Unbridled Capitalism is self-destructive

[Debater Slayer]

I don't think much of them nor the argument. The world en masse is progressing towards the elimination of poverty. Both the percentages and absolute levels of poverty have dropped incredibly over the past century and the future portents to be one of plenty never seen before by humanity. We are on the cusp of coming new golden age.

Current expert consensus regarding climate change is that the world will experience an unprecedented crisis if a lot of our current industrialized, consumerist ways don't change significantly in the next two to three decades at most:

• The global average temperature in 2019 was 1.1 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial period, according to WMO.
• 2019 concluded a decade of exceptional global heat, retreating ice and record sea levels driven by greenhouse gases produced by human activities. (WMO)
• 30 per cent of the world’s population is exposed to deadly heat waves more than 20 days a year. (Cooling and Climate Change fact sheet, UNEP)
• Average temperatures for the five-year (2015-2019) and ten-year (2010-2019) periods are the highest on record. (WMO)
• 2019 was the second hottest year on record. (WMO)
• In 2019, total greenhouse gas emissions, including land-use change, reached a new high of 59.1 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e). (EGR, 2020)
• Based on today’s insufficient global commitments to reduce climate polluting emissions, a rebound in greenhouse gases from a return to high-carbon societies after the pandemic may push 2030 emissions even higher – up to 60 GtCO2e. (EGR, 2020)

Facts about the climate emergency

The science of climate change is well established: Climate change is real and human activities are the main cause. (IPCC) The concentration of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere is directly linked to the average global temperature on Earth. (IPCC) The concentration has been rising...

www.unep.org

There won't be a future of plenty if increasingly frequent floods, wildfires, heatwaves, and other disasters ravage more and more countries.

 

[Shaul]

Current expert consensus regarding climate change is that the world will experience an unprecedented crisis if a lot of our current industrialized, consumerist ways don't change significantly in the next two to three decades at most:

Facts about the climate emergency

The science of climate change is well established: Climate change is real and human activities are the main cause. (IPCC) The concentration of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere is directly linked to the average global temperature on Earth. (IPCC) The concentration has been rising...

www.unep.org

There won't be a future of plenty if increasingly frequent floods, wildfires, heatwaves, and other disasters ravage more and more countries.

Okay Cassandra.

 

[Stevicus]

Capitalism either does not work or works quite badly for at least half (or thereabouts) of the global population. To say that capitalism, at least in its current state, "works" seems to me to overlook or be unaware of the catastrophic effects that capitalist exploitation has had on billions of people, especially in Africa, South and Central America, and Asia.

Western capitalism in particular has frequently led to imperialism, exploitation, and abusive interventionism. Its unsustainability is coming to a head now that climate change is worsening and reaching a point where even wealthy countries can no longer afford to ignore it.

I remember considering some conceptions of neoliberal economic alongside developing geopolitical ideals (particularly in the late 80s/early 90s when the Cold War was winding down), which seemed a confluence of new age hippie conceptions of "world peace" and love throughout the world, along with fair and just competition in an unfettered, low-tax free market economy. That didn't necessarily fall in line with the hawkish, warmongering policies which prevailed, but there were those who seemed to have a more idealized view of geopolitics while still embracing free market capitalism and hyper consumerism of "shop, shop, 'til you drop" and the excesses of bourgeois hedonism which still dominate the culture to this day.

This is why many conservatives and others of a more militaristic bent tend to view liberals as naive and unaware of the actual mechanisms by which global power is projected and the ramifications that has on the disparities in wealth around the world. In the same sense, capitalists tend to exhibit a similar level of naivete and very specious reasoning when they attribute the good life people experience in the West as solely due to capitalism and cite that as irrefutable evidence that capitalism is, by far, the superior system. Or as they used to say in those Old Milwaukee commercials: "It doesn't get any better than this."

Of course, in more recent times, we in the West, particularly Western liberals (but also many capitalists) have renounced and condemned our older, more malignant and imperialistic ways. After a few centuries of sailing, pillaging, plundering, and looting and a full-scale system of organized piracy set in place, we suddenly decided we wanted to start playing nice and being kinder and gentler. Of course, that was mighty white of them - something that used to be said back in the day. But the question is, are they going to be able to continue to have their cake and eat it, too? If they want to continue to have the most cake - or as much cake as they continue to have, while still claiming to want to share with others, then they'll have to bake a bigger cake. But what if there aren't enough ingredients? Then we have a problem on our hands.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Okay Cassandra.

You could have tried to address the points from the excerpt instead of using a denigrating epithet. Unless you view the vast majority of climate scientists as "Cassandras," the point I made still stands.

 

[Shaul]

You could have tried to address the points from the excerpt instead of using a denigrating epithet. Unless you view the vast majority of climate scientists as "Cassandras," the point I made still stands.

I supplied a sufficient response to an insufficient post. You cited a bogus "current consensus" "experts" to support an ill-defined bogey man. Sorry, your post doesn't have a point that still stands. It remains pointless.

 

[Heyo]

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.

There is some truth in your rant but it is not what you think it is. Green energy is the worst example you could have chosen. Look at those who really grease the wheels of politics, the millitary-industrial complex is the prime beneficiary with fossil fuel and the other traditional energy market a distant second. Banking, big pharma and gun manufacturers all play a bigger role than green energy.
See if you can find an exclusively green energy company in the top 50 lobbyism spenders:

Top 50 Lobbying Spenders of 2016

Client	2016 Spending	2015 Spending	2015 Rank
U.S. Chamber of Commerce	$103,950,000	$84,730,000	1
National Association of Realtors	$64,821,111	$37,788,407	2
Blue Cross Blue Shield	$25,006,109	$23,702,049	3
American Hospital Association	$20,970,809	$20,687,935	7
Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America	$19,730,000	$18,920,000	9
American Medical Association	$19,410,000	$21,930,000	4
Boeing	$17,020,000	$21,921,000	5
National Association of Broadcasters	$16,438,000	$17,400,000	10
AT&T	$16,370,000	$16,370,000	13
Business Roundtable	$15,700,000	$19,250,000	8
Alphabet	$15,430,000	$16,660,000	12
Comcast	$14,330,000	$15,680,000	14
Southern Co.	$13,900,000	$12,860,000	18
Dow Chemical	$13,635,982	$10,820,000	26
Lockheed Martin	$13,615,811	$13,954,053	17
NCTA – The Internet and Telephone Assoc.	$13,420,000	$14,120,000	16
FedEx	$12,541,000	$12,405,835	20
Northrop Grumman	$12,050,000	$11,020,000	24
Exxon Mobil	$11,840,000	$11,980,000	21
Amazon	$11,354,000	$9,435,000	34
CTIA	$10,970,000	$10,150,000	29
General Dynamics	$10,739,944	$10,259,890	28
Verizon Communications	$10,080,000	$11,430,000	23
Altria Group	$10,060,000	$9,630,000	32
Amgen	$9,860,000	$10,525,000	27
Koch Industries	$9,840,000	$10,830,000	25
American Bankers Association	$9,831,000	$12,690,000	19
Pfizer	$9,750,000	$9,417,650	35
Prudential Financial	$9,400,000	$7,962,500	47
Biotechnology Innovation Organization	$9,230,000	$8,350,000	42
United Technologies	$9,165,000	$11,470,000	22
American Chemistry Council	$9,020,000	$10,050,000	30
Royal Dutch Shell	$8,990,000	$8,700,000	37
AARP	$8,710,000	$7,559,000	54
Microsoft	$8,710,000	$8,490,000	39
Facebook	$8,692,000	$9,850,000	31
Edison Electric Institute	$8,620,000	$8,350,000	42
Oracle	$8,620,000	$8,470,000	40
General Motors	$8,500,000	$9,120,000	36
National Association of Manufacturers	$8,490,014	$16,950,000	11
National Amusements (CBS & Viacom)	$8,441,000	$7,980,000	46
T-Mobile	$8,089,900	$6,127,000	66
Bayer	$7,990,000	$7,730,000	51
Coca-Cola	$7,930,000	$8,670,000	38
American Airlines	$7,870,000	$6,600,000	61
United Parcel Service	$7,767,848	$8,155,856	45
Chevron	$7,470,000	$7,200,000	56
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers	$7,452,500	$7,640,000	53
Securities Industry & Financial Market Assoc.	$7,400,000	$7,770,000	50
AbbVie	$7,260,000	$5,220,000	88

from Lobbying’s top 50: Who’s spending big

 

[Koldo]

Capitalism does not equate with exploitation. Just the opposite.

And yet, that's how many people become and remain rich in capitalist societies.

 

[PureX]

The problem with threads like this is that very few people know what capitalism is, and so everyone has simply invented their own definitions or accepted whatever nonsense they’ve been told as true. And they will not accept correction because their definition is supporting a bias they want to maintain.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I remember considering some conceptions of neoliberal economic alongside developing geopolitical ideals (particularly in the late 80s/early 90s when the Cold War was winding down), which seemed a confluence of new age hippie conceptions of "world peace" and love throughout the world, along with fair and just competition in an unfettered, low-tax free market economy. That didn't necessarily fall in line with the hawkish, warmongering policies which prevailed, but there were those who seemed to have a more idealized view of geopolitics while still embracing free market capitalism and hyper consumerism of "shop, shop, 'til you drop" and the excesses of bourgeois hedonism which still dominate the culture to this day.

This is why many conservatives and others of a more militaristic bent tend to view liberals as naive and unaware of the actual mechanisms by which global power is projected and the ramifications that has on the disparities in wealth around the world.

I have observed this tendency among some neoliberals as well: they will adopt progressive social policies and claim to stand for the rights of minorities and exploited foreigners, but they will still explicitly support insufficiently regulated economic systems that inherently require exploitation and funneling of other countries' resources in order to stay afloat. What results from this is that we see dissonant expressions such as a person's wearing a Guevara T-shirt while driving an expensive gas-guzzling car and buying the latest and greatest corporate product that was output by a sweatshop or factory in some distant third-world country... yet at the same lecturing others on issues like "sustainability" and "ethical consumption."

This kind of oblivious self-assurance can be even more pernicious than apathy, because it gives a false sense of not being part of "the system" even though the person with that attitude still consumes just as much as the "ignorant conservatives" and equally contributes to exploitation of workers and other countries, ecological destruction, and excessive consumerism—except that they wear a Guevara T-shirt or post flashy "socially aware" buzzwords on social media while doing so.

In the same sense, capitalists tend to exhibit a similar level of naivete and very specious reasoning when they attribute the good life people experience in the West as solely due to capitalism and cite that as irrefutable evidence that capitalism is, by far, the superior system. Or as they used to say in those Old Milwaukee commercials: "It doesn't get any better than this."

Two examples I like citing are Francoist Spain and Saudi Arabia: both markedly capitalist systems yet rife with corruption, oppression, and mismanagement. The idea that we can reduce an entire country's status quo to its economic system is simplistic at best, especially when one considers variables such as geopolitics, history, sanctions, wars, etc. Add to this the fact that every nominally socialist or communist country has been targeted by a plethora of sanctions and interventionist or hostile policies and you get a collection of factors that would cause any country to crumble regardless of its officially professed economic system.

Of course, in more recent times, we in the West, particularly Western liberals (but also many capitalists) have renounced and condemned our older, more malignant and imperialistic ways. After a few centuries of sailing, pillaging, plundering, and looting and a full-scale system of organized piracy set in place, we suddenly decided we wanted to start playing nice and being kinder and gentler. Of course, that was mighty white of them - something that used to be said back in the day. But the question is, are they going to be able to continue to have their cake and eat it, too? If they want to continue to have the most cake - or as much cake as they continue to have, while still claiming to want to share with others, then they'll have to bake a bigger cake. But what if there aren't enough ingredients? Then we have a problem on our hands.

This ties into the oblivious attitudes among some neoliberals that I talked about above. Some people want to keep living in a huge house, using a massive amount of furniture, driving a gas-guzzling car, and supporting neoliberal politicians and policies but then shame and lecture someone else for using disposable plastic products or eating industrially produced food. Which is it? Are they against exploitation all the way—which would mean altering at least some of their consumerist choices and being more mindful of what they buy and use as well as who they vote for and what politics they endorse—or are they only against it on paper without realizing what their consumerist attitudes and habits entail in the real world?

 

[Shaul]

And yet, that's how many people become and remain rich in capitalist societies.

A popular misconception. People that can't succeed often try to find succor in rationalizations trying to protect their psyches from inconvenient truths about their own shortfalls.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I supplied a sufficient response to an insufficient post. You cited a bogus "current consensus" "experts" to support an ill-defined bogey man. Sorry, your post doesn't have a point that still stands. It remains pointless.

Oh, you're rejecting the consensus of climate scientists. Okay, that means we don't even have a basic common ground as to what the facts are before we can have a useful discussion about any economic system and its relation to climate change.

 

[Heyo]

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.

The Limits to Growth - Wikipedia was published in 1972.

We knew for at least 50 years that our then and still current model of production isn't sustainable.

 

[Estro Felino]

The Limits to Growth - Wikipedia was published in 1972.

We knew for at least 50 years that our then and still current model of production isn't sustainable.

Exactly.
The low birth rates in Europe are just a consequence of the self-awareness of the European peoples that understood how impossible it is to re-adjust the economy if the demography restlessly changes.
And do you know why the financial and banking powers say that we need more and more migrants?
Because they need slaves to exploit, since they have understood that Europeans will ultimately free themselves from their yoke.

Because we Europeans will go back to small communities, producing just what we need, cooperating with one another -
they cannot accept this. Capitalism needs eternal growth and more and more slaves.

 

[Koldo]

A popular misconception. People that can't succeed often try to find succor in rationalizations trying to protect their psyches from inconvenient truths about their own shortfalls.

People often resort to personal attacks when they don't have arguments or data to support their views.

 

[Shaul]

People often resort to personal attacks when they don't have arguments or data to support their views.

I agree. Which is why I am glad I haven't made any personal attacks.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

This is going to sound so socialist of me, but I agree that unchecked runaway capitalism is just as destructive as anything else out there.

 

[Twilight Hue]

People often resort to personal attacks when they don't have arguments or data to support their views.

Just follow me as an example. I'm ad hominem attacked all the time! *grin*

 

[Estro Felino]

This is going to sound so socialist of me, but I agree that unchecked runaway capitalism is just as destructive as anything else out there.

Thank you.
I know the OP can be misread, but I have never said capitalism is bad.
It's good: it's based upon merit, talent, fair competition and progress.
But it's like a wild horse that needs to be tamed and controlled.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There is some truth in your rant but it is not what you think it is. Green energy is the worst example you could have chosen. Look at those who really grease the wheels of politics, the millitary-industrial complex is the prime beneficiary with fossil fuel and the other traditional energy market a distant second. Banking, big pharma and gun manufacturers all play a bigger role than green energy.
See if you can find an exclusively green energy company in the top 50 lobbyism spenders:

Top 50 Lobbying Spenders of 2016

Client	2016 Spending	2015 Spending	2015 Rank
U.S. Chamber of Commerce	$103,950,000	$84,730,000	1
National Association of Realtors	$64,821,111	$37,788,407	2
Blue Cross Blue Shield	$25,006,109	$23,702,049	3
American Hospital Association	$20,970,809	$20,687,935	7
Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America	$19,730,000	$18,920,000	9
American Medical Association	$19,410,000	$21,930,000	4
Boeing	$17,020,000	$21,921,000	5
National Association of Broadcasters	$16,438,000	$17,400,000	10
AT&T	$16,370,000	$16,370,000	13
Business Roundtable	$15,700,000	$19,250,000	8
Alphabet	$15,430,000	$16,660,000	12
Comcast	$14,330,000	$15,680,000	14
Southern Co.	$13,900,000	$12,860,000	18
Dow Chemical	$13,635,982	$10,820,000	26
Lockheed Martin	$13,615,811	$13,954,053	17
NCTA – The Internet and Telephone Assoc.	$13,420,000	$14,120,000	16
FedEx	$12,541,000	$12,405,835	20
Northrop Grumman	$12,050,000	$11,020,000	24
Exxon Mobil	$11,840,000	$11,980,000	21
Amazon	$11,354,000	$9,435,000	34
CTIA	$10,970,000	$10,150,000	29
General Dynamics	$10,739,944	$10,259,890	28
Verizon Communications	$10,080,000	$11,430,000	23
Altria Group	$10,060,000	$9,630,000	32
Amgen	$9,860,000	$10,525,000	27
Koch Industries	$9,840,000	$10,830,000	25
American Bankers Association	$9,831,000	$12,690,000	19
Pfizer	$9,750,000	$9,417,650	35
Prudential Financial	$9,400,000	$7,962,500	47
Biotechnology Innovation Organization	$9,230,000	$8,350,000	42
United Technologies	$9,165,000	$11,470,000	22
American Chemistry Council	$9,020,000	$10,050,000	30
Royal Dutch Shell	$8,990,000	$8,700,000	37
AARP	$8,710,000	$7,559,000	54
Microsoft	$8,710,000	$8,490,000	39
Facebook	$8,692,000	$9,850,000	31
Edison Electric Institute	$8,620,000	$8,350,000	42
Oracle	$8,620,000	$8,470,000	40
General Motors	$8,500,000	$9,120,000	36
National Association of Manufacturers	$8,490,014	$16,950,000	11
National Amusements (CBS & Viacom)	$8,441,000	$7,980,000	46
T-Mobile	$8,089,900	$6,127,000	66
Bayer	$7,990,000	$7,730,000	51
Coca-Cola	$7,930,000	$8,670,000	38
American Airlines	$7,870,000	$6,600,000	61
United Parcel Service	$7,767,848	$8,155,856	45
Chevron	$7,470,000	$7,200,000	56
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers	$7,452,500	$7,640,000	53
Securities Industry & Financial Market Assoc.	$7,400,000	$7,770,000	50
AbbVie	$7,260,000	$5,220,000	88

from Lobbying’s top 50: Who’s spending big

My issue is lobbying actually buys politictions, and politictions write laws catering to the lobbyists and special interests groups and unions at the determent of the general taxpayer.

 

[Koldo]

I agree. Which is why I am glad I haven't made any personal attacks.

And still no arguments, nor data.