Is capitalism a pig?

[Milton Platt]

And what is the proven alternative?

I agree. No completely unregulated economy comes to mind, tho.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree. No completely unregulated economy comes to mind, tho.

Yes, but we have examples of relatively unregulated capitalism -- the American economy from the Civil War up until Teddy Roosevelt, for instance. That is, during the period of the Robber Barons. And we have examples of relatively regulated capitalism -- the American economy from the end of WWII to the early 1980s, the period of the world's most prosperous Middle Class.

There are also examples of mostly unregulated economies in Latin and South America.

 

[siti]

How do you expect a true democracy if everything is governed by money and money interest.

But so far that's the only system we have tried isn't it? Even so-called "socialist" and "communist" governments have still measured their own success (or failure) by fluctuations in GDP, balance of trade, inflation...etc. If you want true "democracy" then it has to base its decision-making and the metrics by which it measures success on how well it promotes human well-being, satisfaction and happiness (for want of a better set of words). Simply redistributing material wealth doesn't cut it - even less so when the measure of wealth is just a dollar figure. I have mentioned before - in several places - what we really need a politics of empathy and an economy of happiness - but whilst that is my firm belief as to what is genuinely in the collective best interests of humankind, I am equally convinced that in reality, such a system is a pipe dream. We are simply not wired for equality and equity - not matter how much we like to think so. And capitalism has brought us so far - for better or for worse - I am by nature a socialist but you have to admit that if Adam Smith had written a book advocating socialism and we'd all followed instead of Wealth of Nations, we would probably be living in slightly more advanced and slightly more egalitarian agrarian societies than we were in the 18th century. I'd be OK with that (because there's a bigger picture, longer term future) - but you have to concede that it is capitalism that has brought us far from that. To attempt to assert socialist redistributive economics at this stage would be to throw out the baby and keep the bath water IMO.

On the other hand, it is also clear to me that capitalism must ultimately hit the buffers - the earth cannot sustain indefinite economic growth (but I don't know whether that will happen in 10, 100 or 1000 years) - when it does, the human population will decline and that will probably be a good thing in ecological terms. I doubt I'll still be alive when that happens - I fear that my grandchildren might.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was with you up to there

That's enuf for me.

 

[Revoltingest]

The nature of capitalism is self serving is it not.

Not really.
Without providing service to others, one has no business.
Another misconception about capitalism is that it's all about
competition. That's only one element. Anyone who runs a
business knows that cooperation is absolutely essential.
It's just that the mechanisms of service & cooperation differ
from other systems.

 

[osgart]

And what is the proven alternative?

That would take a science and experimentation to find out.

 

[osgart]

But so far that's the only system we have tried isn't it? Even so-called "socialist" and "communist" governments have still measured their own success (or failure) by fluctuations in GDP, balance of trade, inflation...etc. If you want true "democracy" then it has to base its decision-making and the metrics by which it measures success on how well it promotes human well-being, satisfaction and happiness (for want of a better set of words). Simply redistributing material wealth doesn't cut it - even less so when the measure of wealth is just a dollar figure. I have mentioned before - in several places - what we really need a politics of empathy and an economy of happiness - but whilst that is my firm belief as to what is genuinely in the collective best interests of humankind, I am equally convinced that in reality, such a system is a pipe dream. We are simply not wired for equality and equity - not matter how much we like to think so. And capitalism has brought us so far - for better or for worse - I am by nature a socialist but you have to admit that if Adam Smith had written a book advocating socialism and we'd all followed instead of Wealth of Nations, we would probably be living in slightly more advanced and slightly more egalitarian agrarian societies than we were in the 18th century. I'd be OK with that (because there's a bigger picture, longer term future) - but you have to concede that it is capitalism that has brought us far from that. To attempt to assert socialist redistributive economics at this stage would be to throw out the baby and keep the bath water IMO.

On the other hand, it is also clear to me that capitalism must ultimately hit the buffers - the earth cannot sustain indefinite economic growth (but I don't know whether that will happen in 10, 100 or 1000 years) - when it does, the human population will decline and that will probably be a good thing in ecological terms. I doubt I'll still be alive when that happens - I fear that my grandchildren might.

Thats well said, and i cannot disagree.

 

[Milton Platt]

That would take a science and experimentation to find out.

Capitalism has been the most successful economic model to date. I would not want to be the subject of such an "experiment" as you suggest there should be.

 

[serp777]

Seems like everything i make in income, all goes out the window just to survive. The rich have us on a string.

And how is that different from any other system of government? No matter what the political system is, history has shown us that it inevitably leads to the haves and the have nots. It just makes sense that lazy Joe who smokes pot all day and doesn't work, shouldn't and would never have as much as a genius entrepreneur who spends his life bringing advances to millions.

 

[serp777]

But so far that's the only system we have tried isn't it? Even so-called "socialist" and "communist" governments have still measured their own success (or failure) by fluctuations in GDP, balance of trade, inflation...etc. If you want true "democracy" then it has to base its decision-making and the metrics by which it measures success on how well it promotes human well-being, satisfaction and happiness (for want of a better set of words). Simply redistributing material wealth doesn't cut it - even less so when the measure of wealth is just a dollar figure. I have mentioned before - in several places - what we really need a politics of empathy and an economy of happiness - but whilst that is my firm belief as to what is genuinely in the collective best interests of humankind, I am equally convinced that in reality, such a system is a pipe dream. We are simply not wired for equality and equity - not matter how much we like to think so. And capitalism has brought us so far - for better or for worse - I am by nature a socialist but you have to admit that if Adam Smith had written a book advocating socialism and we'd all followed instead of Wealth of Nations, we would probably be living in slightly more advanced and slightly more egalitarian agrarian societies than we were in the 18th century. I'd be OK with that (because there's a bigger picture, longer term future) - but you have to concede that it is capitalism that has brought us far from that. To attempt to assert socialist redistributive economics at this stage would be to throw out the baby and keep the bath water IMO.

On the other hand, it is also clear to me that capitalism must ultimately hit the buffers - the earth cannot sustain indefinite economic growth (but I don't know whether that will happen in 10, 100 or 1000 years) - when it does, the human population will decline and that will probably be a good thing in ecological terms. I doubt I'll still be alive when that happens - I fear that my grandchildren might.

what we really need a politics of empathy and an economy of happiness

This is really a meaningless fairy tale. What does an economy of happiness or a politics of empathy look like?

the earth cannot sustain indefinite economic growth

Nothing is indefinite, but you are not being imaginative enough. As a kardeshev 2 dyson swarm civilization, we could support many thousands of trillions of humans easily in conjunction with a post scarcity civilization. We will need a lot of exponential economic growth to get there. And after that there's a whole galaxy left. The earth is also hardly being utilized at all. Deserts could be terraformed to become the ideal grain belts. Oceans could be colonized and deep earth extraction could bring untold riches. Economic growth will continue for a good deal longer, particularly with the rise of AI and technological advancement. There's no stopping it unless something very catastrophic occurs, like a nuclear holocaust.

 

[siti]

As a kardeshev 2 dyson swarm civilization, we could support many thousands of trillions of humans easily in conjunction with a post scarcity civilization. We will need a lot of exponential economic growth to get there. And after that there's a whole galaxy left. The earth is also hardly being utilized at all. Deserts could be terraformed to become the ideal grain belts. Oceans could be colonized and deep earth extraction could bring untold riches.

This is really a meaningless fairy tale.

'Nuf said...at least for now - but maybe we can talk about this again when we reach Kardeshev I - another 2 or 3 centuries perhaps - by then England might even have won the FIFA World Cup again - whilst we're on the topic of fairy tales.

 

[CruzNichaphor]

Capitalism, at this present moment in human history, reflects humanity's most natural an basic mode of human interaction for the purpose of sustaining itself - pure and simple.

There is nothing inherently good or evil about it.

Political thought for the last 150 years or so has been a political experiment that seeks to alter pure capitalism for the purpose of mitigating inequalities without going overboard and getting millions of people killed or made impoverished - hence: right v left wing political plane.