Is capitalism the best model?

manatee said:
regulations shield them from competition
Click to expand...

That's true today, but prior to the 80s (and since the 30s), it was regulations that protected the consumer from corporations... it was illegal, for example, for an investment bank to also be a savings bank until Reagan. (and we've been having banking scandals ever since he tore out that particular regulation.) Saying paint can't have lead is a regulation. Saying emissions have to be clean is a regulation. Saying someone has to honor a contract they signed is... yup... a regulation. Hell, GRAVITY is a regulation in the grand scheme of things.

So on and so forth... but then again, Corps have gotten written into law a litany of regulations that they are already primed to survive, but small fries would be murdered by, so... yes, you're currently right. I'm just afraid that people will turn away from the concept of regulation in err if so blanket a statement was said as that.

I guess it's like trying to watch a sport that has no rules. It might be fun to watch for the first five minutes, but when there is no point and no way to tell how either side is actually doing, all you can hope for is that some of the players look nice.
 
Last edited:
~jet said:
That's true today, but prior to the 80s (and since the 30s), it was regulations that protected the consumer from corporations... it was illegal, for example, for an investment bank to also be a savings bank until Reagan. (and we've been having banking scandals ever since he tore out that particular regulation.) Saying paint can't have lead is a regulation. Saying emissions have to be clean is a regulation. Saying someone has to honor a contract they signed is... yup... a regulation. Hell, GRAVITY is a regulation in the grand scheme of things.

So on and so forth... but then again, Corps have gotten written into law a litany of regulations that they are already primed to survive, but small fries would be murdered by, so... yes, you're currently right. I'm just afraid that people will turn away from the concept of regulation in err if so blanket a statement was said as that.

I guess it's like trying to watch a sport that has no rules. It might be fun to watch for the first five minutes, but when there is no point and no way to tell how either side is actually doing, all you can hope for is that some of the players look nice.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about calling the upholding of contractual obligations a regulation, since that combined with private property is simply the conditions necessary for a market to be called a free market, without those it's simply a jungle. Some would probably argue that the distinction is that regulations are artificial and created by humans, which leaves out stuff like gravity and, according to a few, contractual obligations, self-ownership etc. :P

I agree on banking, by not only allowing (arguably fraudulent) fractional reserves, but even encouraging them, and alleviating the task of upholding it by the institution of a central bank, the state endorses criminal activity which wouldn't be accepted in a free society. American banking debacles have been occurring quite regularly since the late 19th century, but they certainly have been intensified lately, and while I'd attribute most of it to the final move away from having the dollar backed by gold, other reforms servicing the bankers probably contribute too.

Regarding pollution: this issue was solved by tort laws instead of regulations in the early 19th century, in the USA. If a factory polluted and infringed on your property, you could take them to court and had an actual chance at winning. If you won, you'd get reparations and an injunction making sure they wouldn't violate your rights again. Unfortunately, gov't came up with the idea that individuals' rights shouldn't matter if they oppose the "common good". This meant that they allowed factories to pollute to their hearts content since this was seen as good for society. It would be possible to get back to that system. Heck, I think even global warming might be possible to address as a tort, but I'm not really sure about it.

And when it comes to lead, I would actually oppose such regulation too :P If producers want to use lead in their paint and people willingly purchase it, I really see no reason to use violence to stop them from doing this. Of course, this doesn't mean that I'd argue for allowing fraud. But I don't see it as gov't's business to interfere with consensual trade, as long as it doesn't hurt a party not involved in the agreement. Frankly, I think this one, too, was implemented to damage competition. If the consumers don't want lead paint, they'll avoid buying it. If companies insist on producing it any way, they go bankrupt. The only scenario in which the regulation would actually have any considerable effect is if people actually do want lead paint, and if this were the case, it'd be immoral and unwarranted to stop them from obtaining it.

I don't think I'm willing, yet, to state that all regulation is necessarily bad, hedging one's bets seems appropriate. I can't really remember any, right now, that I would endorse, though (unless you count enforcing contracts and similar things as regulations), and the vast majority of them really seem to be superfluous and intended to serve special interests by limiting competition, not to mention serving the bureaucracy enforcing the regulations, by expanding its power.
 
After greater industrialization, there was some regulation needed in order to protect the rights and livelihood of workers -- but then, of course, that step was taken advantage of, and now regulations often work in the favor of the corporation, which is depressing.
All things in moderation.

bamf said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is true. However, politicians also need to have support from the people. What we are most lacking is the means of educating the people on all that corruption -- with knowledge of the issues and a proposal to correct it, there may yet be progress

I don't think we've made as much of a statement as we could. Protesting, marches, and all that don't really do shit anymore. However, we do have access to the knowledge of what is going on in our government, even if people often don't have time to do the (sometimes extensive) research involved. We also have access to media.

If enough people are outraged, and if they unify for a common goal through an organized plan, we might get to seeing results. The problem right now is that there are a bunch of people everywhere saying a bunch of things, but they are not unified. There lacks any powerful center for information and organized reform. Everybody's talk and no game -- that's what needs to change.

It starts with a community and strength in numbers. Those are two things that still are very much in the process
 
Am I the only one who thinks about the injustices of capitalism nearly 24/7? Has anyone else fantasized about burning giant piles of money? Just curious.
 
ImNotFullyJressed said:
It sounds like you are referring to Mexicans when you say "illegal aliens" are free loaders. It also sounds like you have some construction experience and that you feel like an outcast because you are a different race from most of your co-workers. (i'm just guessing please correct me if i'm wrong)

In my opinion, "Illegal Aliens" aren't free loaders, they bring a ton of value to our country and the media loves to despise them. People take advantage of them all the time also. Some people hire them to do labor and then when they finish the job say "fuck off". The "illegal aliens" can't do anything about it because they are here illegally. They have no choice but to accept their losses.

"Queremos norte" is what the starving people in Mexico say. Its connotation can be translated as "we are eager to come to America and work because we want a better life".
Click to expand...

I don't care what race they are. They better be here legally. If we are going to let Mexico move north then why not just open the doors to America and let everyone in? And dissolve citizenship all together? My cousin's wife is from Russia it took her 3 years to be able to come to America even though they were married! My buddy got deported back to England because his visa ran out. Why are we persecuting them? I get screwed in my line of work too. As a matter of fact I have a guy that owes me that won't pay up. I put a lean on his house. It's all I can do now...
 
No, it's not because it is prone to crises. Also because it involve the exploitation of people and in its extreme form (say, Chile) it undermines democracy.
 
Best at what? Spreading the wealth? No not really you have to work for it, hard... best at taking human nature into account and making it work best? Yes... it is the best in that regard.
 
I like capitalism because the other thing is just state capitalism and usually the state doesn't work so well since it has to be there to govern capitalism, not be capitalist. Not sure if that makes any sense, but if the government is running the show, who's there to critique it? Nobody. So you get Kim Jong-Il at the wheel, and the rest of us are hitched to the back of his speedboat, left to the sharks.

I like individual capitalism but people have to be clever in jobs and build trust, and joke around, and get people to go against their better judgement and selfish interests to help out. It's like you have to play games with people all day long to get them to function properly, but that too is capitalism. It brings out the wily survivor in a person, instead of a person who just signs on with a philosophy, turns their brains off, and waits for the monthly check. It's painful to be alive. But being dead is worse. Not that I've tried it.
 
Barnabas said:
I wouldn't call china working to well.
Click to expand...

Better than the United States, at least during all the crises of capitalism, e.g. the banking crisis, the Asia crisis in 1997. At double-digit growth, China performs also better than the US and the "Chinese model" (state-led development) now has a strong influence in the world. Basically most of Africa is looking towards that model because it creates real results, compared to the promises of the West which is just another form of colonialism.
 
technics said:
Better than the United States, at least during all the crises of capitalism, e.g. the banking crisis, the Asia crisis in 1997. At double-digit growth, China performs also better than the US and the "Chinese model" (state-led development) now has a strong influence in the world. Basically most of Africa is looking towards that model because it creates real results, compared to the promises of the West which is just another form of colonialism.
Click to expand...

Except for the part where China only survives because of the west putting their business into them, not to mention the human rights issues.
 
There is no "best" model. Everything must go.

Capitalism works for farmers and craftsmen. That's also the origin of the gender-roles ideals that we still have, which have no place in our modern tasks to solve.

But if you long for working humane capitalism and old school gender values, go somewhere to live in a society of farmers and craftsmen, and you'll be satisfied.

Science operates on non-capitalist principles for a long time now. It has no national borders; it has universal standard measurements; it accepts the input of anyone regardless of their social status, as long as it works; it shares results openly with the whole of humanity etc. Just look at the Curie family, and try to match it with the capitalist model.

The IT revolution also came from defying the capitalist principles - from hackers, open-source enthusiasts, and free global services. Even Google is an open-source company. Now the open-source model moves to 3D real material objects. The bloody times of patents are about to end - they've killed more inventors than they have helped.
 
Last edited:
A lot of people like the Scandinavian model. It's socialism with a Lutheran background. Most of the Scandinavian states were 100% Lutheran until about the last thirty years. Finland still has a state church that is Lutheran. Luther mandated lots of social thinking: he said no one in a company should make more than ten times what the lowest-paid person makes. And yet there are also human rights in the model.

In China there are things like journalists spend lots of time in prison (the only place with more journalists in prison is Cuba).

China has invaded Tibet, and has killed and tortured millions of Tibetans.

China is in Africa, but it's an exploitative usage that they seek to administer. China is on the UN Security Council and it allows Sudan to kill Christians in the south of the Sudan, and will not allow UN intervention, but this is in exchange for mineral expropriation.

Chinese brass routinely harvest organs from political prisoners.

A group of workers protested the intrusion of wind towers in their Chinese Community a few years ago. There were several thousand protesters. The Chinese government sent in troops and the citizens were massacred.

Money is important, but just having it doesn't mean your life is any good. You have to have other capabilities like the ability to choose where you live, what you are going to do for work, whether wind towers can be built in your town, a clean environment, and of course freedom of speech and the right to own a gun. The last one is kind of controversial (I don't own one) but in a sense it guarantees all the others.
 
technics said:
Better than the United States, at least during all the crises of capitalism, e.g. the banking crisis, the Asia crisis in 1997. At double-digit growth, China performs also better than the US and the "Chinese model" (state-led development) now has a strong influence in the world. Basically most of Africa is looking towards that model because it creates real results, compared to the promises of the West which is just another form of colonialism.
Click to expand...

Apparently you have never been to China, what goes up must come down. They may be growing and dumping all their money into "saving face" IE making their cities better, but the majority of their people still live in abject poverty in places with shitty water, many places without sewers, without social safety nets. Typical of their style, you dont see any of that on the news. I was there in 2005 for a summer, it opened my eyes.
 
problemz said:
A lot of people like the Scandinavian model. It's socialism with a Lutheran background. Most of the Scandinavian states were 100% Lutheran until about the last thirty years. Finland still has a state church that is Lutheran. Luther mandated lots of social thinking: he said no one in a company should make more than ten times what the lowest-paid person makes. And yet there are also human rights in the model.

In China there are things like journalists spend lots of time in prison (the only place with more journalists in prison is Cuba).

China has invaded Tibet, and has killed and tortured millions of Tibetans.

China is in Africa, but it's an exploitative usage that they seek to administer. China is on the UN Security Council and it allows Sudan to kill Christians in the south of the Sudan, and will not allow UN intervention, but this is in exchange for mineral expropriation.

Chinese brass routinely harvest organs from political prisoners.

A group of workers protested the intrusion of wind towers in their Chinese Community a few years ago. There were several thousand protesters. The Chinese government sent in troops and the citizens were massacred.

Money is important, but just having it doesn't mean your life is any good. You have to have other capabilities like the ability to choose where you live, what you are going to do for work, whether wind towers can be built in your town, a clean environment, and of course freedom of speech and the right to own a gun. The last one is kind of controversial (I don't own one) but in a sense it guarantees all the others.
Click to expand...

One thing china is not is socialist; they proclaim to be communist, yes, but operate more like a dictatorship, and employ capitalism as an economic skin for both... it's a bit of a hodgepodge of definitions, but be that as it may, it makes it very clear that capitalism is not the same thing as democracy at all.
 
Orion said:
Wow.. This is incredibly alien to me and very sad. A big part of the attraction of learning and developing skills in my areas of interest and career, is the fact that I can use those skills to teach other people. I love teaching and passing on knowledge and skills. I love that I can help people learn something new through understanding and effort- it's a big part of who I am.
Click to expand...

I once caused my boss to gag in a meeting with a client by politely stating 'This sounds ideal; If we could do this with the system then you wouldn't need me at all, this is great.' Efficiency = joy.
 
I really dislike communism because there's no room for individual feeling and thought. They tend to murder people who insist on their individuality. Don't know why, but that bothers me.
 
problemz said:
I really dislike communism because there's no room for individual feeling and thought. They tend to murder people who insist on their individuality. Don't know why, but that bothers me.
Click to expand...

I've heard this before. "Communism/socialsim kills the human spirit". It's the leaders that kill feeling and though, not the system.

I doubt that having a road system, public schools or the NHS in England kills human spirit of innovation. Capitalism, ultimately, can make a society richer very quickly but when unregulated, the wealth will concentrate into the hands of few.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top