Unbridled Capitalism is self-destructive

[Twilight Hue]

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.

I advocate free markets as the most successful and free countries have free market systems that are reasonably regulated and taxed.

Honestly it would be nice to see corporations and profit groups taxed only, and individuals left entirely tax free aside from the purchases of goods and services.

 

[Koldo]

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.

It is not based on merit, on talent, nor fair competition....
It is based on profit.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

What is your definition?

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Yep, you pretty much nailed it on the head. This points up the ideological and cultural malaise liberals in the West have found themselves in and why things feel a bit shaky these days.

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.

I agree. I've noticed that one of the key misconceptions that seems to exist in these discussions is the emphasis on the word "system," since ideological capitalists and socialists tend to think in terms of "system-building." As a result, they think of a "system" as something you can just plug in and implement under any circumstances and expect similar results each time. They act as if it's some kind of mathematical equation.

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?

Yes, this is where capitalism has seemingly hit a plateau or a dead end. Over the past 500 years or so, the world has advanced a great deal. One can say we're a lot wealthier now, a lot more advanced, and even more enlightened - though admittedly, there's still a long way to go. But during that time, all the continents have been developed to a large degree. More industries, transportation/communication infrastructures, larger cities, higher populations - and many, many more mouths to feed. That's where neoliberals might say that capitalism can do some good, since the implication is that the same benefits of capitalism we enjoy in the West can be spread among the world. Even if we assume that it's all fair, honest, and free of corruption (a tall order by itself), and assuming it can be affordable (so no one can say it's all "entitlement" or "free stuff"), does the world have the resources to supply it?

Picture the average U.S. family and their nice suburban home with the 2.3 kids, the SUV, second car, with all the electronics, fixtures, plumbing, and appliances that would typically go inside the average home. How much would it take for every family in the world to have that? Of course, we're also talking K-12 education, access to university, access to healthcare, grocery stores, shopping - and the accompanying infrastructure to make it possible. Does the world have the resources to make this happen for every country on every continent? Even if we did have the resources, what impact would it have on the environment and climate?

If no one can come up with any hopeful answers to these questions, then we might as well give up now, because we've reached the end of the line.

 

[Audie]

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.

The forgotten 3 billion | Brookings

Wolfgang Fengler, Homi Kharas, and Juan Caballero discuss the vulnerable 3.4 billion people who are not extremely poor, but not yet part of the middle class.

www.brookings.edu

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.

Confusing the tool for the misuse of it.

 

[Audie]

Apparently...

Propaganda works like a charm...

Seems to work fine on you, yes

 

[Debater Slayer]

Confusing the tool for the misuse of it.

How would you propose to prevent the misuse and unsustainability I mentioned?

 

[PureX]

What is your definition?

It's not "my" definition. It is the proper definition of capitalism.
'Capitalism' refers to an economic system that gives control over commercial enterprise to the capital investor(s) in that enterprise.

Unfortunately, it has become fashionable in recent decades to simply redefine the terms however one likes when one doesn't like the argument being posed against one's position on them.

 

[Heyo]

Picture the average U.S. family and their nice suburban home with the 2.3 kids, the SUV, second car, with all the electronics, fixtures, plumbing, and appliances that would typically go inside the average home. How much would it take for every family in the world to have that? Of course, we're also talking K-12 education, access to university, access to healthcare, grocery stores, shopping - and the accompanying infrastructure to make it possible. Does the world have the resources to make this happen for every country on every continent? Even if we did have the resources, what impact would it have on the environment and climate?

Theoretically, yes. At least it was a few years ago and I don't think it has changed that much.
If all the countries would stop spending on defense, stop producing weapons and reroute that money (and cheap labor) into that goal, it could be done. It wouldn't even produce much more CO2.

 

[Estro Felino]

It is not based on merit, on talent, nor fair competition....
It is based on profit.

An entrepreneur decides to produce hams.
He owns a factory where the pork is processed and turned into ham.
He spends $ 100,000 per year in pork and the other raw materials.
Thanks to his employees, his factory workers, so many hams are produced from raw pork.
He manages to sell the entire product and gains 3 million dollars a year.

What percentage should be divided among the factory workers?
What percentage should the Capitalist, the entrepreneur get?

 

[Yerda]

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

Never been a famine in a capitalist country?

 

[Heyo]

Never been a famine in a capitalist country?

Yes but the Brits only intentionally let about one million people die (and another million escape to the US).

 

[Revoltingest]

Never been a famine in a capitalist country?

Of course there have.
Are you claiming that if there's any capitalist
country that ever had a famine, then this
is equivalent to socialists countries always
having famines (which are larger)?

 

[Yerda]

Of course there have.
Are you claiming that if there's any capitalist
country that ever had a famine, then this
is equivalent to socialists countries always
having famines (which are larger)?

Famines happen in both capitalist and socialist countries. Sometimes because of the economic system and sometimes not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Famines happen in both capitalist and socialist countries. Sometimes because of the economic system and sometimes not.

The results aren't equivalent in intent or scale.
Socialist regimes have been bigger & sometimes
intentional (eg, the Holodomor). Of course, intent
is more fundamental to a command economy, ie,
government decides who starves & who is fed.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Hey, I wonder....
Have you ever considered "unbridled socialism"?

 

[Estro Felino]

Hey, I wonder....
Have you ever considered "unbridled socialism"?

Of course it's wrong.
Excesses are always wrong. What about balance?
No economist says that one solution is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong.

 

[Yerda]

The results aren't equivalent in intent or scale.
Socialist regimes have been bigger & sometimes
intentional (eg, the Holodomor). Of course, intent
is more fundamental to a command economy, ie,
government decides who starves & who is fed.

They don't have to be equivalent. Socialist regimes might have caused more famines than capitalist ones (I guess pro-rata), it is never likely to be perfect.

Capitalist regimes cause deliberate famines too. The British starved both Ireland and India at different times. We are talking about millions of deaths here. In actual fact, if we are being totally honest, when people are starving to death anywhere on Earth it tends to be the case that there is plenty of food in the country - it just happens to be a commodity being traded by capitalists who have decided that profits are more important than lives.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course it's wrong.
Excesses are always wrong. What about balance?
No economist says that one solution is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong.

Perhaps you know....
Why is it that so many socialists criticize "unbridled capitaism"
(which doesn't really exist), yet don't address their favorite
system in "unbridled" mode?

 

[Revoltingest]

They don't have to be equivalent. Socialist regimes might have caused more famines than capitalist ones (I guess pro-rata), it is never likely to be perfect.

Capitalist regimes cause deliberate famines too. The British starved both Ireland and India at different times. We are talking about millions of deaths here. In actual fact, if we are being totally honest, when people are starving to death anywhere on Earth it tends to be the case that there is plenty of food in the country - it just happens to be a commodity being traded by capitalists who have decided that profits are more important than lives.

One can always cite terrible things happening under
any economic system. One can argue that theoretically,
one system is bad, & another is good. But these
approaches are ultimately made irrelevant by empiricism.

We can compare different real world economic systems
with a simple test anyone can take.
List 5 countries you'd like to live in.
You can even pick historical ones, eg, USSR.
What economic systems do they have?
The results tell us about the potential for success.