Capitalism Is Starting to Be Replaced By Something Better

[Arbo]

I gave an example.
You're free to ignore it of course, which you are.

You rambled on about deregulation… which would mean they were not free markets … and clearly they are still heavily regulated. So thanks for showing that the mythical unrestricted markets have never existed.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

You rambled on about deregulation… which would mean they were not free markets … and clearly they are still heavily regulated. So thanks for showing that the mythical unrestricted markets have never existed.

Are you ever going to describe what a perfectly free market looks like, and how it's going to solve all of our problems? Talk about mythical - I don't think you guys even know what a perfectly free market would look like in theory.

 

[Arbo]

There's nothing wrong with capitalism as long as pragmatism is allowed to work within the framework of capitalism.

The problem is those calling for 'pragmatism' really want something else, and are just hiding what they want, as they know it wouldn't be supported by a majority or by the Constitution.

 

[Arbo]

Are you ever going to describe what a perfectly free market looks like, and how it's going to solve all of our problems? Talk about mythical - I don't think you guys even know what a perfectly free market would look like in theory.

Let's bypass this diversionary tactic to shift the topic, and return to what I originally responded to, which was the idea that the 'free market' is a proven failure. To which I asked if someone could give an example of where one of these 'free markets' exists. And as per the norm, there is dodging and diversion, rather than those making the claims admitting to their hyperbole because a 'free market' does not exist.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

The problem is those calling for 'pragmatism' really want something else, and are just hiding what they want, as they know it wouldn't be supported by a majority or by the Constitution.

Or maybe that's just a convenient myth you have invented because you can't beat the pragmatic argument without imagining the other side to be evil, dishonest, anti-Constitution, or some other crazy thing.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Let's bypass this diversionary tactic to shift the topic, and return to what I originally responded to, which was the idea that the 'free market' is a proven failure. To which I asked if someone could give an example of where one of these 'free markets' exists. And as per the norm, there is dodging and diversion, rather than those making the claims admitting to their hyperbole because a 'free market' does not exist.

It's not a diversionary tactic. I just don't know what the hell you are picturing in your head when you say "perfectly free market" all the time, as if that was a coherent argument in itself. You guys whip that phrase out like it means something, without a speck of further elaboration on why it would make a difference. It's every bit as meaningless as saying that some regulation or measure inhibits "freedom."

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Why do people think that replacing capitalism with something else = socialism?

Why do people think that helping the private sector = socialism?

Where has our economic education gone wrong?

Since when has adding more money via decreased taxes and increased fiscal spending through the private sector (via jobs) ever hurt the free market?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Let's bypass this diversionary tactic to shift the topic, and return to what I originally responded to, which was the idea that the 'free market' is a proven failure. To which I asked if someone could give an example of where one of these 'free markets' exists. And as per the norm, there is dodging and diversion, rather than those making the claims admitting to their hyperbole because a 'free market' does not exist.

The pure "free market" argument can be used for the pure "socialist/communist" argument. Neither have existed in a vaccuum.

But we can show that EVERY developed country in history has necessarily had to move away from a near "free market" form and into a more socialist system in order to thrive and to become a more humanitarian society.

 

[DA60]

Capitalism Is Starting to Be Replaced By Something Better

No it isn't.

Capitalism works best because it recognizes that most people are greedy.

Until 'greed' evolves out of human nature, capitalism will continue to be the best way to base an economy.

And yet another arrogant, ignorant, probably self-serving, 'study'/op-ed piece from yet another Ivory Tower prof/economist who is near-totally clueless about the real world won't change that.

 

[sookster]

In China it has. It is approaching that in many socialist countries; the choice is whether folks wish to let the gov't decide what each citizen needs in order to "survive" or whether those that contribute more of value should enjoy a higher standard of living on that basis. If those that read books get the same level of survival income as those that write books then there are apt to be far fewer good writers.

Why do you correlate the acquisition of the material world to happiness?

 

[sookster]

Capitalism Is Starting to Be Replaced By Something Better

No it isn't.

Capitalism works best because it recognizes that most people are greedy.

Until 'greed' evolves out of human nature, capitalism will continue to be the best way to base an economy.

And yet another arrogant, ignorant, probably self-serving, 'study'/op-ed piece from yet another Ivory Tower prof/economist who is near-totally clueless about the real world won't change that.

It could very well be argued that the system itself breeds greed. Sure there have been greedy people throughout human history, there will always will be. But the sheer amount of greed has got to have increased during a capitalistic society.

 

[spud_meister]

Capitalism Is Starting to Be Replaced By Something Better

No it isn't.

Capitalism works best because it recognizes that most people are greedy.

Until 'greed' evolves out of human nature, capitalism will continue to be the best way to base an economy.

And yet another arrogant, ignorant, probably self-serving, 'study'/op-ed piece from yet another Ivory Tower prof/economist who is near-totally clueless about the real world won't change that.

When the cost of production falls so that everyone can own a Ferrari, what will people have to be greedy about? Some people will still lust after the unique, but for most greedy people, it is simply envy of their economic betters, which would not be a problem in the situation given in the OP.

 

[imagep]

A free market wouldn't end in that result.

Sure it would, over time wealth pools. Ultimately, it all is in the same pool.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Capitalism Is Starting to Be Replaced By Something Better

No it isn't.

Capitalism works best because it recognizes that most people are greedy.

Until 'greed' evolves out of human nature, capitalism will continue to be the best way to base an economy.

And yet another arrogant, ignorant, probably self-serving, 'study'/op-ed piece from yet another Ivory Tower prof/economist who is near-totally clueless about the real world won't change that.

I agree completely with this posting, except for your use of the word “greed”.

By definition, greed is the desire to take that which does not belong to one, and to which one is not entitled.

People being willing to work in order to earn what they need or want is not greed, and this is what makes capitalism work.

Most wrong-wing economic policies, on the other hand, are nearly entirely greed-based, for they desire to take that which someone else has worked to earn, to be used for the benefit of those who did nothing to earn it.

 

[Henrin]

Sure it would, over time wealth pools. Ultimately, it all is in the same pool.

But it doesn't pool in a free market. It pools because those with wealth get protected from competition and thus wealth pools.

 

[Henrin]

The pure "free market" argument can be used for the pure "socialist/communist" argument. Neither have existed in a vaccuum.

But we can show that EVERY developed country in history has necessarily had to move away from a near "free market" form and into a more socialist system in order to thrive and to become a more humanitarian society.

humanitarian society? What kind of policies are we talking about??

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why do you correlate the acquisition of the material world to happiness?

I assume that you meant "acquisituion of material wealth" but that is what is required to raise one's standard of living in a capitalist society. While one can certainly be "happy" by wandering the streets, in a drug induced stupor, that activity contributes nothing to society. The idea that productive behavior, e.g.. the providing goods or services in demand, would benefit both the individual and society in general should be rewarded is the basis of capitalism.

Naturally, one needs some gov't to impose basic rules and limits upon the use of common resources, to avoid the tragedy of the commons, but taking that so far as to say that all income (derived from providing goods or services) belongs to everyone collectively, and will be distriibuted accordingly, tends to yield more takers and fewer makers. If one could enjoy the same standard of living for being a taker as for being a maker then there is little incentive to "waste" tme by working when that time could be spent more happily by aimlessly wandering about having fun with little or no individual consequence.

 

[Ganesh]

Capitalism Is Starting to Be Replaced By Something Better

No it isn't.

Capitalism works best because it recognizes that most people are greedy.

Until 'greed' evolves out of human nature, capitalism will continue to be the best way to base an economy.

And yet another arrogant, ignorant, probably self-serving, 'study'/op-ed piece from yet another Ivory Tower prof/economist who is near-totally clueless about the real world won't change that.

Actually, a lot of the best things accomplished by society have not been greed based at all. The space program in the US, Medicare in Canada, peacekeeping and other functions of the UN, the peaceful integration and humanitarian laws of the EU........all of these have required giving, not taking.

There is a current emphasis on consumerism and wealth, particularly in the US, that has been urged on by the far right and the ultra rich, but not all, by any measure, buy into this.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why do so many people assume that government jobs that are just meant to pick up the slack would completely take the place of the private sector? Capitalism would still be the machine that makes the stuff we need, and the profit motive would still be the driving force behind the private sector. But if that machine only requires, say, 20% of our labor force, there has to be something else in place to keep everybody else busy. That 80% would be capable of doing some great things, if the support was in place for them to do so. I'd much rather live in a society that pays people a decent stipend to write music or conduct scientific research than a society that just gives people enough to sit on a couch and watch TV all day until they die.

Why should only one person out of every five do the honest work of producing what all of society needs or wants, while the other four get to live off of the work of that one? Whatever “great things” you think that 80% could accomplish, you know that no matter what support system might be put in place, if they don't have to work to support themselves, they won't. You'll just have a large population of lazy, unproductive parasites, supported by a small population of honest workers.


If the point is truly reached where society can maintain the same level of productivity and wealth creation with only 20% of the labor now needed, would it not make much more sense to have everyone work much shorter hours? One could work only one eight-hour day a week in order to earn the same standard of living that one now must work forty hours a week—five eight-hour days—to earn; or better yet, work somewhat longer hours than that, say, twenty hours a week, and enjoy a much higher standard of living than is available to most people today?


The political wrong has long tended to support “equality” in the sense of all people being able to enjoy an “equal” standard of living; but, as this thread demonstrates, not equality in the sense of everyone having to contribute equally to earn that standard of living.

In fact, this thread has painted an almost caricaturish picture of the wrong-wing fantasy in which a guy who sits around all day at home smoking dope and doing nothing whatsoever to contribute anything to society gets to enjoy the same standard of living as someone who puts in forty hours of hard work each week at an honest job; and in which there are four times as many of the former as there are of the latter.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I assume that you meant "acquisituion [sic] of material wealth" but that is what is required to raise one's standard of living in a capitalist society. While one can certainly be "happy" by wandering the streets, in a drug induced stupor, that activity contributes nothing to society. The idea that productive behavior, e.g.. the providing goods or services in demand, would benefit both the individual and society in general should be rewarded is the basis of capitalism.

Naturally, one needs some gov't [sic] to impose basic rules and limits upon the use of common resources, to avoid the tragedy of the commons, but taking that so far as to say that all income (derived from providing goods or services) belongs to everyone collectively, and will be distriibuted [sic] accordingly, tends to yield more takers and fewer makers. If one could enjoy the same standard of living for being a taker as for being a maker then there is little incentive to "waste" tme [sic] by working when that time could be spent more happily by aimlessly wandering about having fun with little or no individual consequence.

Indeed, the picture has already been painted, in glorious, bright colors, of a society that consists of 80% takers and 20% makers, and presented as if this would somehow be a better society than that in which we now live.

 

[Gardener]

Why should only one person out of every five do the honest work of producing what all of society needs or wants, while the other four get to live off of the work of that one? .

Well,I don't think the ratio of honest worker to CEO/investment banker/stockmarket investor is quite what you state,but yes -- the worker who actually produces something certainly gets the short end of the stick compared to those who do nothing but manipulate currency.

You're almost starting to sound like a socialist here,Bob.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

humanitarian society? What kind of policies are we talking about??

Basic substinence, full employment, health care, education. Just too name a few, most countries already provide these.

 

[imagep]

Why should only one person out of every five do the honest work of producing what all of society needs or wants, while the other four get to live off of the work of that one? Whatever “great things” you think that 80% could accomplish, you know that no matter what support system might be put in place, if they don't have to work to support themselves, they won't. You'll just have a large population of lazy, unproductive parasites, supported by a small population of honest workers.


If the point is truly reached where society can maintain the same level of productivity and wealth creation with only 20% of the labor now needed, would it not make much more sense to have everyone work much shorter hours? One could work only one eight-hour day a week in order to earn the same standard of living that one now must work forty hours a week—five eight-hour days—to earn; or better yet, work somewhat longer hours than that, say, twenty hours a week, and enjoy a much higher standard of living than is available to most people today?


The political wrong has long tended to support “equality” in the sense of all people being able to enjoy an “equal” standard of living; but, as this thread demonstrates, not equality in the sense of everyone having to contribute equally to earn that standard of living.

In fact, this thread has painted an almost caricaturish picture of the wrong-wing fantasy in which a guy who sits around all day at home smoking dope and doing nothing whatsoever to contribute anything to society gets to enjoy the same standard of living as someone who puts in forty hours of hard work each week at an honest job.

BULLSEYE!

In an earlier post, I mentioned that no one had made a post with a vision of the future that was even remotely close to mine. You just came pretty darned close.

In the world of George Jetson, George was the only income earner in the family, he worked a 3 hour work day, one day a week.

Of course it's going to take government intervention to accomplish that, because there are far too many of us who would be greedy, and chose to "consume" all of the available work hours for ourself. A few of the governmental actions that may be needed to create the Jetson's world:

1) A HIGHLY progressive income tax
2) Double time, triple time, or even quadruple time compensation mandate for overtime
3) Shorter standard work week, gradually declining as our per work hour productivity increases. We've already dropped from 70+ hours to 40- hours during the past 114 years, I don't see why this trend shouldn't continue.
4) Increasing spending on infrastructure,especially including education.
5) Mandated paid personal leave and vacation time.
6) Earlier retirement age
7) Young people would need to be incentivized (more in college and in grad school) enter our work force at a older age

 

[What if...?]

We've been too obsessed with PURITY for too long, so we really can only make a move TOWARD something more pragmatic which takes the best from everything.
There's almost no more wiggle room in the other direction and we're already in the throes of failure because of our obsession with purity.
Purity is fundamentalism and fundamentalism is a mental illness.
Pragmatism is healthy.
There's nothing wrong with capitalism as long as pragmatism is allowed to work within the framework of capitalism.
Running around calling pragmatists "socialists" and "collectivists" isn't working, and it's a sign of fundamentalism.

I'm amazed so many behave as if capitalism is some universal law like time or gravity.

It is an artificial construct. Wholly manmade.

And therefore subject to revision.

A rising tide should lift all boats at about the same RATE. If it isn't, and its not, it is perfectly appropriate to modify our made up system.

Libertarian models MIGHT work if we started today from scratch.

As it is, too much of what can be owned is already owned by too few. The rest of us will never catch up. We'll just e d up.with some kind of corporate feudalism.

 

[What if...?]

The problem with protectionism is that it warps the market, raises prices, lowers competition, and holds up businesses that otherwise wouldn't be competitive. It really only hurts everyone involved, but I won't deny that it can boost your economy. It comes at a rather large price though.

And the problem with globalization is it puts America workers in DIRECT competition with desperate people in different economies.