You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Will Capitalism Survive/Fix This?
- Thread starter tommo
- Start date
Capitalism is a great teacher of self responsability through the law of cause and effect.
But whatever the system that governs access to life's necessities is,
it will have to address a few major unresolved issues.
Unless we get some breakthrough in interstellar travel soon to allow
colonization of other star systems, we have to realize that exponential
growth cannot happen in a finite biosphere.
We need to learn to get along peacefully with each other and with nature.
The meaning of life is probably not the accumulation of material things or gaining dominion
over the free will or right to exist of other human beings.
Our technological development has surpassed our consciousness development at the moment
but nature has a way to find balance (do you think our world would survive if every current human
had the power of the sun in their pocket to use for whatever ends they see fit?).
I agree regarding the issue of technology. That's a major concern and all the social unrest blaming the left or the right of politics are probably wrong. It's neither. It's the automisation of jobs that's leading to a lot of the issues and there has to be a way to solve it.
Where I disagree with you though is when you say human nature needs to change. It never will. And understandably so.
People will never work harder without reward of some sort. Financial reward is the only universal one. Every other reward can be enhanced financially.
Say we lived in a world where we all earned the same income. Or within 50% of each other. The world would not work. Imagine we were all paid between 20k-50k. Our motivations would become 'what is the easiest stress free way I can earn that'
Would you work all hours for no upside developing the next breakthrough in technology or medicine or pick strawberries in the south of Spain eating fresh seafood? Both would be paid the same.
If we were all equal who would try and find gaps in the market to find colour and variation to the choice of goods and services we see everyday when you could just be a dog walker or child minder and earn the same amount as an inventor of a new product?
I was reading a book about communist Russia and they were laughing that all women had the same hair colour. Because there was only one bottle of hair dye they could buy. With no opportunity to become rich people don't bother selling anything different.
Nobody would innovate or create choice or freedom.
Healthy competition is important yes.
But the endgoal of any capitalist enterprise is to beat the competition until you control all production.
The endgame of capitalism for individual companies is to create a monopoly.
We long ago decided that wasn't ok, and created regulations to make sure that the capitalists didn't control the bottom line thst way.
Then we added other regulations, like the minimum wage.
Capitalism has pros and cons, the con being that powerful companies will lower their bottom line at the expense of others. Socialist ideals are meant to prevent the bottom from falling out, from companies deciding to pay pennies because they know laborers are desperate and have nowhere else to go.
Capitalism is a fire, a great source of production and energy, but if left unchecked, will burn the house down. Socialism is creating an engine around that fire and harnessing it.
Implementations of socialism aside, I think we all can think of at least one thing that is better paid for socially and should not have competition.
But the endgoal of any capitalist enterprise is to beat the competition until you control all production.
The endgame of capitalism for individual companies is to create a monopoly.
We long ago decided that wasn't ok, and created regulations to make sure that the capitalists didn't control the bottom line thst way.
Then we added other regulations, like the minimum wage.
Capitalism has pros and cons, the con being that powerful companies will lower their bottom line at the expense of others. Socialist ideals are meant to prevent the bottom from falling out, from companies deciding to pay pennies because they know laborers are desperate and have nowhere else to go.
Capitalism is a fire, a great source of production and energy, but if left unchecked, will burn the house down. Socialism is creating an engine around that fire and harnessing it.
Implementations of socialism aside, I think we all can think of at least one thing that is better paid for socially and should not have competition.
I agree regarding the issue of technology. That's a major concern and all the social unrest blaming the left or the right of politics are probably wrong. It's neither. It's the automisation of jobs that's leading to a lot of the issues and there has to be a way to solve it.
Where I disagree with you though is when you say human nature needs to change. It never will. And understandably so.
People will never work harder without reward of some sort. Financial reward is the only universal one. Every other reward can be enhanced financially.
Say we lived in a world where we all earned the same income. Or within 50% of each other. The world would not work. Imagine we were all paid between 20k-50k. Our motivations would become 'what is the easiest stress free way I can earn that'
Would you work all hours for no upside developing the next breakthrough in technology or medicine or pick strawberries in the south of Spain eating fresh seafood? Both would be paid the same.
If we were all equal who would try and find gaps in the market to find colour and variation to the choice of goods and services we see everyday when you could just be a dog walker or child minder and earn the same amount as an inventor of a new product?
I was reading a book about communist Russia and they were laughing that all women had the same hair colour. Because there was only one bottle of hair dye they could buy. With no opportunity to become rich people don't bother selling anything different.
Nobody would innovate or create choice or freedom.
I will play along with this thought experiment. I don't think the idea is complete. Who pays everybody? Where do they make their money? Wouldn't capitalism still exist, in that people would give their income to others in exchange for goods?
The endgame of socialism is just the same.The endgame of capitalism for individual companies is to create a monopoly.
The endgame of socialism is the same.
If the monopoly is owned by the public as opposed to select individuals, I suppose I'd prefer the former, especially if most of the public is its customer and would be incentivizing towards maintaining a standard of product quality.
Healthy competition is important yes.
But the endgoal of any capitalist enterprise is to beat the competition until you control all production.
The endgame of capitalism for individual companies is to create a monopoly.
We long ago decided that wasn't ok, and created regulations to make sure that the capitalists didn't control the bottom line thst way.
Then we added other regulations, like the minimum wage.
Capitalism has pros and cons, the con being that powerful companies will lower their bottom line at the expense of others. Socialist ideals are meant to prevent the bottom from falling out, from companies deciding to pay pennies because they know laborers are desperate and have nowhere else to go.
Capitalism is a fire, a great source of production and energy, but if left unchecked, will burn the house down. Socialism is creating an engine around that fire and harnessing it.
Implementations of socialism aside, I think we all can think of at least one thing that is better paid for socially and should not have competition.
Yea. But likewise we can think of things that the state controls that would be far better in the private sectors hands.
Very few companies end up as monopolies. The odd 1-2% sneak through and win the game so to speak and that's wrong. But not a reason to not embrace capitalism. But the other 99% of companies compete with each other and we benefit. Pretty much everything you are using/looking at right this second are there because someone wanted to become rich and invested time and money into creating it/bringing it into your life.
It's hard to argue against someone earning over 1million a year not paying an extra couple of percentage points tax a year.
But I look at those people and admire them and would hate to live in a world where dreams are capped. You can't do that
There is no such thing as a public monopoly of a motley crowd, just a monopoly of one party that was able to successfully climb to the ideological top.If the monopoly is owned by the public as opposed to select individuals, I suppose I'd prefer the former, especially if most of the public is its customer and would be incentivizing towards maintaining a standard of product quality.
Yea. But likewise we can think of things that the state controls that would be far better in the private sectors hands.
Very few companies end up as monopolies. The odd 1-2% sneak through and win the game so to speak and that's wrong. But not a reason to not embrace capitalism. But the other 99% of companies compete with each other and we benefit. Pretty much everything you are using/looking at right this second are there because someone wanted to become rich and invested time and money into creating it/bringing it into your life.
It's hard to argue against someone earning over 1million a year not paying an extra couple of percentage points tax a year.
But I look at those people and admire them and would hate to live in a world where dreams are capped. You can't do that
Sure, but I just want to get everyone to get on the page at least that neither Capitalism or Socialism is inherently "BAD" or "GOOD," but, as always, relies on implementation.
Well that's it then. You're all geniuses. The only minor thing that remains to be determined is whose benefit and whose cost? Silly me. That is such an easy question. My benefit, your cost. Don't know why it took so long to get the right answer, when it is so obvious.How much does it cost me to let a socialist die from cold and starvation vs how much it costs me to keep him alive indefinitely. Is that what you are asking us to do a cost benefit analysis on?
Last edited: