she showed that there has been a slowing of the rate of growth. However, the growth is still net positive over the given time-span. That means that prosperity and living standards have not declined across the board. Her claim is not backed up by the evidence she presented.

You and smurf (or at least smurf, I'm having difficulty keeping track now), on the other hand, have weakened the claim to say only that there exists a correlation between the privatization of world markets over the given time span and the slowing rate of growth. That is certainly a true claim, but I can only presume that he (you?) wants to present a claim that there is not simply a correlation between these two events, but a causative link. As he has not yet made that claim, I am not going to evaluate it.

 

[loseyourname]

LYN, I did not misunderstand what I read, and I did not try to make any false claims. As Art points out - the point is that unregulated capitalism, 'free market' policies such as privatisation, etc. are showing worse results than the earlier period of capitalism, which some on this board insist on misnaming (I wonder to what purpose) 'socialistic'. Yet many people I argue with on these boards claim that an unregulated global market economy shows *better* outcomes. According to this document, this latter statement is false. It's not a long document - only 26 pages, and the Executive Summary is only two pages long. Read it if you're interested in what it says.
alex

I posted in my reply to Art the part of your claim that I disputed. You said that living standards and prosperity have declined in concert with the rise in liberalization of markets over the past 25 years. That is not true.

Again, if you are simply making the weaker claim that the rate of growth has slowed, so be it. I'm not going to argue with raw numbers.

 

[Art]

Nope, I've addressed every single claim she's made in this thread, and in pretty much every other thread she's posted in. In fact, I pride myself on giving full and detailed responses to just about everything. If you haven't read them all, I cannot be blamed.

I have read ALL of the posts in this thread which given your comments below vis a vis "it might have been you said this or maybe it was Smurf etc..." it would appear you haven't.

I thought you had missed the central point as did Smurf and having read Alex's recent posts it is clear she thought you did too. Is it just possible that we are right and you are wrong?

To back this up, she showed that there has been a slowing of the rate of growth. However, the growth is still net positive over the given time-span. That means that prosperity and living standards have not declined across the board. Her claim is not backed up by the evidence she presented.
You and smurf (or at least smurf, I'm having difficulty keeping track now), on the other hand, have weakened the claim to say only that there exists a correlation between the privatization of world markets over the given time span and the slowing rate of growth. That is certainly a true claim, but I can only presume that he (you?) wants to present a claim that there is not simply a correlation between these two events, but a causative link. As he has not yet made that claim, I am not going to evaluate it.

Personally I'd prefer if you evaluated what I actually did say rather than what you thought I might have said.

I never once mentioned privitisation nor sought to prove or disprove a causative link. As you missed it twice already I'll repeat myself a third time. I expressly said that the data suggests that there may be zero correlation between capitalism and prosperity. In case you did read it but didn't understand what that means, it means no causative effect.

I find it difficult to reconcile your claim to be trying to raise the standard of debate on this forum with the approach you have taken on this matter.

 

[Smurf]

I thought you had missed the central point as did Smurf

I didn't miss the central point, I just chose to address something else. It's unavoidable when your perspective of the world is rather different than most people in the forum.

 

[Art]

I didn't miss the central point, I just chose to address something else. It's unavoidable when your perspective of the world is rather different than most people in the forum.

lol sorry Smurf it's the way I phrased it. I meant that you, Alex and me all interpreted it one way whilst LYN read it another.

 

[Smurf]

lol sorry Smurf it's the way I phrased it. I meant that you, Alex and me all interpreted it one way whilst LYN read it another.

Ah *shrug* I havn't really been following. It seems ever since I posted that fancy words thread everyone's stopped arguing about politics and started arguing about arguing.

 

[McGyver]

Role of Invisible Hand in Free Market Economics

Let me first make the distinction between Capitalism, and Free Market Economics.
Free Market is an "economic theory" which the West has had in practice for hundreds of years. Capitalism, on the other hand, in its more precise language, is a practice under "Free Market" economics and today also a buzz "term" used by politicians and business to describe our "Free Market." The distinction between the two - is that a "Free Market" requires an active and vibrant role of an "invisible hand," or the will of consumers and market participants to maintain order in the marketplace, independant of outside intervention. In its most strict interpretation - it negates ANY need for government regulation/intervention in managing our marketplace. Yet, experiences have proven this stricter view not to be so wise, i.e. Taft-Hartley Act, unions and anti-trust, the 1930s and 1988 stock market crashes, savings and loan collapse, thousands of federal and state regulatory agencies, mis-reporting of corporate accounting data (new Sarbanes-Oxley), and the list goes on. Both the U.S. and EU Free Market systems have accepted a "given" amount of oversight, where EU is viewed as being more socialistic, yet it generally has less stringent regulations than here in the U.S.
In order for Capitalism to work effectively, as demanded by conservatives, it too must incorpate the "invisible hand." Yet, as much as so many groups decry various forms of government intervention, these same companies and organizations are quick to ask for "special consideration" from government when it dis-proportionately favors their own interests - and this is the "corruption factor" in the U.S. political process, where industries, companies, unions, and organizations try to exert their desidered "dysfunctional influence" over the true Free Market system.
The reality is that business in the U.S. is creating a new form of "Capitalistic," that appears more Imperialistic, a bit of a "Dictatorship," and certainly less "Free Market." These changes and clever "mis-use" of the term, "Free Market," then seems a bit contradictory. This is quite evident today when one examines how government policy is being used to evolve this new form of Capitalism, in such things as tax advantages for corporations who outsource overseas, unchecked exorbitant executive compensation (Disney-Ovizt challenge) which a federal Court upheld as not given to Disney board negligence, lucrative no-bid government contracts, doing away with affirmative action, and even, yes even government intervention in family planning matters, medical care, and abortion.
Even many U.S. industries and the U.S. Supreme Court have mis-understood "Free Market." In the USSC's recent Groekster file sharing decision, I don't believe they ever considered the music industry's long-standing practice of making "hit" songs only commercially available through the purchase of an entire CD or record. For many years, consumers were forced to pay "over market price" for music they wanted. Where was the Free Market? It emerged as new Internet file sharing software and sites like Napster. One could say that the marketplace remedied itself!
If the United States truly desires to have a "Free Market" within its business and consumer marketplace, or "Capitalism" as so many political operatives cleverly interchangibly use - then it MUST be willing to walk the talk, to more freely let the marketplace remedy itself. In these instances, the "Invisible Hand" also includes the roles of the civil courts, free speech, equal rights, and equal opportunities. Neither the political Left, nor Right, can have it both ways. True Capitalism must acknowledge the pivitol role of the "Invisible Hand."
For more on my perspectives, please view www.diaceph.com
Stephen Dolle
Dolle Communications

 

[Smurf]

McGyver that's one of the greatest posts ever. I think Adam Smith is easily one of the most misunderstood intellectuals in our culture today.

 

[McGyver]

McGyver that's one of the greatest posts ever. I think Adam Smith is easily one of the most misunderstood intellectuals in our culture today.

Thanks for the kudos. Many people ask me why I take the time to author elaborate discussions on a number of these Internet forums. I think it is because of topics just like this... it causes me to REALLY think ... and then enables me to put these thoughts and inspiration into words. You should see me in rare form at one of my local coffee shops.

 

[Smurf]

I especially liked the Grokster and Napster analogy. I never thought of that.

 

[Skyhunter]

Excellent post McGyver.

What is wrong with capitalism is that the free market is too often seen as an end in and of itself. I view capitalism as an evolutionary step in social evolution. Eventually the profit motive will be augmented by a service motive. At which time society will face it's next institutional crisis, whatever that may be.

 

[loseyourname]

I have read ALL of the posts in this thread which given your comments below vis a vis "it might have been you said this or maybe it was Smurf etc..." it would appear you haven't.
I thought you had missed the central point as did Smurf and having read Alex's recent posts it is clear she thought you did too. Is it just possible that we are right and you are wrong?

Art, if her point was something other than what she actually said, how am I to blame for not knowing her point? I can only evaluate what she actually says. Since I've quoted her twice now, including one quotation that was specifically the single sentence that constituted her claim, I'm not going to bother doing it again.

Personally I'd prefer if you evaluated what I actually did say rather than what you thought I might have said.

I apologize then. However, I'm sure you realize that we're arguing here largely over what somewhat else claimed; not what you claimed.

I never once mentioned privitisation nor sought to prove or disprove a causative link. As you missed it twice already I'll repeat myself a third time. I expressly said that the data suggests that there may be zero correlation between capitalism and prosperity.

Okay, I cannot really argue with a claim that says only that a certain data set might suggest something. You'll understand if I'm also not particularly impressed by such a weak claim.

In case you did read it but didn't understand what that means, it means no causative effect. I find it difficult to reconcile your claim to be trying to raise the standard of debate on this forum with the approach you have taken on this matter.

I apologize again, then. I am trying, Art. If you think I'm insincere and really do not care about the quality of forum discussion, just come out and say it.

 

[McGyver]

Excellent post McGyver.
What is wrong with capitalism is that the free market is too often seen as an end in and of itself. I view capitalism as an evolutionary step in social evolution. Eventually the profit motive will be augmented by a service motive. At which time society will face it's next institutional crisis, whatever that may be.

Skyhunter:

I'm not sure of your point that the "the free market is too often seen as an end in and of itself." The free market merely defines the economic rules, just as does math formula for solving an equation. The specific boundaries of the free market system are then set by the legislative bodies, and enforced by the judicial system. Present day capitalism is that which is defined by each nation, and their own economic and social priorities. It is evolutionary, but not necessarily that of a social order, rather, it is a necessity for business and commerce, and now more than ever today, international commerce.

The "profit" motive is, I believe, the most crucial component of the free market system. Yes, it is based upon "greed," but its inherent value lies in encouraging individuals to work, and to work smartly and efficiently, for rewards and return - all under their own free will and via "positive reinforcement." Reward doesn't always have to be monetary. It can also include increased self worth, confidence, and the well being attained through solid teamwork. Over the years, I have managed people of all ages, undoubtedly my most memorable experiences having been what I observed in managing youth sports. Kids don't play for money, or for their parents approval. They play because they begin to see their own self advancement, successful teamwork, and how it changees their lives for the better. Adults are much the same - it's just that our "needs" are more economic.

Regarding your point that the profit motive will be augmented by a service motive, I think that already came and mostly went with the extreme solialists movements and communism in EU-Asia, and it proved not to withstand the evolutionary test of time. As for our next institutional crises, I think it is already here - as computers have begun erasing the need for human labor, and enabling vast amounts of outsourcing to far away lands. But, as all things are cyclical, that too will evolve and change, and I believe if the U.S. can adhere to free market principle's, if we can weather the storm and if politicians can refrain from becoming short term opportunists, that those impacted by outsourcing and computerization today will emerge as new benefactors of the next new economy.

I realize this is asking a lot of those persons and political leaders in the U.S. with the wherewithall, and the will, to try to take it all. But, history is filled with so many who have tried and failed, and what's different and more encouraging today is our incredible advances in information made possible through global communications. Call me an optimist!

 

[Skyhunter]

Skyhunter:
I'm not sure of your point that the "the free market is too often seen as an end in and of itself." The free market merely defines the economic rules, just as does math formula for solving an equation. The specific boundaries of the free market system are then set by the legislative bodies, and enforced by the judicial system. Present day capitalism is that which is defined by each nation, and their own economic and social priorities. It is evolutionary, but not necessarily that of a social order, rather, it is a necessity for business and commerce, and now more than ever today, international commerce.
The "profit" motive is, I believe, the most crucial component of the free market system. Yes, it is based upon "greed," but its inherent value lies in encouraging individuals to work, and to work smartly and efficiently, for rewards and return - all under their own free will and via "positive reinforcement." Reward doesn't always have to be monetary. It can also include increased self worth, confidence, and the well being attained through solid teamwork. Over the years, I have managed people of all ages, undoubtedly my most memorable experiences having been what I observed in managing youth sports. Kids don't play for money, or for their parents approval. They play because they begin to see their own self advancement, successful teamwork, and how it changees their lives for the better. Adults are much the same - it's just that our "needs" are more economic.
Regarding your point that the profit motive will be augmented by a service motive, I think that already came and mostly went with the extreme solialists movements and communism in EU-Asia, and it proved not to withstand the evolutionary test of time. As for our next institutional crises, I think it is already here - as computers have begun erasing the need for human labor, and enabling vast amounts of outsourcing to far away lands. But, as all things are cyclical, that too will evolve and change, and I believe if the U.S. can adhere to free market principle's, if we can weather the storm and if politicians can refrain from becoming short term opportunists, that those impacted by outsourcing and computerization today will emerge as new benefactors of the next new economy.
I realize this is asking a lot of those persons and political leaders in the U.S. with the wherewithall, and the will, to try to take it all. But, history is filled with so many who have tried and failed, and what's different and more encouraging today is our incredible advances in information made possible through global communications. Call me an optimist!

What I meant was that there are those (not you) that believe the free market will ultimately solve all the worlds problems and is the only system that works.

The reason I believe socialism/communism never worked was largely due to lack of motivation by the populace. If a mechanism could be implemented to motivate people to serve, as profit motivates people to work hard and produce, this would accelerate the process.

I advocate changing our system of suffrage to allow people without wealth to have more influence in the political system. Everyday people who are quiet leaders, respected within their communities for their selfless commitment to bettering the condition of their community. This would motivate more people to get involved in volunteering to work for the betterment of all.

 

[Smurf]

The reason the socialist movements half a centruy ago failed was because the government took all the people's produce and distributed it how they wanted. The people had no say in what they're labour produced and where it went, so they rebelled, by not working.

 

[Human Being]

Human beings were meant to cooperate, not compete. In the animal kingdom, survival of the fittest determines resource allocation among most species. The strong prey upon the weak, to provide for their young. Some species are more communal; the entire living unit is provided for by all its providers. In the case of human beings, the advantage which enabled their survival amongst so many other life forms is their brain. Experiences are readily converted to reusable data by and stored in the brain. These inputs can be physical,intellectual, emotional, or spiritual; and therein lies the advantage - by communicating experiences in various ways, human beings can learn from each other. All of society benefits from knowledge gained, the aggregate of which eventually becoming "technology".

Times have changed since survival was a lifelong endeavor. Civilization, the fruits of millenia of successful survival, has afforded each member of it with a precious gift. We have at our disposal a tremendous amount of time, as a species. For thousands of years, our goal as a species has been to ensure the survival of the species as a whole. This is exactly what happens in nature, albeit in a different way. Resources are stashed away for emergencies and for the next generation, but in order to do this there must be an excess of resources. Thus, the act of ensuring the survival of future generations will over time have a negative effect on resource acquisition; either there will be less to acquire, or there will be less need to acquire it.

The presence of excessive excess provides the impetus for capitalism - value. The need to invent a placeholder for value is brought about by the exchange of excessive resources. This placeholder should intuitively be easily exchangeable and valued equally by all. Conceptually important to civilization, that which is now called money enables the civilized individual to obtain another's excess resources. As civilization advanced, and technology with it, the ability to acquire resources from the planet has increased exponentially. Keep in mind that all of this has occurred within the general context of cooperation among millenia of human beings.

That said, there is a darker side to the advancement of civilization, and it regards the concept of recycling. To explain precisely, the reuse of resources already acquired and used - not just natural resources but human beings and land itself. Domination by historic figures often paralleled times of great advancement, to the detriment of those being dominated. It goes without saying that people have been treated as expendable resources by many historic "leaders of state", all throughout time. For when excess resources are available, recycling becomes a burden, a resource-consuming effort.

Excess resources easily beget competition. They always have and will continue to do so as long as humanity sees survival through a distorted lens. Most people live their lives under the pretext that the aquisition of excess is the best indicator of survival ability. If they have a lot of "stuff", they will survive "easier" than someone who has no "stuff". They will be able to live the "good life", which the person with no "stuff" cannot do. They will be "happier" than someone who has no "stuff". Once technology could support the "Rat Race", the starter's gun went off.

Capitalism is entirely based upon competition, and this flawed human perception of what survival really is. Corporations are considered "individuals" legally, but they influence society far more than one human being can. These corporations evolve within their own "society" to possesses relationships with each other, much the same way people do. Parent companies, child companies, sibling companies, aunt/uncle/cousin companies, best friend companies, high-school-buddy companies, etc. And don't forget enemy companies. All these virtual individuals with varying relations, under the false pretext that having the most "stuff" is best, competing for a "finite" excess of resources - what a recipe for self-destruction.

What's wrong with capitalism is that in its "purest" form, capitalism reduces the potential "lifespan" of an economy, and continually increases the chance of a "life-threatening" economic episode. The rules of capitalism dictate that growth and profit maximization are paramount, that investing is preferred over saving, and that if you don't do it - someone else will. The mentality that "business is war" exists within the virtual minds of so many of these corporations. If there's excess to be had, take it before it's taken by others. At least, that's how I see capitalism - corporation and consumer alike, they both want to get a lot of stuff. More is always better.

What's wrong with capitalism is that it places so much importance on the "value placeholder" of MONEY that people eventually learn how to "create" it from absolutely nothing. They learn how to produce value placeholders that are not backed by equivalent natural resources. Technology has advanced to the point in which "virtual" money *IS* real, and if a few bytes of data in some computer in some country are changed such that a bank account somewhere is now larger, who's to care? Investing is often seen as "smart", but functionally it is nothing more than a way to make someone else even more wealthy than they already are.

Okay, I've blathered on long enough, and I'd like to change direction before I finish up.

Taking an extreme stance, money can be described as a virus and a cancer within the entity known as "economy". It requires a living host to prosper. In some cases, it reproduces by causing its host's "cells" to make more of it. In others, it has "evolved" into something vastly self-reproductive in spite of the host's "immune system". Either way, growth will continue until the hosts' ability to sustain that growth is compromised - after which money will begin to "die". Capitalism is destined to fall prey to itself, UNLESS humanity starts to care more about the future than the present. There are so many intuitive ways that can be done, I'll end with that point.

(ps - I tried catching up on the thread before posting, but so much of it is off-topic that I said screw it.)

 

[The Smoking Man]

The reason the socialist movements half a centruy ago failed was because the government took all the people's produce and distributed it how they wanted. The people had no say in what they're labour produced and where it went, so they rebelled, by not working.

Ironically, if you want capitalism, you look at China.

If you want Socialism/Communism, you look at the G8.

 

[RunDMC]

Capitalism was a great way to motivate industrial revolution style growth, but the model may now be outdated. Without going into the details of how it is not the best tool for the 21st century (nice post, Human Being), how about some free-form suggestions on how it could be replaced, tweaked or added to? (Communism is not the only alternative.)

EXAMPLES: What would be the effect of a second currency solely for leisure goods? Could swapping payroll tax for land rates remove a source of unearned income? How should genuine innovation be rewarded? Is the patents system adequate? Is it right that there are over 150 brands of water? Should medium-level industrial accidents be accepted as a form of collective risk-taking? Here' a crazy one: What would happen if the government provided a tax rebate for every hour you could prove you weren't at work? Would you be balancing your need to be at work to earn your income with the tax offset provided by a work/life balance? Should Spain fight for the known health benefits of the siesta, or is it a slap in the face to EU's efficiency?

Capitalism works, but so does a steam engine. We seem to have brains lurking in this forum, so who has some suggestions? What is the twin-cam, fuel-injected form of capitalism? (Yes, I understand the irony here: fuel-injected, twin-cam engines are largely a product of capitalism!)

Step 1: what are we trying to achieve? What do we want? Survival (in the western world) is almost off the agenda as a serious goal. What next? Poetry? Yuck! Kite surfing? Maybe! :)

I'm trying to be provocative (in a good way) here. I genuinely look forward to your thoughts.

 

[pi-r8]

(Communism is not the only alternative.)

Unfortunately, it is. Either the government recognizes that every individual has a right to own property, or it doesn't. If it does recognize that right, then it will ensure that only he can decide what to do with it. Pure capitalism follows automatically- there would be no taxes, no trustbusting, no economic regulations. Just property.

If, however, the government does not recognize the right to own property, no one can really posess anything. If you have something, it's just a privilage that can be taken away. In some governments is rarely taken away, but in others such as the USSR, property has been taken away at the drop of the hat. Or you could have a government that does nothing at all, and let's any random thug who wants your property come steal it.

Communism, socialism, anarchy, whatever you want to call it- there's no such thing as private property.