Capitalism, yay or nay?

I'm not exactly economist, and I know pretty much nothing about modern economics (just like 99.99999999% of the global population) but I have to say, and I'm not commie, that Marx seems pretty much on point about a post industrial capitalist society.

Is it the best system we have? Yes. Is it an unsustainable system? Yep. Capitalism will work so long as there is an avenue for cheap production. Right now that means manufacturing has to be outsourced to areas that have basically no or minimal labor costs in production.

So what happens when China runs out of cheap labor? Or in general the entire world runs out of cheap labor? Well robots I suppose? So what happens when a global population in the billions that was mandated by our need for massive agricultural and manufacturing work forces is no longer needed because the means to produce what the majority of the population used to produce is accomplished by robotic manufacturing?

The only real jobs left in the world at some point are going to be basically, creative (writing, drawing, performing, writing code, developing new and cooler tech and other stuff of that nature) management, service industry and stuff of that nature. What % of the population can we actually expect to find work? At some point the realization is going to have to be made that not everyone who wants a job will be able to get a job.

It's not rocket science and I don't think I'm making any logical leaps here.

I think in the end some sort of communist like system is inevitable. I don't think some sort of dystopian future is likely where some super mega powerful elite lives on high and controls everything while the masses fight for crumbs. Popular uprising is far more likely and far more possible if things every approach that sort of flagrant inequality.

Then again, what the feck do I know, I already said I know literally nothing about modern economics ;p
 
JustAFan said:
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
Click to expand...
A little touch of socialism caused the financial crisis when Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, so I'm not sure about that. I would create some laws giving prison to any politician/officer receiving money from any business, we separated the state from the church but now we need to separate the state from the business world.
 
Nucks said:
I'm not exactly economist, and I know pretty much nothing about modern economics (just like 99.99999999% of the global population) but I have to say, and I'm not commie, that Marx seems pretty much on point about a post industrial capitalist society.

Is it the best system we have? Yes. Is it an unsustainable system? Yep. Capitalism will work so long as there is an avenue for cheap production. Right now that means manufacturing has to be outsourced to areas that have basically no or minimal labor costs in production.

So what happens when China runs out of cheap labor? Or in general the entire world runs out of cheap labor? Well robots I suppose? So what happens when a global population in the billions that was mandated by our need for massive agricultural and manufacturing work forces is no longer needed because the means to produce what the majority of the population used to produce is accomplished by robotic manufacturing?

The only real jobs left in the world at some point are going to be basically, creative (writing, drawing, performing, writing code, developing new and cooler tech and other stuff of that nature) management, service industry and stuff of that nature. What % of the population can we actually expect to find work? At some point the realization is going to have to be made that not everyone who wants a job will be able to get a job.

It's not rocket science and I don't think I'm making any logical leaps here.

I think in the end some sort of communist like system is inevitable. I don't think some sort of dystopian future is likely where some super mega powerful elite lives on high and controls everything while the masses fight for crumbs. Popular uprising is far more likely and far more possible if things every approach that sort of flagrant inequality.

Then again, what the feck do I know, I already said I know literally nothing about modern economics ;p
Click to expand...

By then the world will be out of resources and some continents will starve to dead and our politicians and economists will realize globalization was a mistake... a deadly mistake.
 
Silva said:
I wouldn't mind seeing large investment in the arts. At least give people something to do when they lose their jobs and prospects.
Click to expand...
Investments by a government comes from tax money and if people lose their jobs, then is no money to invest in arts and when our countries turned from manufacturing to services means everything we have was produced in another country and the owners (stock holders) will pay the minimum in taxes. We are fecked if they don't change anything and the fight for the environment shows business are the leaders of this world.
 
barros said:
By then the world will be out of resources and some continents will starve to dead and our politicians and economists will realize globalization was a mistake... a deadly mistake.
Click to expand...
It'll happen within 20 years. I don't have any idea how we'll run out of resources. What resources exactly?
 
Nucks said:
I'm not exactly economist, and I know pretty much nothing about modern economics (just like 99.99999999% of the global population) but I have to say, and I'm not commie, that Marx seems pretty much on point about a post industrial capitalist society.

Is it the best system we have? Yes. Is it an unsustainable system? Yep. Capitalism will work so long as there is an avenue for cheap production. Right now that means manufacturing has to be outsourced to areas that have basically no or minimal labor costs in production.

So what happens when China runs out of cheap labor? Or in general the entire world runs out of cheap labor? Well robots I suppose? So what happens when a global population in the billions that was mandated by our need for massive agricultural and manufacturing work forces is no longer needed because the means to produce what the majority of the population used to produce is accomplished by robotic manufacturing?

The only real jobs left in the world at some point are going to be basically, creative (writing, drawing, performing, writing code, developing new and cooler tech and other stuff of that nature) management, service industry and stuff of that nature. What % of the population can we actually expect to find work? At some point the realization is going to have to be made that not everyone who wants a job will be able to get a job.

It's not rocket science and I don't think I'm making any logical leaps here.

I think in the end some sort of communist like system is inevitable. I don't think some sort of dystopian future is likely where some super mega powerful elite lives on high and controls everything while the masses fight for crumbs. Popular uprising is far more likely and far more possible if things every approach that sort of flagrant inequality.

Then again, what the feck do I know, I already said I know literally nothing about modern economics ;p
Click to expand...

Well by time that happens artificial intelligence will advance to such a stage that the robots will see how useless we are and pack us all off to live on other planets or destroy us all in the robot slave revolt of 2107, set off when then President Barbara Hillary Clinton-Bush the Fifth has an argument with her toaster which culminates with the toaster throwing itself into President Clinton-Bush's bathtub electrocuting our fearless leader and leaving the White House without a working toaster.
 
Jippy said:
Name your confidence interval.
Click to expand...

confidence interval for what? the statement I said? If so, then it's a 100% CI. That's why I'm saying relativism is the only absolute.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
You say that freedom is abstract and then point to it being absolute (in this context) which doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by that, could you expand? I certainly have not meant to say freedom in capitalism is absolute - quite the opposite, actually.

OverratedOpinion said:
What you are talking about is inequality not freedom of choice in a market.
Click to expand...
But freedom of choice in a market is limited by one's individual social and economic situation. So inequality is a factor in that, a huge one for sure. It's the same topic as above: abstract freedom to do everything vs. actual, real-life opportunities.

OverratedOpinion said:
Is inequality bad? Yes. Is it insurmountable in western culture? Only for 2% of people statistically. If you make the correct personal choices regardless of your circumstances or anything else not under your control then you will not remain in poverty in capitalism.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/...teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/
Click to expand...
So poverty is eventually down to making 'bad choices', I've heard that before. But do you really believe that if every poor-born person followed these 'three simple rules', 75-98% of them could join the middle class (which would have to be renamed)?

OverratedOpinion said:
"Being a loser" is subjective. If you look at capitalism as a competition (which is a misstep) then I am a loser due to the fact that my boss earns more money than me, hell the fact that Bill Gates earns more money than me. That doesn't mean I can't live a comfortable existence. Yes social biases and discrimination are problems but as shown above capitalism allows for this to be overcome.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean capitalism is just one top-to-bottom competition where everybody gets ranked. I said it establishes a (general) relationship of competition between humans and the organisations they form. That means success is achieved by beating competitors - that's part of the basic principles of a market, isn't it?

I leave naming the exact mechanisms to the scholars, but by now it's safe to say the result of capitalist economy is vast inequality in wealth. Both inside societies and between the societies of the world. For me, the past 150 years give no indication this will fundamentally change in the next 150.

OverratedOpinion said:
Would you care to suggest a better system?
Click to expand...
Obviously no one has a masterplan, and I won't pretend to have one either. So in very general terms, I'm in favour of some kind of non-etatistic, decentralized but well-coordinated communism. Still a long way to go of course, and perhaps impossible. But that doesn't justify sugarcoating the current misery.
 
Synco said:
So poverty is eventually down to making 'bad choices', I've heard that before. But do you really believe that if every poor-born person followed these 'three simple rules', 75-98% of them could join the middle class (which would have to be renamed)?
Click to expand...

I will reply to the rest tomorrow as I have an early start but 2 things on this.

Statistically 75% of people who follow these steps graduate to the middle class, the remaining 23% escape poverty. Meaning being able to afford a sustainable home and necessities.

Well we need to distinguish two things, being in poverty and remaining in poverty. Unless you have severe learning disabilities or very extreme physical disabilities yes you can and will escape poverty. Not everyone will end up being a CEO or a millionaire but you will escape poverty.

If kids spent less time discussing the various ways they are hard done by and more time learning a trade for example we would not be having this discussion in modern Britain.

It is strange to me that in 2017 it is apparently a controversial statement that you will succeed if you accept personal responsibility and hard work.
 
Synco said:
That means success is achieved by beating competitors - that's part of the basic principles of a market, isn't it?
Click to expand...

This is such an oversimplification of how industry and trade functions. On a small scale local level "I drove the only other off license in town out of business" type of way it is a fair assumption but still flawed. What you have to look at is how it is always the case that when the economy is strong it is stronger for everyone.

To try and explain with a simple example. Imagine you live in a town which is famous for it's Italian food and has plenty of Italian restaurants, that is the exact place you want to open your new Italian restaurant because you know that tourists of that area are more likely to be inclined to enjoying Italian food. There will always be a lot more customers than businesses if your product is good, if your product isn't good then you were destined to fail from the start regardless of any external factors.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
I will reply to the rest tomorrow as I have an early start but 2 things on this.

Statistically 75% of people who follow these steps graduate to the middle class, the remaining 23% escape poverty. Meaning being able to afford a sustainable home and necessities.

Well we need to distinguish two things, being in poverty and remaining in poverty. Unless you have severe learning disabilities or very extreme physical disabilities yes you can and will escape poverty. Not everyone will end up being a CEO or a millionaire but you will escape poverty.

If kids spent less time discussing the various ways they are hard done by and more time learning a trade for example we would not be having this discussion in modern Britain.

It is strange to me that in 2017 it is apparently a controversial statement that you will succeed if you accept personal responsibility and hard work.
Click to expand...

This isn't necessarily true.
 
Synco said:
Obviously no one has a masterplan, and I won't pretend to have one either. So in very general terms, I'm in favour of some kind of non-etatistic, decentralized but well-coordinated communism. Still a long way to go of course, and perhaps impossible. But that doesn't justify sugarcoating the current misery.
Click to expand...

I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the benefits of this system would be practically.

No one is sugar coating anything, I think we have a lot of issues for example the way we have targeted people with disabilities recently. I just happen to also believe it is worth focusing on the fact that we are a very fortunate generation compared to nearly any in the history of the known world. Giving young people the confidence and correct advice to make the system work for them rather than fostering a self fulfilling victimhood.
 
Capitalism, tempered by fair taxation to pay for social services.
How does Norway do it? They seem to be doing ok, right? A large surplus from their oil money helps of course.
 
Cheesy said:
This isn't necessarily true.
Click to expand...

An able bodied 16 year old who has just completed school is unable to escape poverty if they make the correct decisions and work hard?

I would be interested to hear why not, the statistics do say otherwise.

Apply for one of the plumbing, bricklaying or electrician apprenticeships which are greatly under filled. Stick at it for the duration, don't drop out. Enrol in college for a degree with a practically obtainable profession, these are state funded. They will be fine, it is about making the correct choices and sticking to them.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
An able bodied 16 year old who has just completed school is unable to escape poverty if they make the correct decisions and work hard?

I would be interested to hear why not, the statistics do say otherwise.

Apply for one of the plumbing, bricklaying or electrician apprenticeships which are greatly under filled. Stick at it for the duration, don't drop out. Enrol in college for a degree with a practically obtainable profession, these are state funded. They will be fine, it is about making the correct choices and sticking to them.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. What if they can't afford the tools needed? Can't afford gas to get to school?
Capitalism at the root of it is evil. The very nature of the word is to capitalize. Capitalize on your position. Capitalize on people who are in a worse position than you. "Hey is just business" it's not when your straight A student can't get into a top school because a millionaire buys a new library so his C student gets to capitalize on daddies money.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
An able bodied 16 year old who has just completed school is unable to escape poverty if they make the correct decisions and work hard?

I would be interested to hear why not, the statistics do say otherwise.

Apply for one of the plumbing, bricklaying or electrician apprenticeships which are greatly under filled. Stick at it for the duration, don't drop out. Enrol in college for a degree with a practically obtainable profession, these are state funded. They will be fine, it is about making the correct choices and sticking to them.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring the external circumstances which may impact that 16-year old's ability to escape poverty. He's likely had a poor education for one, which hardly sets him in good stead. Years of living in poverty may have resulted in him having poor mental health. He may have had a poor upbringing in general, with bad parental relationships etc, which could further impact those mental health issues. Or perhaps he has a parent/family member who's unwell, and who he has to act as the sole carer for, further impacting his ability to work and advance in the world of work.

You refer to making the 'correct decisions,' but when people in poverty take the wrong choices it's often not because they just want to; it's a product of the social circumstances in which they've been raised and the life they've had so far. And individuals are all different, meaning no two cases will tend to be the same. Personal responsibility should, of course, play a role, and I'm not suggesting that some people aren't lazy or make poor choices they should ideally regret. But what I am saying is that simply suggesting someone 'works hard' ignores the fact that each said person you're talking about has a complicated life of their own with various factors that'll effect their own personal circumstances.

I agree a lot of people should consider apprenticeships and similarly well-paid jobs. It's an excellent idea, and does offer fantastic opportunities for people who would otherwise remain in poverty...but it's not always extremely simple. What if the apprenticeship opportunity is, say, a considerable distance from where the person lives, and they're not able to afford a car to make the journey? What if someone's had a dreadful education and terrible upbringing, and is therefore not particularly skilled socially and finds it difficult to work well with managers/bosses/coworkers etc?
 
And this is bunk.

Apply for one of the plumbing, bricklaying or electrician apprenticeships which are greatly under filled. Stick at it for the duration, don't drop out. Enrol in college for a degree with a practically obtainable profession, these are state funded. They will be fine, it is about making the correct choices and sticking to them.

Why should a good student have to do this to pay for university? You could be turning down someone that could be the next Einstein for the capitalization of a millionaires child who's gonna do nothing
 
Billy Blaggs said:
Bullshit. What if they can't afford the tools needed? Can't afford gas to get to school?
Capitalism at the root of it is evil. The very nature of the word is to capitalize. Capitalize on your position. Capitalize on people who are in a worse position than you. "Hey is just business" it's not when your straight A student can't get into a top school because a millionaire buys a new library so his C student gets to capitalize on daddies money.
Click to expand...

It actually comes from the word capital.

There is government support on both a local and national level for associated expenses. This is the same with college. The point about the library I am not sure what you are trying to say. Acceptance levels are very high throughout the country and if you can't go to your first choice most students have a list of 10 Uni's, if your ucas score is good then you will get into one of them.
 
Billy Blaggs said:
Bullshit. What if they can't afford the tools needed? Can't afford gas to get to school?
Capitalism at the root of it is evil. The very nature of the word is to capitalize. Capitalize on your position. Capitalize on people who are in a worse position than you. "Hey is just business" it's not when your straight A student can't get into a top school because a millionaire buys a new library so his C student gets to capitalize on daddies money.
Click to expand...

I don't even dislike capitalism as a whole, because despite my qualms with many of its features, I'm not sure there's a better alternative that wouldn't be instantly abused by those who seek power. But this mantra of "working hard works no matter what" ignores external circumstances which impact upon the people involved, and ignores the fact that many people spend their whole lives working hard and get next to feck all from it.

Not to generalise, but I think a lot of people who emphasise the "hard-working, personal responsibility" mantra are often types who've seen that work for them, and assume everyone's else's circumstances are identical to their own.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
An able bodied 16 year old who has just completed school is unable to escape poverty if they make the correct decisions and work hard?

I would be interested to hear why not, the statistics do say otherwise.

Apply for one of the plumbing, bricklaying or electrician apprenticeships which are greatly under filled. Stick at it for the duration, don't drop out. Enrol in college for a degree with a practically obtainable profession, these are state funded. They will be fine, it is about making the correct choices and sticking to them.
Click to expand...

What is your background?
 
Billy Blaggs said:
And this is bunk.

Apply for one of the plumbing, bricklaying or electrician apprenticeships which are greatly under filled. Stick at it for the duration, don't drop out. Enrol in college for a degree with a practically obtainable profession, these are state funded. They will be fine, it is about making the correct choices and sticking to them.

Why should a good student have to do this to pay for university? You could be turning down someone that could be the next Einstein for the capitalization of a millionaires child who's gonna do nothing
Click to expand...

If you are a good student then go to Uni and do something practical.

I mentioned less academic pursuits because when we are talking about helping people we should talk about the people with the least tools. I.e. kids with lower grades.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
It actually comes from the word capital.

There is government support on both a local and national level for associated expenses. This is the same with college. The point about the library I am not sure what you are trying to say. Acceptance levels are very high throughout the country and if you can't go to your first choice most students have a list of 10 Uni's, if your ucas score is good then you will get into one of them.
Click to expand...

Where do you live?
 
OverratedOpinion said:
It actually comes from the word capital.

There is government support on both a local and national level for associated expenses. This is the same with college. The point about the library I am not sure what you are trying to say. Acceptance levels are very high throughout the country and if you can't go to your first choice most students have a list of 10 Uni's, if your ucas score is good then you will get into one of them.
Click to expand...

There's government support, but again, it's not the be all and end all. If you go to university or college and don't have a lot of money, you may need to work a ton of hours in order to sustain yourself economically; already you're at a disadvantage to the student from a privileged background who doesn't need to work part-time during their studies at all, and who therefore gets more time to network, gain experience within their field, and dedicate time to their studies. Again, it's more than possible to succeed, but it's not so simple and not so clear-cut. Especially once you start to factor in mental and physical health issues.
 
Full-time work gets you the vast majority of the way to the low-poverty conclusion and then high-school education gets you right up to it. Bringing in marriage and child-delay is unnecessary and then can't even be properly identified in the data.
Click to expand...

http://www.demos.org/blog/8/13/15/success-sequence-extremely-misleading-and-impossible-code

It basically says that the presence or absence of a full-time job explains 75% of the reduction seen by those following the code is down to having a full-time job, having a school degree has a noticeable but weaker effect (a further ~25%), and the other stuff (marriage, kids), is not well defined in the data, has a very small effect, and is this nothing more than moralistic preaching.
In other words, having a full-time job will protect someone from poverty in a western country. Of course, the question is if capitalism can produce jobs for everyone.

I also posted a link to an article about a hypothetical market socialist system. Your arguments in favour of capitalism are not about its ownership structure (private ownership of the means of production) but the presence of markets. So I'm curious what you think about that article.


Edit: a more detailed argument about those 3 simple rules - http://peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/08/05/the-success-sequence-is-about-cultural-beefs-not-poverty/
 
Cheesy said:
I don't even dislike capitalism as a whole, because despite my qualms with many of its features, I'm not sure there's a better alternative that wouldn't be instantly abused by those who seek power. But this mantra of "working hard works no matter what" ignores external circumstances which impact upon the people involved, and ignores the fact that many people spend their whole lives working hard and get next to feck all from it.

Not to generalise, but I think a lot of people who emphasise the "hard-working, personal responsibility" mantra are often types who've seen that work for them, and assume everyone's else's circumstances are identical to their own.
Click to expand...

Mate you are missing the very key point of the entire thing. I am talking about escaping poverty, not becoming rich.

Maybe there is a slight confusion because the original message was in response to someone in another thread that got moved over here.
 
Billy Blaggs said:
I'm asking exactly that. Hey are you talking about England or the States? Do you have an in site to both?
Click to expand...

England. I have an opinion on the States the way humans have an opinion on most things but I am nowhere near educated enough about their educational advancement to consider my opinion educated.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
Mate you are missing the very key point of the entire thing. I am talking about escaping poverty, not becoming rich.

Maybe there is a slight confusion because the original message was in response to someone in another thread that got moved over here.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - that'd partly still depend on your definition of poverty, then, and whether we're discussing absolute or relative. But you've not addressed my other points re escaping poverty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.