Capitalism, yay or nay?

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
30,428
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
Seems to be the last ideology standing, considering the collapse of communism. Basically the whole world are standing on western capitalism with a sprinkle of regulation to manipulate the market in the name of greater goods.

Personally I'm a free market person, I believe in the law of supply and demand and the world will generally balance themselves in the best way without outside interference although a pure free market economy only exists in paper.

Thoughts?
 
Capitalism is okay provided it is properly regulated , which one could easily argue it has not been especially the last decade or two. Needs a fair amount of socialism thrown in to keep things in balance. So the answer is Socapilialism
 
Last edited:
I think the system of capitalism gets a bad rep for a lot of evils hiding out under its umbrella, most of which are actually violations of capitalist ideology. Examples being corporate fraud, big business cozying up to politicians for preferable treatment, restrictions in employment reducing work opportunity etc. The apostles of capitalism in the media are also a little bit to blame, since they've been far too soft on corrupt business practices while being harsh (justifiably) on government's wastages.
 
The consensus seems to be regulated capitalism, and I generally agree with that.
Provide the basics for everyone, and allow non-essentials to be determined by the market. Further regulation to reduce the effect of that wonderful word, externalities.

My question is from a different angle: modern capitalism demands growth, continuous exponential growth on finite resources is impossible. Not just will resources exhaust, this way of growth has already caused irreversible climate effects. So what do you do about it?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I'd like to know what the alternatives are. Communism certainly doesn't appeal.
Click to expand...

A mix of capitalism and socialism.

That is, essential services that operate in a monopoly should be state owned, rail, energy, water, health. These things are vital to the continuation of the country, they need to operate for the good of all, with stability, rather than shareholders whims.

Capitalism works for the rest, competition keeps prices low in most markets but regulation is essential to stop capitalism eating itself. The other thing we are missing is separation of government from the system. The biggest money essentially buys government (ashcrofts book basically admits that he wanted a major government role in return for his money, and hes pissed because the power he was offered was not at the level he expected). It is that ability to buy the lawmakers that is subverting this country's economy (and the US and most other western governments to be honest). This is corporatism rather than capitalism. And it really does not work for the majority of people, which is why wealth inequality continues to widen.
 
Communism is great. No states, no money, no surplus, man produces as much as he can and takes only as much as he needs. Beautiful. Capitalism is just plain evil. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Something like that.
 
Mihajlovic said:
Communism is great. No states, no money, no surplus, man produces as much as he can and takes only as much as he needs. Beautiful. Capitalism is just plain evil. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Something like that.
Click to expand...

The basis of capitalism is a finite resources, a zero sum game, there's only the same amount of resources available to human population, and the society would benefit if the so called preciously finite resources are being managed by those who are good at it.

The law of supply and demand in theory will abolish any inefficiency, as if there's no supply then there's no demand, then in theory everything produced will be useful for someone.

On the bolded part that's not true, rich / poor will always be the name of the game, there can be only rich people if there's their poor counterpart, but thanks to capitalism people in poor country can still enjoy coca cola, they can still buy a cheap TV made in China, they can still enjoy the EPL due to advertisement, thanks to capitalism we have cheaper consumer goods.

I don't believe in regulated capitalism, it's either full market or full controlled. The imbalance and problems in the world are caused by each countries trying to regulate what's best for their nation interest, and in turn creates a counter measures from their partnering country, and we're back to square one.
 
Sky1981 said:
The basis of capitalism is a finite resources, a zero sum game, there's only the same amount of resources available to human population, and the society would benefit if the so called preciously finite resources are being managed by those who are good at it.

The law of supply and demand in theory will abolish any inefficiency, as if there's no supply then there's no demand, then in theory everything produced will be useful for someone.

On the bolded part that's not true, rich / poor will always be the name of the game, there can be only rich people if there's their poor counterpart, but thanks to capitalism people in poor country can still enjoy coca cola, they can still buy a cheap TV made in China, they can still enjoy the EPL due to advertisement, thanks to capitalism we have cheaper consumer goods.

I don't believe in regulated capitalism, it's either full market or full controlled. The imbalance and problems in the world are caused by each countries trying to regulate what's best for their nation interest, and in turn creates a counter measures from their partnering country, and we're back to square one.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Got to be taking the piss surely ?
 
I like to think I'm pretty damn anti-capitalist but even I would say it has better achievements than the ability of poor people to drink Coca Cola.
 
Mihajlovic said:
Communism is great. No states, no money, no surplus, man produces as much as he can and takes only as much as he needs. Beautiful. Capitalism is just plain evil. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Something like that.
Click to expand...

:lol: What could possibly go wrong....
 
Eboue said:
I find complex issues are best judged by yay or nay.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Anyway, not very found on capitalism. Especially the 'finance' part in capitalism. Like most systems, it is a system that favours the rich minority compared to middle class/poor majority.

The problem though, is that it is very difficult to find something better and implement it. Socialims/Marxism was great in theory but spectacularly failed in practice.

Anyway, I think that a slightly better system would be capitalism but with more rules that check what big coorporations are doing and what they can do. A more controled version of capitalism. Unfortunately, I think that we are going into the complete opposite direction, where the rich is becoming more rich and powerful. Wouldn't be surprised if in the next 50 years or so, the big coorporations will take a large part of state competences. A bit like an unelected 'democracy when coorporates will vote with their purse.

But then, I am a bit pesimist by nature.
 
Sky1981 said:
er.. not really, I live in Indonesia, we enjoy cheap consumer goods these days, even the poor can really enjoy things that wouldn't exist without capitalism (cough.. and china.... cough)
Click to expand...
Always thought that you're from Hong Kong.
 
A model heavily reliant on consumption with only finite resources to draw from; it'll end well.
 
Revan said:
:lol:

Anyway, not very found on capitalism. Especially the 'finance' part in capitalism. Like most systems, it is a system that favours the rich minority compared to middle class/poor majority.

The problem though, is that it is very difficult to find something better and implement it. Socialims/Marxism was great in theory but spectacularly failed in practice.

Anyway, I think that a slightly better system would be capitalism but with more rules that check what big coorporations are doing and what they can do. A more controled version of capitalism. Unfortunately, I think that we are going into the complete opposite direction, where the rich is becoming more rich and powerful. Wouldn't be surprised if in the next 50 years or so, the big coorporations will take a large part of state competences. A bit like an unelected 'democracy when coorporates will vote with their purse.

But then, I am a bit pesimist by nature.
Click to expand...

As opposed to in communism the system favouring the nomenklatura and their offspring, and before that the monarchy favouring the aristocrats, etc. etc. etc.

Whatever the system there will never be equality because it is simply not possible to reach it, due to the sheer size of the population let alone every other factor involved.

A utopian world does not exist and it cannot exist anywhere apart from in the fantasies of those who dream about it.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I like to think I'm pretty damn anti-capitalist but even I would say it has better achievements than the ability of poor people to drink Coca Cola.
Click to expand...

I'm from India, and had the misfortune of having some of my schooling when the right-wing govt was in power (They're back now btw).
In ~2005, we were told that the greatest positive of the liberalisation/privatisation of our economy (15 years ago, in 1991) was access to cheap consumer goods and cellphone coverage. It's not far fetched at all to say that poverty has dropped during that period, and that is good enough for me as a benefit, but the mindset is different, they don't think in terms of starvation poverty.
 
LitterBug said:
As opposed to in communism the system favouring the nomenklatura and their offspring, and before that the monarchy favouring the aristocrats, etc. etc. etc.

Whatever the system there will never be equality because it is simply not possible to reach it, due to the sheer size of the population let alone every other factor involved.

A utopian world does not exist and it cannot exist anywhere apart from in the fantasies of those who dream about it.
Click to expand...
I pretty much said that in the rest of my post.

An utopian word cannot exist (at least not now, who knows what may happen in a few hundreds/thousands of years), but I think that we can do better than capitalism. A version of capitalism where the state has more control in cooperates, when the rich people get taxed more, when the medical costs are completely provided by the state, and the same for school costs isn't that much to ask for.
 
Revan said:
:lol:

Anyway, not very found on capitalism. Especially the 'finance' part in capitalism. Like most systems, it is a system that favours the rich minority compared tddle class/poor majority.

The problem though, is that it is very difficult to find something better and implement it. Socialims/Marxism was great in theory but spectacularly failed in practice.

Anyway, I think that a slightly better system would be capitalism but with more rules that check what big coorporations are doing and what they can do. A more controled version of capitalism. Unfortunately, I think that we are going into the complete opposite direction, where the rich is becoming more rich and powerful. Wouldn't be surprised if in the next 50 years or so, the big coorporations will take a large part of state competences. A bit like an unelected 'democracy when coorporates will vote with their purse.

But then, I am a bit pesimist by nature.
Click to expand...

But foe every rich individuals they create jobs for thousands of poor people bellow them, creating opportunities for intermediary business to flourish as well, which drives the whole economy.

Without the capitalist system this precious would be held in the hands of the poor who will squander it and feeds no one

Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.

Winston Churchil
Click to expand...
 
Revan said:
I pretty much said that in the rest of my post.

An utopian word cannot exist (at least not now, who knows what may happen in a few hundreds/thousands of years), but I think that we can do better than capitalism. A version of capitalism where the state has more control in cooperates, when the rich people get taxed more, when the medical costs are completely provided by the state, and the same for school costs isn't that much to ask for.
Click to expand...

That's a redistribution of wealth that's wrong, the capitalist paid their enormous tax (unless they dont) but the method of wealth redistribution didn't benefit the poor. Giving the poor fish instead of a fishing pole would only create a circle of poverty
 
Sky1981 said:
But foe every rich individuals they create jobs for thousands of poor people bellow them, creating opportunities for intermediary business to flourish as well, which drives the whole economy.

Without the capitalist system this precious would be held in the hands of the poor who will squander it and feeds no one
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Sky1981 said:
But foe every rich individuals they create jobs for thousands of poor people bellow them, creating opportunities for intermediary business to flourish as well, which drives the whole economy.

Without the capitalist system this precious would be held in the hands of the poor who will squander it and feeds no one
Click to expand...

Whoa, hold your healthy horse there, a lot of rich business people on that sturdy wagon are self made men and women who were once poor/er.
 
berbatrick said:
The consensus seems to be regulated capitalism, and I generally agree with that.
Provide the basics for everyone, and allow non-essentials to be determined by the market. Further regulation to reduce the effect of that wonderful word, externalities.

My question is from a different angle: modern capitalism demands growth, continuous exponential growth on finite resources is impossible. Not just will resources exhaust, this way of growth has already caused irreversible climate effects. So what do you do about it?
Click to expand...

Why is continuous growth impossible? Growth nowadays isn't caused by an increase in natural resources, since we've increased our harvesting of those to about the maximum possible. It's created by innovation, by more efficient use of the same amount of resources. As long as human beings have brains, they'll continue to innovate, because nothing is perfect and can always be improved.
 
Akshay said:
Why is continuous growth impossible? Growth nowadays isn't caused by an increase in natural resources, since we've increased our harvesting of those to about the maximum possible. It's created by innovation, by more efficient use of the same amount of resources. As long as human beings have brains, they'll continue to innovate, because nothing is perfect and can always be improved.
Click to expand...


I'll properly reply later, but this: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HaJ7W6OyI5AJ:www.theoildrum.com/node/7853
 
berbatrick said:
My question is from a different angle: modern capitalism demands growth, continuous exponential growth on finite resources is impossible. Not just will resources exhaust, this way of growth has already caused irreversible climate effects. So what do you do about it?
Click to expand...

Its not resources that's the problem, ultimately its energy. While we may need rare metals or oil for plastics of whatever for a current solution to a problem, if we had a (near) infinite energy source there would always be workarounds.

Just stick a Dyson sphere around the sun, and we're sorted.
 
Capitalism is the best system we know for creating wealth. Just needs good government policies to redistribute that wealth a little to keep everyone happy and you're sorted.
 
berbatrick said:
I'll properly reply later, but this: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HaJ7W6OyI5AJ:www.theoildrum.com/node/7853
Click to expand...
Malthusian thinking really should be considered debunked by the developments in the world since the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that, it was believed that a rise in population levels would always be accompanied by a fall in living standards since the same amount of resources were distributed among more people.

As the link's graph illustrates, however, the world's population has surged dramatically since the end of the Second World War. And in that time, global prosperity has also improved dramatically. In fact, recently, the global population boom is beginning to slow down. Many developed countries have zero or negative growth, and the big boomers of the 80s and 90s (India and China) are also starting to rein in their pop growth (China more successfully). Despite the massive amount of population growth in India and China, the per capita wealth of these nations has also improved, despite the govt's often backward and corrupt policies.

There are plenty of doom-mongers out there, including respected analysts, who have been banging the unsustainable growth drum for the better part of two decades now. They haven't been proved right yet, and they won't be.
 
bishblaize said:
Its not resources that's the problem, ultimately its energy. While we may need rare metals or oil for plastics of whatever for a current solution to a problem, if we had a (near) infinite energy source there would always be workarounds.

Just stick a Dyson sphere around the sun, and we're sorted.
Click to expand...
If we crack fusion (which I think we'll do in 20-30 years) then energy (at least for another few hundred years) won't be a problem.
 
Last edited:
Bring back bartering.
 
@Sky1981, I've just read that the company who bought the rights to an AIDS drug in America have raised the price from $13.50 per pill to $750. How do you justify that through capitalism. Supply and demand?
 
What are the other alternatives communism, bartering and...?

I'm actually open to something different but I'm also open to a more simple life with only the essentials like a roof and some food which don't need any modern economy.
But most people, the pseudo commies included, want a world close to the current one, with their nice cars, their nice houses, a lot of choice in the grocery stores, internet but without capitalism and without finance which is impossible.
 
Mihajlovic said:
Communism is great. No states, no money, no surplus, man produces as much as he can and takes only as much as he needs. Beautiful. Capitalism is just plain evil. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Something like that.
Click to expand...

And absolutely feck all personal incentive to better your situation.
 
Pexbo said:
And absolutely feck all personal incentive to better your situation.
Click to expand...

Unless if you are member of the Party, in that case you live like a filthy capitalist. Communism is just getting rid of the market atomicity, by transforming the nation into one big company working for the benefit of the members of one big political party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.