Is capitalism the best model?

[~jet]

Capitalism is not "lawless", "unregulated" or "unrestrained".

Actually that is the very definition of laissez-faire capitalism and it is exactly what CEOs are pushing so hard to get. 'Free,' 'do whatever you want, whenever you want' business practices. The lawful, moderated, regulated, and chaperoned capitalism is what we USED to have from about 1935 to 1980... it's been falling apart since then as regulations are being systematically removed, except for the only ones being put it which are almost universally designed to let the big fish slip through unharmed while the small ones get caught and destroyed.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

First off, most economic systems aren't "invented." It's a natural occurrence that a good or service has to be returned with another good or service. More modern theories, such as communism, were drawn out before they were put into practice...which is probably why they didn't work.

Fact is, each person lives their own life and tries to get ahead accordingly. You can't expect equality because there is no all-knowing mediator that could possibly make that happen -- it's just people working with other people, and everyone has to keep their own position as a priority. There will always be exploitation.

No economic system is "better" or "worse." It depends on the needs and attitudes of the governed body. At one point, capitalism was ideal because industry was much more localized, and therefore much easier to regulate in that area.

Remember that capitalism depends on the consumer. It's dependent on the choice of the buyers -- any sort of competition is done to make the product more desirable. The power in big business comes from the convenience or need of its service -- and, more specifically, the refusal of the consumer to change his or her pattern of spending.

If you shop at Walmart, you're part of the problem. If you buy produce that's been shipped, you're part of the problem. Everything you buy determines the system you're in.

The idea that capitalism is destroying people's lives is not going to solve anything. Socialism will not work any better in America right now because consumers refuse to take on responsibility for their contribution. Do you think Americans will really accept the type of taxes that are necessary in a socialist government? Do you think they'll be happy with the limitations to their "freedom?" I doubt it.

All systems will fail if the individuals that are a part of it are not thoughtful. The problems in our economic system reflects a deeper problem in our society -- a problem involving avoiding responsibility, lack of maturity, and a victim mentality.

I am starting a club at my university called Society for Responsible Consumerism addressing this problem because quite frankly, moaning and bitching and pointing fingers will not change anything. Everyone in this system is simply human -- all the CEOs, all the politicians, all the consumers. And if we put the responsibility back on the people as opposed to the Great Mysterious Rulers of the System, we could actually make some progress.

 

[sweetea]

Actually that is the very definition of laissez-faire capitalism ...

Sure. But where the hell is that goin' on?

It's tough to critique or analyse an economy that doesn't really exist.

 

[~jet]

Sure. But where the hell is that goin' on?

It's tough to critique or analyse an economy that doesn't really exist.

Oh, it has never succeeded at any point in recorded human history... it invariably led to aristocracy, corruption, and collapse. The issue is convincing the CEOs, hedge funds, Pseudoconservatives and their cronies of that before they do the same to the modern world. They are pushing VERY hard to get us there, and the opposition is too 'nice' to fight back.

 

[sweetea]

Oh, it has never succeeded at any point in recorded human history... it invariably led to aristocracy, corruption, and collapse.

If it never succeeded how did it lead to aristocracy, corruption and collapse?

 

[~jet]

Remember that capitalism depends on the consumer. It's dependent on the choice of the buyers -- any sort of competition is done to make the product more desirable. The power in big business comes from the convenience or need of its service -- and, more specifically, the refusal of the consumer to change his or her pattern of spending.

If you shop at Walmart, you're part of the problem. If you buy produce that's been shipped, you're part of the problem. Everything you buy determines the system you're in.

True enough, but this ignores the long-demonstrated truth that people are more often than not skittish creatures, and are easily manipulated when fearful or desperate. If you make sure the working class is afraid, you can get them to do what you want more often than not. If you keep them off balance, you can pay them less... if they are paid less, and you have some control over pricing, you can ensure they can only afford to buy from you even if, as is the case with walmart, the long term cost is much higher than buying a single high quality item once. You skim vast sums of profit which you then use to buy legislation and judgements so that you can curdle regulations that would have kept you honest into a trap that kills off your competitors instead, removing pressures on you to keep your services and goods honest and reasonable. Further, in a system that prioritizes profit over all else, education, health, and security become profitable commodities and you can ensure that the lowest classes have little to no access to any; thus perpetuating the ignorance and fear that ensures you'll never be cornered into paying them their true dues for the large fraction of their lives their dedicating to lining your pockets while barely scraping by themselves.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Oh, it has never succeeded at any point in recorded human history... it invariably led to aristocracy, corruption, and collapse. The issue is convincing the CEOs, hedge funds, Pseudoconservatives and their cronies of that before they do the same to the modern world. They are pushing VERY hard to get us there, and the opposition is too 'nice' to fight back.

You're talking about CEOs, pseudoconservatives, and all that as if they are a solid front at war with the common people. They're not a single clump group trying to destroy everyone under them.

While I am not pleased with their position either, before you target them, ask yourself: where do they get their power? What is their position dependent on?

A rash, war-like attitude is not going to improve society.

 

[~jet]

If it never succeeded how did it lead to aristocracy, corruption and collapse?

? These results were the death of said laissez-faire societies, thus ending in failure.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

[MENTION=3019]~jet[/MENTION]; extreme liberal capitalism doesn't seem to exist anywhere in the world today. It is portrayed in movies like the oldie "The Fifth Element" in which there is basically only one significant corporation called "Zorg Corporation".

Government regulations seem to ensure that in most countries only a moderate capitalism is possible.

 

[~jet]

You're talking about CEOs, pseudoconservatives, and all that as if they are a solid front at war with the common people. They're not a single clump group trying to destroy everyone under them.

While I am not pleased with their position either, before you target them, ask yourself: where do they get their power? What is their position dependent on?

A rash, war-like attitude is not going to improve society.

Have you seen what's been happening lately? The efforts to cull the status of the worker in America and Europe has been extremely coordinated, aggressive, and ultimately unnecessary. The last 30 years have demonstrated where all the benefits have gone, and to suggest otherwise requires an unobservant nature.

 

[~jet]

[MENTION=3019]~jet[/MENTION]; extreme liberal capitalism doesn't seem to exist anywhere in the world today. It is portrayed in movies like the oldie "The Fifth Element" in which there is basically only one significant corporation called "Zorg Corporation".

Government regulations seem to ensure that in most countries only a moderate capitalism is possible.

If we were still living in the 50's, I'd be forced to agree with you... problem is, this is less and less true every day.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

If we were still living in the 50's, I'd be forced to agree with you... problem is, this is less and less true every day.

Perhaps you could illustrate your concerns with examples of existing monopolies.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Have you seen what's been happening lately? The efforts to cull the status of the worker in America and Europe has been extremely coordinated, aggressive, and ultimately unnecessary. The last 30 years have demonstrated where all the benefits have gone, and to suggest otherwise requires an unobservant nature.

They are doing that because they understand that they don't actually have power above the average consumer. For instance, if we do become serious about sustainability (which is become more and more of a possibility), then oil companies, which are absolutely huge, would fail.

They are businesses -- they are people trying to keep their livelihood up. Fortunately for us, we determine the strength they have. If you want to do something about it, figure out where your money is going, change your spending habits, and teach others to do the same. That's how economic systems work, and that's how to control them.

 

[~jet]

Perhaps you could illustrate your concerns with examples of existing monopolies.

Who needs a monopoly when you have a Cartel? Who needs a cartel when you can afford to buy judges and politicians? Need you look any further than speculator hedge fund managers who engineered (intentionally or not, it almost doesn't matter, and will probably vary from entity to entity) the current crisis. These are the same people who sit on trillions, can influence entire industries through stock and bond sales and purchases, who gamble and bet using seemingly non-existant but entirely consequential instruments called 'derivatives' evaluated beyond the total price of the entire planet several times over (i.e., recognizably unsustainable) that are now funding the campaigns of all these (mostly but not entirely) right-wing governors, senators, representatives, and (if differently) judges in order keep themselves off the hot-seat as the consequences of their actions melt down while going after the middle and working classes to make up the difference (re: wisconsin, ohio, pennsylvania, florida, california, oregon, maine, new hampshire, (the list goes on, and not just in this country, either, if all the protests in europe are of any indication.))

Regardless of how many names there are, there are only 7 actual health insurers in the country, and they operate in tandem more often than in competition with one another, and commit recission with relatively impunity. Interstate exchange laws in regards to credit cards (and, if they get their way, insurers) allow the one state in the nation with the least regulations to allow all the creditors to have their way with EVERY state regardless of local laws; they certainly aren't behaving particularly competitive.

What of military contractors who fail to deliver on contracts on time (and sometimes not at all) in excess of 80% of the time, and well over budget even more often than that? The worker isn't being asked if they approve of that, and no-bid contracts are proliferating. Competition isn't healthy in that realm either.

Taxpayers aren't being asked if they're okay with handing GE and Exxon welfare checks (in the form of unpaid tax refunds (they each having paid in a grand total of 0) and ridiculous subsidies) in spite of both being far better off than self-sustainably profitable. Where's the competition in that?

In the Citizens United case last year, the right-wing supreme court compounded an error they made (in a much earlier case in which they said it was okay for a corporation/business to lie) by saying that these same entities can dispense ~any~ amount of money they want in regards to political advertising (which should not be confused with giving politicans money directly.) Any of the above names can afford to drop five times what Obama raised in advertising and are not required to be honest in the messages they dispense to a public that only has access to corporate owned mass media these days (since these same powers have been systematically getting public media defunded and destroyed.) Is this competitive? Media is a grand monopoly and 90 plus percent of all small radio states that remain are still conservative (quote-unquote) in nature, sometimes in the guise of being a religious station (and thus taking tax money and not having to pay any in) in spite of the majority of their programming being anything but religious.

Instead of paying the price for their shinanigans, these people are using the vast sums of money they've made and continue to make in order to obfuscate the data and buy any and all legislation they can in order to further their interests. Walker talks to who he believed was a Koch, happily going on about his crusade against organized labor. Children in Maine are being primed to be reduced to laborers again at a modest fraction of minimum wage. Wages go down for and taxes (i.e., cost of living) go up on the working class while the income of the uberwealthy increase ten to a hundred fold in just a couple short decades. Power is consolidated and the fact that these people are getting away with the dissection of entire nations without penalty is significant evidence to that fact.

Sorry to go on and on; it's just kinda important to me. I, at the very least, and glad to see every day people standing up for themselves now that it's dawning on them how bad the GINI index in this country is getting. It's even worse than china.

 

[~jet]

They are doing that because they understand that they don't actually have power above the average consumer. For instance, if we do become serious about sustainability (which is become more and more of a possibility), then oil companies, which are absolutely huge, would fail.

They are businesses -- they are people trying to keep their livelihood up. Fortunately for us, we determine the strength they have. If you want to do something about it, figure out where your money is going, change your spending habits, and teach others to do the same. That's how economic systems work, and that's how to control them.

You are right... we DO determine this for ourselves. We are all capable of growing some food on the side (thus deflating demand and thus absurd prices), making our own products, teaching each other and selling to each other. I would love nothing better. The problem is that the war on information/education combined with general fiscal distress is keeping the general public from having the time and energy to realize that. I'm not really helping matters either since my near-hysteria on the matter is probably more of a turn off than a wake up call. I've not yet mastered the magic of 'stone soup' by a long shot

 

[~jet]

And just today, the supreme court cut us deeply once again:

http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Concepcion/

The net effect is that effective now, any terms of service contract can now include a 'you can't sue us in a class action lawsuit' clause and you can either accept it or go without the vast majority of services available today. Just as it was with the Pinto death calculation, ATT calculated that no individual would sue them for the $33 they were overcharging when it would cost tens to hundreds of times that to sue on an individual basis. In reaction to this, a class-action was generated to act on behalf of EVERYONE who was being cheated out of their $33 (myself included)... and SCOTUS not only shot it down but now has, without consent from congress, the president, or the public at large, dictated law that allows this and every other service provider the freedom to nickel and dime people to death without fear of penalty.

When the rich own the law, it doesn't matter what your definition of monopoly is.

 

[Galileo]

To be honest I think it starts with learning to actually give a damn about other people and phasing out the competitiveness of most of our systems....


For the most part, we know that most of our cheap goods comes from people who are living in vertual slavery, but and we might half-heartedly admit that it's wrong if pressed, but for the most part we don't really care and we just keep buying the cheap stuff anyway, because it's cheap, and hey, they aren't people we're ever likely to meet, so 'who cares eh'?



to be honest to actually get rid of some of the more disgraceful business practices in use today it's going to take a massive attitude change from a large percentage of the population, and I just do not see it forthcoming.

 

[~jet]

You know what; An analogy occurred to me.

Capitalism could be likened to alcohol consumption. A modest amount of it is actually GOOD for you... cleans our your arteries vs. incentivizing growth, invention, personal excellence, etc... but it also open the door to temptation to consume more than you should. The more you have, the more you feel you can/should have to the point where you become a drunk (and probably a mean/abusive drunk, at that) and if you continue further, you end in liver failure/the collapse of your society.

 

[bamf]

They are doing that because they understand that they don't actually have power above the average consumer. For instance, if we do become serious about sustainability (which is become more and more of a possibility), then oil companies, which are absolutely huge, would fail.

They are businesses -- they are people trying to keep their livelihood up. Fortunately for us, we determine the strength they have. If you want to do something about it, figure out where your money is going, change your spending habits, and teach others to do the same. That's how economic systems work, and that's how to control them.

I'm sorry, but I disagree completely. Our entire world is comodidized. They are the small capital class, aka the political class. They have the money to lobby (buy) politicians to create laws that good only for their interest. It's growing more and more difficult to have any "control" over the capital class. Public land is being sold off as private, public services are being privatized, schools are being sold to charter schools, all because our economy is "failing." The things we people have fought for for decades are being packaged up and given away to business interests because of a "bad economy." Well who made the economy bad? Bad and speculative business who then got bailed out, pay little/no taxes, and even have the ability to sue the government for loss in profits should it enforce some environmental regulations (thank you NAFTA).

The capitalists own the politicians, and we have less and less of a say in our government. It's hard to make conscious decisions as a consumer, or to educate others to do the same, when almost all of the market is working against you.

 

[manatee]

I'm sorry, but I disagree completely. Our entire world is comodidized. They are the small capital class, aka the political class. They have the money to lobby (buy) politicians to create laws that good only for their interest. It's growing more and more difficult to have any "control" over the capital class. Public land is being sold off as private, public services are being privatized, schools are being sold to charter schools, all because our economy is "failing." The things we people have fought for for decades are being packaged up and given away to business interests because of a "bad economy." Well who made the economy bad? Bad and speculative business who then got bailed out, pay little/no taxes, and even have the ability to sue the government for loss in profits should it enforce some environmental regulations (thank you NAFTA).

The capitalists own the politicians, and we have less and less of a say in our government. It's hard to make conscious decisions as a consumer, or to educate others to do the same, when almost all of the market is working against you.

Agreed. For too long have powerful corporations managed to earn profits by shady means, spending their time on lobbying and political entrepreneurship rather than economic entrepreneurship. Subsidies enable them to extort money from consumers without their consent, regulations shield them from competition, easy credit lets them profit through absurd bubble-speculation, "bailouts" socialize their costs while their profits remain internal, pseudo-"free trade" organizations which pretty much only work to serve special interests (had free trade been the goal, nor organizations would have been needed), and quasi-privatizations schemes through which tax money is simply funneled to corporations without the consumers' consent are all symptoms of the cancerous corporatism plaguing America and the rest of the western world today.

How about having actual capitalism, instead of a corporatist interventionist half-way socialist economy in which the ones in power blame the non-existent free markets for the disastrous consequences of their meddling, taking every chance they can to increase their power and be an even bigger racket for the lobbyists?