Unbridled Capitalism is self-destructive

[Estro Felino]

Not only Christians but also atheists (thinkers, mainly) have reached the awareness that the 20th century (and this 21st) have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that economic growth is a good thing. But it cannot be restless and infinite, because we are mortal beings and because we live in a finite world.
So it's like applying limitless and restless criteria on a limited, finite world.
It's absolutely contradictory: unbridled Capitalism benefits from eternal, restless and continuous growth. More people are on Earth, more customers will buy Capitalists' products, and more profit will be made.
But, the more world population grows, the more we need to increase the production of goods and services. The more we need to exploit waters, to raise farm animals, to grow plants, to cut down trees, to deplete seas.
And the more we will increase the production, the more workers we will need, so more and more workforce. More and more millions and millions of workers.
And more and more people on Earth, more and more Capitalism. It's a vicious cycle. A self-destructive vicious cycle because sooner or later all petroleum, all resources, all trees will run out.

Profit Maximization → More workers needed → Population needs to increase → More and more production to support the population growth → more and more workers → more and more population → more and more production → profit maximization

Imagine another scenario: small communities where all cooperate. There is a very limited and state-controlled capitalism. People invest and make profit for the community's sake, and not for their own personal gain. Since there is not the obsession with profit maximization, people will produce only what they need.
Less and less workers needed. Less and less births. Less and less production.

I think unbridled capitalism and profit maximization are evil concepts. That belong in minds with a very low degree of awareness.

 

[wellwisher]

The problem is not Capitalism, but Big Government favoritism and interference. For example, green energy has come to the forefront, not due to optimized free market forces, but due to Government interference. This favoritism and interference caused the price of oil to increase and oil companies to see record profits, due to the price inflation that it created. Socialist then blames business and not Government for the problem. This is the problem with Socialism; offers cover for bad government. In Socialism, there is way too much government interference, and little incentive for the hard work needed to optimize the economy; free ride mentality.

Think of it this way, tax money given to the US government creates a negative rate of return due to the interest that the Government needs to pay to cover their ever increasing national debt. This is the worse investment you can make. Nobody in a free market would willingly put their money in a bank that they know will charge you interest for nothing; negative rate of return. How can such inefficiency ever be expected to add up to a healthy and growing economy.

A free market would welcome all new innovation such as green energy, but it would be up to green energy to become competitive with the current forms of cheaper energy, so the consumer benefits by changing. When we add a dysfunctional Government, that gets a negative rate of return, the benefits get reversed, so families have to pay more for less; shortages and inflation.

Technology, such as computers and TV's is an example of the free market at its best. Good quality and useful products keep getting better and better and cheaper and cheaper due to competition for market share. This reflect increasing efficiency of resources, and each consumer getting more and more value for their dollar. The free market does not play favorites, but competes based on quality and price; going up and down, respectively.

Cheating the free market occurs when lobbyist from business pay politicians to interfere; stack the deck with rules that destroy free competition, such as was done with green energy. Business cannot change the laws on their own via the free market. They need Government to do the dirty work. When the doers of the dirty work lead the economy, everyone suffers except a few.

 

[Estro Felino]

The problem is not Capitalism, but Big Government favoritism and interference. For example, green energy has come to the forefront, not due to optimized free market forces, but due to Government interference. This favoritism and interference caused the price of oil to increase and oil companies to see record profits, due to the price inflation that it created. Socialist then blames business and not Government for the problem. This is the problem with Socialism; offers cover for bad government. In Socialism, there is way too much government interference, and little incentive for the hard work needed to optimize the economy; free ride mentality.

Think of it this way, tax money given to the US government creates a negative rate of return due to the interest that the Government needs to pay to cover their ever increasing national debt. This is the worse investment you can make. Nobody in a free market would willingly put their money in a bank that they know will charge you interest for nothing; negative rate of return. How can such inefficiency ever be expected to add up to a healthy and growing economy.

A free market would welcome all new innovation such as green energy, but it would be up to green energy to become competitive with the current forms of cheaper energy, so the consumer benefits by changing. When we add a dysfunctional Government, that gets a negative rate of return, the benefits get reversed, so families have to pay more for less; shortages and inflation.

Technology, such as computers and TV's is an example of the free market at its best. Good quality and useful products keep getting better and better and cheaper and cheaper due to competition for market share. This reflect increasing efficiency of resources, and each consumer getting more and more value for their dollar. The free market does not play favorites, but competes based on quality and price; going up and down, respectively.

Cheating the free market occurs when lobbyist from business pay politicians to interfere; stack the deck with rules that destroy free competition, such as was done with green energy. Business cannot change the laws on their own via the free market. They need Government to do the dirty work. When the doers of the dirty work lead the economy, everyone suffers except a few.

I have never said that Capitalism is bad.
I said unbridled Capitalism is Satanic.
But Capitalism made up of fair competition, fair behavior and cooperation is not bad at all.
Re-read it.

 

[Stevicus]

Not only Christians but also atheists (thinkers, mainly) have reached the awareness that the 20th century (and this 21st) have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that economic growth is a good thing. But it cannot be restless and infinite, because we are mortal beings and because we live in a finite world.
So it's like applying limitless and restless criteria on a limited, finite world.
It's absolutely contradictory: unbridled Capitalism benefits from eternal, restless and continuous growth. More people are on Earth, more customers will buy Capitalists' products, and more profit will be made.
But, the more world population grows, the more we need to increase the production of goods and services. The more we need to exploit waters, to raise farm animals, to grow plants, to cut down trees, to deplete seas.
And the more we will increase the production, the more workers we will need, so more and more workforce. More and more millions and millions of workers.
And more and more people on Earth, more and more Capitalism. It's a vicious cycle. A self-destructive vicious cycle because sooner or later all petroleum, all resources, all trees will run out.

Profit Maximization → More workers needed → Population needs to increase → More and more production to support the population growth → more and more workers → more and more population → more and more production → profit maximization

Imagine another scenario: small communities where all cooperate. There is a very limited and state-controlled capitalism. People invest and make profit for the community's sake, and not for their own personal gain. Since there is not the obsession with profit maximization, people will produce only what they need.
Less and less workers needed. Less and less births. Less and less production.

I think unbridled capitalism and profit maximization are evil concepts. That belong in minds with a very low degree of awareness.

I recall that, back during the 70s, there were noticeable concerns about overpopulation and the long-term effects it could have on the environment, economy, and the quality of life. Yet, by the time of the Reagan era, all those concerns seemingly went away or became of lesser importance. Same thing for the energy crisis. There was a big push towards conservation and fuel-efficient cars, but then, by the 80s, all those concerns disappeared and people went back to gas-guzzlers and unlimited consumption.

Even in ongoing debates on climate change, there doesn't appear to be as much concern about population growth as there is about other aspects, and I've always found this to be rather curious. However, it does make sense from the viewpoint of those who are in constant need of a steady and plentiful supply of cheap labor.

Now, we have a world population of somewhere 8 billion. As a one-world socialist, I believe a worthwhile goal should be to unify the world through economic expansion to the point where everyone in the world has a comparable standard of living. This means that everyone has the same living conditions that one might have in a typical state in the U.S. There would be infrastructure reaching every community - electricity, railroads, pipelines, communications, etc. There would be fixed housing with the same comforts that one can typically find in a U.S. home. Most working people would have cars, phones, computers, electronics - just like most consumers would have. There would be superhighways across South America, Africa, Asia - along with gas stations, truck stops, hotels, recreational facilities, etc.

In other words, the goal would be for everyone to have a first-world standard of living that most bourgeois capitalists have in the United States. We have to assume that the capitalists running this world have the resources to provide all of this for 8 billion people - otherwise they would not have behaved so recklessly and myopically these past 100 years.

The capitalists clearly must have known that the world had more than enough resources to provide for a population many times in size, otherwise they would not have managed things so poorly. After all, they're capitalists, and capitalists fancy themselves as being so much smarter than all the losers who have lesser wealth than they do.

Therefore, if there are disparities in wealth or shortages of resources or any supply chain difficulties, then it is being caused intentionally by capitalists - and it is on this basis that political opposition is formed. There can be no starvation, unless capitalists intentionally want people to starve, and such unmitigated malice on the part of capitalists is what incurs the wrath of the anti-capitalist revolutionary.

 

[Revoltingest]

I said unbridled Capitalism is Satanic.

Is bridled capitalism godly?

 

[Estro Felino]

I recall that, back during the 70s, there were noticeable concerns about overpopulation and the long-term effects it could have on the environment, economy, and the quality of life. Yet, by the time of the Reagan era, all those concerns seemingly went away or became of lesser importance. Same thing for the energy crisis. There was a big push towards conservation and fuel-efficient cars, but then, by the 80s, all those concerns disappeared and people went back to gas-guzzlers and unlimited consumption.

Even in ongoing debates on climate change, there doesn't appear to be as much concern about population growth as there is about other aspects, and I've always found this to be rather curious. However, it does make sense from the viewpoint of those who are in constant need of a steady and plentiful supply of cheap labor.

Now, we have a world population of somewhere 8 billion. As a one-world socialist, I believe a worthwhile goal should be to unify the world through economic expansion to the point where everyone in the world has a comparable standard of living. This means that everyone has the same living conditions that one might have in a typical state in the U.S. There would be infrastructure reaching every community - electricity, railroads, pipelines, communications, etc. There would be fixed housing with the same comforts that one can typically find in a U.S. home. Most working people would have cars, phones, computers, electronics - just like most consumers would have. There would be superhighways across South America, Africa, Asia - along with gas stations, truck stops, hotels, recreational facilities, etc.

In other words, the goal would be for everyone to have a first-world standard of living that most bourgeois capitalists have in the United States. We have to assume that the capitalists running this world have the resources to provide all of this for 8 billion people - otherwise they would not have behaved so recklessly and myopically these past 100 years.

The capitalists clearly must have known that the world had more than enough resources to provide for a population many times in size, otherwise they would not have managed things so poorly. After all, they're capitalists, and capitalists fancy themselves as being so much smarter than all the losers who have lesser wealth than they do.

Therefore, if there are disparities in wealth or shortages of resources or any supply chain difficulties, then it is being caused intentionally by capitalists - and it is on this basis that political opposition is formed. There can be no starvation, unless capitalists intentionally want people to starve, and such unmitigated malice on the part of capitalists is what incurs the wrath of the anti-capitalist revolutionary.

Very thorough analysis.
It's also a matter of time. All economics scholars agree on the fact that re-adjustments in the short run and in the medium run are impossible, because it takes time.
Only in the long run there can be significant improvements, but they are not to be taken for granted.


It's the vicious cycle that scares me. Not the consequences in the short run. Because the vicious cycle implies we will never get out of it.

 

[Estro Felino]

Is bridled capitalism godly?

Let's say it's super-fine.

 

[Revoltingest]

There can be no starvation, unless capitalists intentionally want people to starve, and such unmitigated malice on the part of capitalists is what incurs the wrath of the anti-capitalist revolutionary.

Intentional starvation has been the record of
your beloved socialists, eg, the Holodomor.

 

[Stevicus]

Intentional starvation has been the record of
your beloved socialists, eg, the Holodomor.

You're speaking of kulaks, who were capitalists.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's say it's super-fine.

A fundie friend says that socialism is Satanic.
Biden is Satanic. Democrats are Satanic.
Marxism & Islam are Satanic.

"Satanic" is such an over-used epithet.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're speaking of kulaks, who were capitalists.

What about Fran & Olie?

Holodomor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Before you go to bed at nite,
do you check underneath for capitalists?

 

[Estro Felino]

A fundie friend says that socialism is Satanic.
Biden is Satanic. Democrats are Satanic.
Marxism & Islam are Satanic.

"Satanic" is such an over-used epithet.

I would like to understand something:
if you are an atheist and believe Satan doesn't exist, why does it bother you that I use the term Satanic?



Thank you in advance.

 

[Shaul]

OMG. I haven't read such a fundamental misunderstanding of Capitalism in hours. Read the Wealth of Nations. Buy a vowel. Get a clue.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would like to understand something:
if you are an atheist and believe Satan doesn't exist, why does it bother you that I use the term Satanic?

Bother me?
It entertains me!
it reeks of religiosity devoid of understanding.

 

[Estro Felino]

OMG. I haven't read such a fundamental misunderstanding of Capitalism in hours. Read the Wealth of Nations. Buy a vowel. Get a clue.

Shall I read someone who used to believe in an invisible hand?

I'd rather believe in elves and dwarves.

 

[Stevicus]

What about Fran & Olie?

Holodomor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Before you go to bed at nite,
do you check underneath for capitalists?

https://www.garethjones.org/tottlefraud.pdf

 

[Estro Felino]

Bother me?
It entertains me!
it reeks of religiosity devoid of understanding.

Exactly.
Because your individualistic, personal, private beliefs certainly influenced your vision of politics.

Same as for me: my religion certainly and deeply influences my political ideas.

Agree?

 

[Revoltingest]

OMG. I haven't read such a fundamental misunderstanding of Capitalism in hours. Read the Wealth of Nations. Buy a vowel. Get a clue.

Strong in their faith these socialists are.
No matter that failure dogs their every
attempt, there's always an excuse & hope
that this time, they'll get an authoritarian
economic system right.

 

[Revoltingest]

https://www.garethjones.org/tottlefraud.pdf

I give you a cromulent Wikipedia article about mass starvation by the Soviets.
You give me some obscure page that won't load.
Socialism....failure in every way.

 

[Estro Felino]

You're speaking of kulaks, who were capitalists.

Apparently...

Propaganda works like a charm...