Capitalism in dispute

[Kiroen]

In order to not to sink Things wrong with [insert Nation Here] into an off-topic, I'm making a new thread.

While it's hardly questionable that capitalism was useful at some times through history, it's also hard to see that, as time goes on, it causes more problems and solves less issues. Those that may seem to have an higher transcendence from a global perspective are the environment and the energy: most people is aware that we are steadily making the Earth a less healthy place to live in, but the ultra competitive logic of the system makes it unable to reach a solution: the first world countries, after having mutilated not few of their forests, demand that Latin America doesn't chop the Amazonia, but then refuses to collaborate with the development of the poor who live there, who want to take the oil under the jungle so they can get some basic healthcare and they don't have to see how half of their family die from diseases easily curable in the first world. That is, If it's not the very Western or Chinese companies the ones that chop the jungle themselves. As for energy, we are slowly seeing how the non renewable energy resources are being depleted, but instead of making use of the affluence of capital during the good times to develop renewable energy we can use later, we recur to cracking during the bad times.

And remember, these are issues whose consequences will be seen as time goes on, but there are many others more pressing: today, in the frigging first world, there is a lot of people who has worked hard during their whole lives and yet they live with the fear of having hunger through the month, with the fear of being evicted at the moment they run a bit of bad luck.

There are mainly two problems of capitalism that have run long out of control, taking everything else with them: the insane accumulation of wealth by few, and (in consequence) the interference of the big proprietaries (be it individuals or those ruthless and apparently faceless entities known as banks).

The first problem is an elemental rule of capitalism itself: someone who has a lot of money is able to create more money out of it. Some may try to refute this with stories of rich people who fall into poverty due to bad inversions - recurring to such an argument takes us to ignore that there are safer and riskier inversions, and that a rich person with the feet on the ground is always (except in extreme situations, see WWII) able to invest the vast bulk of his wealth in safe inversions and still ensure becoming richer each day. In today's world, money is power: money allows you to buy a person's life in terms of hours worked, and this has created huge empires of propaganda: every single person in the first world countries has been convinced, at some moment of his lives, that they need to earn money to buy something that they don't need or don't even want, and some people even want to conquer that material wealth to impress people they don't know or don't even like.

Do corporations do this because there's an evil chairman moving peons to achieve any kind of plan behind of them? No, they do it because they're machines to make money. Within the system's logic, you either devour others and become bigger, or someone else will devour others, accumulate capital, make a more competitive company and will devour you, simply to not to suffer that fate. And then they use that capital to make people believe they want, that they need, their products, because If they don't, another local company will, and If it isn't, it will be one of a neighboring country, and If that one doesn't do it either a fucking Chinese company will eventually grow big enough to promote consumerism in its continent an reproduce the system's logic, getting people to work until their bones don't let them do it anymore without concerns for well being or happiness, having completely forgotten that an economic system's purpose it to provide people the resources, products and services they need to live better, and not to perpetuate itself in a never ending competition.

The another big issue of capitalism is that big masses of wealth have grown so insanely big that they can put on their knees any government they want. Let's leave aside our ill-feelings (probably well founded) for certain politicians or even our countries' political classes in general, and let's imagine that democracy is a system that allows a country's people to decide what their government has to do. The very first problem to make this a reality is that to win a political campaign you need a lot of money, and the easiest way to get it is to ask for it to a big fortune (usually a bank), but that immediately puts you under the obligation of defending its interests. The use of the new technologies allow alternatives to this, such as crowfundings, even If they are still very naively executed. Let's go a step ahead and imagine that a party actually wins the elections with the intentions of putting the interests of the majority above of those of the bigger masses of wealth - the big proprietaries will make use of the mass media they posses to attack that party in every way they can, and even If properly explained it sounds perfectly reasonable and logical, a single voice can't best the TV (we can discuss this point further ahead, there are cases in my country I may explain, but it'd take me some more paragraphs, and it's not a priority), but EVEN If we go another step ahead and imagine that a party got the majority of its country's support, even though it's being criticized every day in the mass media, would it be able to beat the pressure of the biggest international corporations that wouldn't want to lose the profits they'd been making in that country?

Words made short: Is it possible to have democracy within today's capitalism?

TL;DR: It's intrinsic to capitalism that rich people get richer; insanely rich people are above democracy; capitalism is proving itself unable to solve today's world's problems; hippie environmental shit talk that Fern despises.

Sorry for the wall of text, but it's a thread that requires walls of text (and it's an issue that requires more than a thread in a forum). Before further going on myself, there are several questions to put on the table:

• What good does capitalism still offer to society? Given all the trouble it's causing, is it worth saving it?
• If we were to change capitalism, would it be possible to do it without a complete critique and denouncement of the system, knowing that those benefited by the injustices it provokes will use their power to convince everyone of the contrary?
• If we were, instead, to transition to another system, where may we be headed to? How to make an economical system that follows democracy's orders, and not the opposite? How to fight the forces that would actively promote not changing and where would we get the power to build a new system?

[Avatar of Grima]

to answer the first question, Capitalism tries to create a strong global economy, and tbh it's failed it's job horribly.

To answer the second, well most people say that we should remove capitalism, but what do we replace it with? The normal answer is uhhh and it's because nobody really knows how to live without capitalism

Anarchy would rule until somebody pulls a Stalin/Hitler and forcibly takes control either with speech or force.

it's a lose lose

[Gaunt]

This is an interesting topic but consider the fact that none of us, even togheter (as far as i know at least), is able to "change" the current system in any way, we can all discuss this and imagine a better (or worse) future for everyone (or not) but in the end nothing will change.

[Deleted User]

To answer the second, well most people say that we should remove capitalism, but what do we replace it with? The normal answer is uhhh and it's because nobody really knows how to live without capitalism

Anarchy would rule until somebody pulls a Stalin/Hitler and forcibly takes control either with speech or force.

it's a lose lose

Precisely. If you can come up with a better alternative, then I'm all ears, but every system now has it's flaws. Every system has it's benefits in theory. Unfortunately, economics has countless variables that make it difficult to really have things go optimally for very long.

As harsh as it sounds and I'm not saying things are best the way they are right now, but "To be a winner there must also be a loser."

[dead account]

Capitalism is an inherently flawed system, but it's probably the best we're ever going to get, to be honest.

Human nature is the biggest flaw of any system. If there is a way to exploit a system, then somebody will abuse it.

So even if Capitalism somehow gets replaced by a "better" system, we would most likely end up in a similar situation to this further down the line, or the economy would collapse on top of itself. Whichever comes first.

[Red_Chaos]

UGH, USA is not a democracy...

[Eviora]

Replace capitalism with... a tamed version of capitalism. Much higher taxes on the very rich and all that. Place extremely strict limitations on those who try to use any form of threats/bribery to influence politics and similar things.

Of course, the above is very vague and there would certainly be a lot of loopholes to work through. There's also a lot of insidious conditioning that goes on, at least in the US. We'll need to get to the point where so many people view being a "non-capitalist" as something to be looked down on.

[Deleted User]

Replace capitalism with... a tamed version of capitalism. Much higher taxes on the very rich and all that. Place extremely strict limitations on those who try to use any form of threats/bribery to influence politics and similar things.

Of course, the above is very vague and there would certainly be a lot of loopholes to work through. There's also a lot of insidious conditioning that goes on, at least in the US. We'll need to get to the point where so many people view being a "non-capitalist" as something to be looked down on.

The question is where do we define the very rich? I'm all for low taxes on people who are actively providing more and more jobs. It's a different story if people are just making money by manipulating money. Does the individual or business in question provide a good or service that ultimately benefits the economy as a whole by promoting greater flow of money? Or are they instead just manipulating the system to their advantage?

What portion of the business is being put forward to create more jobs or better quality good or services?

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf

Small businesses comprise what share of the U.S. economy?

• Small businesses make up: 99.7 percent of U.S. employer firms
• 64 percent of net new private-sector jobs
• 49.2 percent of private-sector employment
• 42.9 percent of private-sector payroll
• 46 percent of private-sector output
• 43 percent of high-tech employment
• 98 percent of firms exporting goods
• 33 percent of exporting value.

Raising taxes on the top 1% greatly hurts small businesses and in turn many Jobs are lost.

I have a thought that did just cross my mind. Raise taxes on the very wealthy, however if the individual in question makes the majority of their earnings from a business they own, they'd have lower tax rates than say a hired CEO, or anyone else who is making in the big bucks without actually being the grandmaster. There would obviously have to be more in depth examination and ways to close loop holes, but this seems like a pretty good starting point in my opinion.

Realistically the top 1% is vilified, but it breaks down even further. The top .1% or .01% could be seen as those who are most inclined to have just ludicrous amounts of money. The line for the top 1% is only $400,000 annually for a household. If you're looking at growing small businesses who would hire more people to expand their business, raising taxes on them puts a hurting on a huge portion of the small business jobs.

I think we need to take it back to the roots. We need to provide better education for more people in order to give better opportunities for more to succeed. Even modest estimates have 100% funded post high school education at about $70 Billion per year. Now look at how much we're spending on the military annually. The US Military budget comes out to over $580 Billion. Why do we need so much there?

Oh and the following are 100% absolutely our allies.

>UK

>France

>Japan

>Germany

>South Korea

>Italy

>Israel

>Australia

There's also a slew of other programs run by the government that are completely inefficient, corrupt, and mistreated that could stand to be cut to put funds to better use. Many of which are under the radar.

We need to educate the masses first, and not punish those that are actively creating jobs and goods or services. If there's a way we can increase tax rates without harming the potential for jobs then I'm all for it.

[Darvan Korematsu]

Everything Jericho says it about as true as it gets. Capitalism is essentially economical Darwinism. It's the best system for healthy competition in the markets that human-kind has created so far. If you think capitalism in America (or any other country for that matter), you oughta read about all the crap about 100 years ago with the government getting smart and trust busting and breaking monopolies that constricted the marketplace. It's pretty filthy now, but it was grimy and grease ridden back then

[Kiroen]

Capitalism is an inherently flawed system, but it's probably the best we're ever going to get, to be honest.

Human nature is the biggest flaw of any system. If there is a way to exploit a system, then somebody will abuse it.

So even if Capitalism somehow gets replaced by a "better" system, we would most likely end up in a similar situation to this further down the line, or the economy would collapse on top of itself. Whichever comes first.

This is a really dangerous argument, not only because it leads us to a very conservative approach to the possibility of changing things ("things are actually really fucked up" but "it could be worse" -> "better leave them be than try to change for the better"), but because from an historical perspective, it's easy to see that no system (be it political or economical) has an undefined useful lifetime. Feudalism thrived for over a thousand years, but it finally died to mercantilism, which died to laissez faire, which died to interventionism, which died to neoliberalism. A prestigious scientist and aristocrat had the opinion that we had reached the pinnacle of science and progress; it was a really propagated idea - yet short years later mankind saw flight be born and Einstein started to shake the classical physics foundations. A hundred years ago, those who had power spread the idea that paid holidays or finishing child labor would provoke the system to collapse - yet today those are basic rights defended by the majority.

to answer the first question, Capitalism tries to create a strong global economy, and tbh it's failed it's job horribly.

To answer the second, well most people say that we should remove capitalism, but what do we replace it with? The normal answer is uhhh and it's because nobody really knows how to live without capitalism

Anarchy would rule until somebody pulls a Stalin/Hitler and forcibly takes control either with speech or force.

it's a lose lose

It's funny how so many people recur to the images of Hitler or Stalin when someone presents the idea of an alternative to capitalism - yet so few see that capitalism is killing way more people than anyone ever accused communism of killing, today. According to the UN, 24.000 persons die each day from hunger. If an economic system's purpose is to provide people with their basic needs, and once these are satisfied, provide luxuries too, why isn't there a strong speech that denounces the victims of capitalism? We have the capital, the physical resources to provide everyone in the world with food, yet 100 million people die from hunger in the world each ~15 years. Take the worst communist dystopia any propagandist could have ever imagined: we live in it. Capitalism rules the vast majority of the world, yet with its huge power it isn't solving any of the big problems the mankind has.

And taking a more practical approach to your concern: I haven't proposed in any moment to violently overthrow capitalism - not even any legal system. Such formulas don't provide any guarantee of success. And please, let's not ridicule proposals of change with vague threats of a terrible, dystopian society, because hundreds of millions of people already live under ours.

Replace capitalism with... a tamed version of capitalism. Much higher taxes on the very rich and all that. Place extremely strict limitations on those who try to use any form of threats/bribery to influence politics and similar things.

Of course, the above is very vague and there would certainly be a lot of loopholes to work through. There's also a lot of insidious conditioning that goes on, at least in the US. We'll need to get to the point where so many people view being a "non-capitalist" as something to be looked down on.

Everything Jericho says it about as true as it gets. Capitalism is essentially economical Darwinism. It's the best system for healthy competition in the markets that human-kind has created so far. If you think capitalism in America (or any other country for that matter), you oughta read about all the crap about 100 years ago with the government getting smart and trust busting and breaking monopolies that constricted the marketplace. It's pretty filthy now, but it was grimy and grease ridden back then

I agree that intervened capitalism has created the most prosperous societies mankind has ever seen until today, but we have to ask ourselves: why have we been moving backwards during the last decades? Among social scientists (If there is such a thing such as "social science") there's a theory gaining weight every year: capitalism could be tamed during most of 20th century because the richest individuals and collectives were afraid. After WWII, many Western European countries began nationalizations of big companies - specially those whose owners had been collaborating with fascism; they started coining money in huge amounts to organize the efforts of rebuilding the countries - yet no big proprietaries complained. After WWII, the French and Italian Communist parties were close to their max height, simply because millions of people in those countries believed that there was an alternative to capitalism. When the USSR economy began to stagnate and Western Berlin had became the biggest showcase of capitalism, it started the neoliberal cycle: it was the age of Thatcher and Reagan, the age when even the new social democrat parties in Europe (those of Spain, Portugal and Greece) were born under the ideological banner of capitalism without regulations - because regulations did no longer seem necessary to capitalism's survival [Note: notice that I haven't actually defended the Eastern Bloc at any line, what it matters to this theory is only the people's perception to it during each period].

If this isn't true, you are going to need to bring another theory that explains why capitalism can't be tamed today, why the vast majority of European parties actually tolerate capitalism's excesses in practice (the speech matters little when their actions show the opposite).

The question is where do we define the very rich? I'm all for low taxes on people who are actively providing more and more jobs. It's a different story if people are just making money by manipulating money. Does the individual or business in question provide a good or service that ultimately benefits the economy as a whole by promoting greater flow of money? Or are they instead just manipulating the system to their advantage?

What portion of the business is being put forward to create more jobs or better quality good or services?

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf

Small businesses comprise what share of the U.S. economy?

• Small businesses make up: 99.7 percent of U.S. employer firms
• 64 percent of net new private-sector jobs
• 49.2 percent of private-sector employment
• 42.9 percent of private-sector payroll
• 46 percent of private-sector output
• 43 percent of high-tech employment
• 98 percent of firms exporting goods
• 33 percent of exporting value.

Raising taxes on the top 1% greatly hurts small businesses and in turn many Jobs are lost.

I have a thought that did just cross my mind. Raise taxes on the very wealthy, however if the individual in question makes the majority of their earnings from a business they own, they'd have lower tax rates than say a hired CEO, or anyone else who is making in the big bucks without actually being the grandmaster. There would obviously have to be more in depth examination and ways to close loop holes, but this seems like a pretty good starting point in my opinion.

Realistically the top 1% is vilified, but it breaks down even further. The top .1% or .01% could be seen as those who are most inclined to have just ludicrous amounts of money. The line for the top 1% is only $400,000 annually for a household. If you're looking at growing small businesses who would hire more people to expand their business, raising taxes on them puts a hurting on a huge portion of the small business jobs.

I think we need to take it back to the roots. We need to provide better education for more people in order to give better opportunities for more to succeed. Even modest estimates have 100% funded post high school education at about $70 Billion per year. Now look at how much we're spending on the military annually. The US Military budget comes out to over $580 Billion. Why do we need so much there?

Oh and the following are 100% absolutely our allies.

>UK

>France

>Japan

>Germany

>South Korea

>Italy

>Israel

>Australia

There's also a slew of other programs run by the government that are completely inefficient, corrupt, and mistreated that could stand to be cut to put funds to better use. Many of which are under the radar.

We need to educate the masses first, and not punish those that are actively creating jobs and goods or services. If there's a way we can increase tax rates without harming the potential for jobs then I'm all for it.

There's no doubt that many defense ministries are black holes of corruption for money. I have the intuition that, If people actually learnt a bit of geopolitics in high school, we'd be able to avoid several of today's wars, as people would be more aware of the use of violence for the mere profit of certain companies (it doesn't take too much work to trace the financing of international relations lobbies by energy corporations). I mean - it's so obvious for anyone who studies the issue that I don't understand how there aren't big national debates about it.

I'll eventually propose practical solutions , but I think that there are some issues that should be discussed first.

[Peepeepoopoo]

Capitalism isn't that bad if you have money.

[Neo]

Capitalism isn't that bad if you have money.

And starvation isn't that bad if you have food.

[Deleted User]

And starvation isn't that bad if you have food.

Give me a sound argument as to why Communism or Socialism or whateverism is better than Capitalism. Not in theory, the actual implementation of it. I'm willing to listen to anyone who wants to provide evidence in order to try to prove their point.

[Darvan Korematsu]

Shit. There really is no "perfect" system. What Marx thought would be great Jeri is if there were no gaping differences in wealth. If Communism had any draw to it, it most likely would have been that the rich would be pried from their riches, leaving them as equal as everyone else, and eliminate at least one thing to discriminate about. Meaning the "99%" would become "100%", because there's always gonna be those who have and those who have not. You could also look at Communism as effective, because the government usually knows what to do better than one person, because what if YOU were by some astronomically improbable reason pulled to rule as the leader of your country. Shiet, you wouldn't know what to do exactly.

Communism/Socialism are "better" than Capitalism in a way, because their purpose is to ensure no monopolies by making sure there is no competition. Ensuring the equality of the people by working for one cause. Not five.

[Neo]

Give me a sound argument as to why Communism or Socialism or whateverism is better than Capitalism. Not in theory, the actual implementation of it. I'm willing to listen to anyone who wants to provide evidence in order to try to prove their point.

"Give me an example of a system that was never truly implemented on a meaningful scale because Socialism/Communism is not conducive with the system of Imperialism that facilitated Capitalism in the western world"

My arguments against Capitalism are far more social than they are economic. Capitalism was born from and lives off of multiple systems of oppression that work together to give us the world we have today. In an ideal setting, ridding ourselves of these systems of oppression will also require the abandonment of Capitalism.

[Deleted User]

Shit. There really is no "perfect" system. What Marx thought would be great Jeri is if there were no gaping differences in wealth. If Communism had any draw to it, it most likely would have been that the rich would be pried from their riches, leaving them as equal as everyone else, and eliminate at least one thing to discriminate about. Meaning the "99%" would become "100%", because there's always gonna be those who have and those who have not. You could also look at Communism as effective, because the government usually knows what to do better than one person, because what if YOU were by some astronomically improbable reason pulled to rule as the leader of your country. Shiet, you wouldn't know what to do exactly.

Communism/Socialism are "better" than Capitalism in a way, because their purpose is to ensure no monopolies by making sure there is no competition. Ensuring the equality of the people by working for one cause. Not five.

There are flaws with every system as you said. Communism's main one is there's ZERO motivation to achieve anything other than the bare minimum. No incentives. Hence progression comes to a huge crawl.

If you want my honest opinion. What would be best overall would probably be a pendulum swaying back and forth between Socialism and Capitalism so it could be rebalanced whenever it gets too out of swing. However none of these systems are ever good if the people are struggling and we're going into massive debt simultaneously. Spending needs to be cut across the board except Education, but even that needs to be re-evaluated and done more efficiently.

[Kiroen]

(...)

Raising taxes on the top 1% greatly hurts small businesses and in turn many Jobs are lost.

I have a thought that did just cross my mind. Raise taxes on the very wealthy, however if the individual in question makes the majority of their earnings from a business they own, they'd have lower tax rates than say a hired CEO, or anyone else who is making in the big bucks without actually being the grandmaster. There would obviously have to be more in depth examination and ways to close loop holes, but this seems like a pretty good starting point in my opinion.

Realistically the top 1% is vilified, but it breaks down even further. The top .1% or .01% could be seen as those who are most inclined to have just ludicrous amounts of money. The line for the top 1% is only $400,000 annually for a household. If you're looking at growing small businesses who would hire more people to expand their business, raising taxes on them puts a hurting on a huge portion of the small business jobs.

(...)

There is a big fallacy in there, allow me to explain. A) Under capitalism, products/services are provided to those who have money; B ) Under capitalism, there are bigger concentrations of wealth under fewer hands as time goes on (as explained earlier); C) As one person accumulates exponential amounts of wealth, he spends a lesser percentage of his income in luxuries/needs (at the very least, statistically); D) Progressive taxes and certain spending or investments by the state allow redistribution of wealth.

Now, If there is an increasing concentration of wealth in fewer hands, and these people will be less likely to buy products/services; there will actually be less incentives to create productive companies, because they will simply not have as high perspectives of making business. This actually provokes a really inefficient use of the capital, where it becomes accumulated without purpose to the point that there is nothing more productive to invest it in than stock-market gambling. However, redistribution of wealth solves the problem.

Shit. There really is no "perfect" system. What Marx thought would be great Jeri is if there were no gaping differences in wealth. If Communism had any draw to it, it most likely would have been that the rich would be pried from their riches, leaving them as equal as everyone else, and eliminate at least one thing to discriminate about. Meaning the "99%" would become "100%", because there's always gonna be those who have and those who have not. You could also look at Communism as effective, because the government usually knows what to do better than one person, because what if YOU were by some astronomically improbable reason pulled to rule as the leader of your country. Shiet, you wouldn't know what to do exactly.

Communism/Socialism are "better" than Capitalism in a way, because their purpose is to ensure no monopolies by making sure there is no competition. Ensuring the equality of the people by working for one cause. Not five.

The bold characters statement was one of the reasons why the USSR collapsed. While an ample group of technicians (whether they work for the state or for a company) are able to plan a country's industrialization far better than any random "entrepreneur", If any closed group of technicians pretend to plan the whole economy, many bright or simply useful ideas that any random entrepreneur may have will find no way to be implemented. There are just sectors that are more efficient when planned (such as the roads infrastructures) or are simply natural monopolies (it's ridiculous to allow competence in water pipes, for example); and there are other sectors of the economy that are less efficient when planned by a Leningrad's bureaucrat.

However, one thing is the state vs entrepreneur debate, and a very different one is the question of who owns the capital: individuals or society (be it administrated by a centralist state or by cooperatives/public banks/municipal funds/etc.etc.etc..

There are flaws with every system as you said. Communism's main one is there's ZERO motivation to achieve anything other than the bare minimum. No incentives. Hence progression comes to a huge crawl.

If you want my honest opinion. What would be best overall would probably be a pendulum swaying back and forth between Socialism and Capitalism so it could be rebalanced whenever it gets too out of swing. However none of these systems are ever good if the people are struggling and we're going into massive debt simultaneously. Spending needs to be cut across the board except Education, but even that needs to be re-evaluated and done more efficiently.

I don't want to sound bold or aggressive, but this is just propaganda. Every single economic system we have seen until today has had positions where there were high and low meritocratic incentives. What incentive is there to work for a rich individual who can live from his rents? What incentive is there to work harder for a waitress exploited by her boss, being paid a miserable salary?

No one has put in question the need of having meritocratic incentives, and there actually were many of these in the USSR (which I'm not proposing as a model).

(Before actually proposing any short or long term alternative, I'm going to wait for Jericho's response on the first quote)

[Monochrome_Complex]

I just find it so strange people want it one way or the other.

Like really, a successful society needs a balance of some sort, one favoring one side more depending the economic environment and time period.

Both sides have their ups and downs, so trying to go from one extreme to the other just seems silly.

Also, what works for one country isn't going to work for another the same way. Trying to force democracy down everyone's throat is something I never liked about the US, especially when their system has so many flaws they still can't work out.

[Drymus]

I just find it so strange people want it one way or the other.

Like really, a successful society needs a balance of some sort, one favoring one side more depending the economic environment and time period.

Both sides have their ups and downs, so trying to go from one extreme to the other just seems silly.

Also, what works for one country isn't going to work for another the same way. Trying to force democracy down everyone's throat is something I never liked about the US, especially when their system has so many flaws they still can't work out.

I agree with this statement 100%. The needs of the people vary from region to region. Why would we not allow a variation in methods of governing to reflect this?

[Deleted User]

I agree with this statement 100%. The needs of the people vary from region to region. Why would we not allow a variation in methods of governing to reflect this?

Kiroen I'll hopefully address your post tomorrow, but I'm a bit sleepy right now. I just want to make this one comment. THIS is why the State Governments are supposed to be able to make the majority of the choices as opposed to the Federal Government. It's competition and needs of people depending on who's there and what there is.

[Avatar of Grima]

This is a really dangerous argument, not only because it leads us to a very conservative approach to the possibility of changing things ("things are actually really fucked up" but "it could be worse" -> "better leave them be than try to change for the better"), but because from an historical perspective, it's easy to see that no system (be it political or economical) has an undefined useful lifetime. Feudalism thrived for over a thousand years, but it finally died to mercantilism, which died to laissez faire, which died to interventionism, which died to neoliberalism. A prestigious scientist and aristocrat had the opinion that we had reached the pinnacle of science and progress; it was a really propagated idea - yet short years later mankind saw flight be born and Einstein started to shake the classical physics foundations. A hundred years ago, those who had power spread the idea that paid holidays or finishing child labor would provoke the system to collapse - yet today those are basic rights defended by the majority.

It's funny how so many people recur to the images of Hitler or Stalin when someone presents the idea of an alternative to capitalism - yet so few see that capitalism is killing way more people than anyone ever accused communism of killing, today. According to the UN, 24.000 persons die each day from hunger. If an economic system's purpose is to provide people with their basic needs, and once these are satisfied, provide luxuries too, why isn't there a strong speech that denounces the victims of capitalism? We have the capital, the physical resources to provide everyone in the world with food, yet 100 million people die from hunger in the world each ~15 years. Take the worst communist dystopia any propagandist could have ever imagined: we live in it. Capitalism rules the vast majority of the world, yet with its huge power it isn't solving any of the big problems the mankind has.

And taking a more practical approach to your concern: I haven't proposed in any moment to violently overthrow capitalism - not even any legal system. Such formulas don't provide any guarantee of success. And please, let's not ridicule proposals of change with vague threats of a terrible, dystopian society, because hundreds of millions of people already live under ours.

I agree that intervened capitalism has created the most prosperous societies mankind has ever seen until today, but we have to ask ourselves: why have we been moving backwards during the last decades? Among social scientists (If there is such a thing such as "social science") there's a theory gaining weight every year: capitalism could be tamed during most of 20th century because the richest individuals and collectives were afraid. After WWII, many Western European countries began nationalizations of big companies - specially those whose owners had been collaborating with fascism; they started coining money in huge amounts to organize the efforts of rebuilding the countries - yet no big proprietaries complained. After WWII, the French and Italian Communist parties were close to their max height, simply because millions of people in those countries believed that there was an alternative to capitalism. When the USSR economy began to stagnate and Western Berlin had became the biggest showcase of capitalism, it started the neoliberal cycle: it was the age of Thatcher and Reagan, the age when even the new social democrat parties in Europe (those of Spain, Portugal and Greece) were born under the ideological banner of capitalism without regulations - because regulations did no longer seem necessary to capitalism's survival [Note: notice that I haven't actually defended the Eastern Bloc at any line, what it matters to this theory is only the people's perception to it during each period].

If this isn't true, you are going to need to bring another theory that explains why capitalism can't be tamed today, why the vast majority of European parties actually tolerate capitalism's excesses in practice (the speech matters little when their actions show the opposite).

There's no doubt that many defense ministries are black holes of corruption for money. I have the intuition that, If people actually learnt a bit of geopolitics in high school, we'd be able to avoid several of today's wars, as people would be more aware of the use of violence for the mere profit of certain companies (it doesn't take too much work to trace the financing of international relations lobbies by energy corporations). I mean - it's so obvious for anyone who studies the issue that I don't understand how there aren't big national debates about it.

I'll eventually propose practical solutions , but I think that there are some issues that should be discussed first.

Okay, as a history major I can say that I wasn't talking about the death and destruction that Hitler and Stalin did cause, I was more talking about how they both were able to take control of their respective countries. Stalin systematically destroyed all of his opponents and replaced them with his allies and supporters, whilst Hitler had the Night of the Long Knives where he killed his friends and foe alike and burned down the Reichstag. Part two of this, I am not to opposed to having a leader like Hitler, hear me out, the man was able to inspire Germans and was a very good speaker, however this is all lost because all anyone thinks about when you say Hitler is the Holocaust, it's very disappointing know that one bad can outweigh all the good that a person had possibly done before hand.

I could have very easily included Mao ZeDong as well but seeing as I was rushed for time I really didn't want to type it out, but society will never be able to achieve a system that is good enough for everyone, as I saw earlier human nature is the flaw if every politicalism, it's true fear and greed keep us from changing our political system. Hell I can't even say anything remotly close to communism without being told to shut up and that I'm a stupid Commie. It's all just a play and everyone right now is a willing actor/actress.

[laggless01]

I seem to have missed a spectacle...(crackles fingers)...let's see.
From what I've read, Kiroen's argument is that the flaws are inherent to the system, while most others who posted argue that the flaws are hinged on the human factor, am I correct?

Note: I'm not an economist nor a social psychologist, so don't take my words fully at heart. My arguments could (and probably will) contain flaws because of the former.
(ooh boy, this is going to be a loooong post)

My argument is that it's a bit of both and some other things.

Kiroen, ask yourself if you care as much about a starving child thousands of miles away, as about a friend.
The answer is no, and for good reason (read: don't feel too bad about it). Our empathy has bounds (if it didn't, our minds would explode pretty much, or make us incredibly depressive). If you keep that in mind, it's easy to understand why, for example, so many people are dying due to preventable conditions. It's too far away from us, so we don't care as much.* It doesn't justify the situation, but to blame such situation fully on our economic system is a flawed argument. The disparity would still be there mainly due to our nature, no matter what system you're in (even if it conflicts with that system itself. 'Animal Farm' gives a good example for the communist system).
you don't even have to look that far to see such problems. For example, if you're not part of a certain minority, chances are it's woes are too far off your own life to really care that much.

You then proceed to describe the inherent increase of wealth disparity, which I can get behind, to then making it out to be a propaganda/slavery producer, which I can't.
You state that every person follows this logic (things you don't need, etc, etc), or is unable to think that well for themselves what they need.
One, that's not the case. People can be quite aware of what they need.
Two, a (little) bit of luxury isn't always bad, although you technically 'don't need it'. I admit, what you describe happens frequently, but not in general.
Three, advertising isn't evil, but necessary for companies to exist. You describe that it is used to make people believe that they need things they don't need, but they also inform people of stuff they do need. Example: you have a really bad case of dandruff, and you see advertising for stuff that gets rid of it. Advertising shortens the time you need to find products, whether you need it or not is left to you to decide.
The consumer behaviour you describe mostly hinges on how a person is raised. First, if someone learns how to value things properly when growing up, they will be better at judging these things. Secondly, critical thought is required for nearly everything (except religion, perhaps), so you need that skill in order to judge information better. So when you see an Axe body spray commercial, you don't (instantly) believe that spraying yourself with the expensive stench (personal opinion) causes women to flock on your pelvis.
However: parenting isn't easy. You're (almost) bound to do something wrong. Sometimes you give misguided advice to your children (example: you have to do this, that...to live happily, even though not all these things are required to live a fulfilling life). Other times you might give them too much/little. And those are just two of the myriad of small things you might accidentally do wrong.
Added to that, critical thought is something that you should be learnt in school, but takes a long time to master. If your education system is flawed on that aspect, you will notice the consequences.
The thing is, few of this is caused by capitalism itself, but rather by the people living in the system. You can argue that commercials are sometimes/often misleading, but to be mislead without critical thought is also for some part to blame on the people.

You also got some of the workings of businesses wrong. You completely left out innovation or specifying to better appease a certain niche (it's really a kind of Darwinism, Darvan nails it with that term). All of those can lead to the growth sought. On the other hand, the wrong mutation can end unsuccesfully if it doesn't fit the environment it is in. For example: if the environment is people who demand their clothes being made under humane and fair conditions, a lot of clothing brands are going to be in trouble in that said environment. (I also would recommend to be nicer to the Chinese in general, things work quite different there. I understand your worries on that, though.)

Yes, some companies/people are more powerful than some governments with their affluence (cough*Philip Morris*cough*), and they can cripple those(*same cough*). However: 1. those actions can actually hurt those companies more than the countries they target if things backfire. 2. If governments would act rationally and fair (also non-corrupt or unbiased), their power would be way less. 3. An international approach would stop it dead in their tracks, even though such a thing happening is very unlikely. Still, I think it could be technically possible to gain similar effect without international support. (more about that later)
How parties/candidates geit money for their campaigns is different for most countries, but banks are very rarely involved like you state. It's too much money with a high risk of not getting their money back, so banks generally have no interest themselves in such an investment. Rather, lobbying groups (made up by numerous people of interest and companies) are prime investors. How it does work varies to rather fair to rather perverted.
In my country, parties get money from the state depending on their size plus membership fees. This makes them little to not dependent on sponsorship, reducing the influence of (affluent) people or companies on the parties themselves (our government in general, however, has some problems with that due to some very unique laws), and keeping campaigns fair in relative sizes.
In America, things work a little bit different, especially presidency campaigns. A clear explanation of the voting system and its problems can be found on CGP Grey's channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k, in that order).
As you said, presidential candidates rely on sponsors to fund their 100s of millions dollar campaigns, in exchange for favours to their sponsors when they are elected (this is not for all of the sponsors, but those still expect to profit from their supportes candidate being elected). Not only is this unfair to all other parties besides the two almost everyone knows (because they can't even dream of raising that much money for campaigns), but it makes those presidents less effective, not proposing certain necessary laws due to promises to their sponsors. This funding problem isn't only present in presidency, sadly.
Again, the problems aren't caused by capitalism, but they are exploited by it. The actual problem are the humans themselves. If you can cast away the problems caused by us, the grasp of bodies in the system slips away.

Jericho, about your argument concerning the 1%. I think you're using the wrong numbers: small businesses are defined as those with 500 employees or less, which doesn't define the wealth of those. (For example: some small business make tens of millions nett, while some giant companies are for years in the red). Raising taxes on the 1% based on (comparative) wealth wouldn't hurt as much as you envision it to be.
This graph however (tried to find a more neutral one, but I couldn't find it) describes the problem better:
http://www.shadyplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/wealth3.jpg

I will use this graph later on for one of my own arguments.
Also your idea of taxing the very rich andsoforth is simply called a property tax. Although increasing it (perhaps under certain circumstances) is necessary, keep in mind that you would have to close a loophole that people put their properties in a one-man company for less taxation, while still having the 'same' control.


Capitalism has basically one rule: the accumulation of money. It's biggest merit is that it is (when healthy) a huge driver for progress. On the other hand, if unhealthy, it's benefits are (severely) hampered and it creates quite the inequality.
If you want to keep it running properly, then it's key to keep a certain balance. Complete equality of wealth would be unfair and counterproductive: do you really want to a heart surgeon to be paid the same as the person who hands you your burgers in a drive-through?
How this fits with the graph earlier: this graph is an example of a Poisson Curve (roughly), which is a statistical graph to display a certain kind of distribution. This graph displays our (or at least America's) current situation, of which the majority agrees it is rather unfair. A graph of a perfect communist system (which hasn't existed yet) would be completely flat due to equal distribution. My theory is that between those two, somewhere there is a(n area of) graph(s) which matches a 'fairest' distribution of wealth. The beauty of it is 1. such a thing can be mathematically expressed, making it easier to measure or to work to. 2. It would match the maximal purchasing power of a populace, maximizing its economic output and welfare.

The crucial thing about this theory of mine is that such a balance has to be maintained.
What's key to all of this are the governments, which would have to put this into law, so they could do so. It should be a role of the government (and by that, of the people to demand it, too), to allign the interest of the capitalist system in their country with the well-being of the people they govern.
But that's another story that would take at least as much time as this.

These are my opinions. Feel free to argue them, or point out things I've missed.
(Now, back to studying...)


(P.S. as for energy, Kiroen: commercial Nuclear Fusion is expected to exist around 2050, so before we run out of oil and coal we will probably have a clean, incredibly powerful solution. Doesn't solve it for cars so much nor ecological consequences, though)
#buildingthegreattextwallofchina

Edited August 9, 2015 by laggless01

[Busti]

You all have great point, but I do not see anybody making a reference to the European countries, where people can still get very rich, but there are only very few people under the poverty line. It is a capitalist market, but the government has a caring role! I think the role of the government is the most important part of the "capitalist" market.

Now what they do is tax people progressively. As such the higher incomes are taxed more heavily, which provides enough money to the government to take care of social aspects of society: education, healthcare, retirements, subsidies to arts and culture, and maintaining the standard of living to those that are unemployed. The result is not that the entire market is a void, not at all. And the EU certainly does have legislation in place to prevent all job from going to Asia. One way is to apply import/export taxes. That, though, is a debate all on its own.

Now I have argued quite repeatedly about whether it is possible to have such a social aspect to the States. As a Dutch person, I am very well aware that living in the Netherlands is much nicer, even though a lot less money is going around. Yet here I recognize your arguments coming into play: This country is gigantic! What a massive change that would be. The rich companies will not allow any elected officials to start taxing them. The poor do not help either. The subsidies for the unemployed and health care benefits will not be seen as a chance to build a life, but rather to drain the system. This is what I've learned from Obamacare, which is significantly increasing health care coverage, but greatly increased the strain on the --> MIDDLE CLASS <--.

Anyway, my point being that a caring government can work well in a capitalist market, but it requires the right mindset, acceptance and off course a constructive society to work. I just do not see how the USA could pull this off, even if 90% of the people wants it to be so.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Busti

[Deleted User]

Anyway, my point being that a caring government can work well in a capitalist market, but it requires the right mindset, acceptance and off course a constructive society to work. I just do not see how the USA could pull this off, even if 90% of the people wants it to be so.

There's no such thing as a caring government no skin off their bones by taking from people to give to others.

[Busti]

There's no such thing as a caring government no skin off their bones by taking from people to give to others.

I translated the term "Zorgzame overheid" very literally. It is a form of statism, in which the government has a steering function for the development of society.

I chose caring, because steering as such is often meant to fight inequality and even to steer consumer spenditure (think of extra tax on tobacco and gas), leading to what is conceived as a more desirable standard of living.

The government also provides a plethora of services and goods that are deemed inappropriate for companies to do. Think clean water, and the like. Whereas you may question the associated efficiency loss and legal burdens, it does ensure quality, availability, and jobs.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Busti