What's wrong with capitalism?

[R. Shackleferd]

No, actually it isnt. Bare-knuckles economics is as free-market as you can get.

If you want the best example we have of a free market, rewind to the turn of the century. No labor or consumer protection laws, no quality standards, virtually no rules.

Consumer protection laws? You mean like laws against fraud? Fraud is an infringement against the free market. No quality standards? I might be misunderstanding what you mean here but if you mean quality in products the only thing a free market would need for quality products is demand and a company willing to supply it. no rules =/= free market.

 

[haymarket]

This whole "we put people on the moon" is one of the biggest scams every run on the world. I am NOT saying that we didn't do it. We did and many times. But its a techie wet dream to do such a thing. Its a glorified physics problem that is like a long distance target shot. Anything that involves the complexity of human behavior should NEVER be compared to something so comparatively simple as the moon landing.

 

[UtahBill]

The problem is our system ENCOURAGES and REWARDS this kind of selfishness.

When capitalists become greedy, they risk destroying the very system that makes them rich....

 

[UtahBill]

No, actually it isnt. Bare-knuckles economics is as free-market as you can get.

If you want the best example we have of a free market, rewind to the turn of the century. No labor or consumer protection laws, no quality standards, virtually no rules.

are you saying that was a good thing?
oops, messed up, reading too fast and forgetting where others are on this issue....
No, it doesn't appear that rational people want to return to the early 1900's, at least I hope not...

 

[haymarket]

That approaches anarchy, not free market. Free market principles require something to keep them in place. We use government.

Sorry - what it approaches is acceptance of reality. This is not a freshman junior college textbook on economic theory.

 

[Hoplite]

Who taught you that? Did the NYSE software turn AI and raise you from a petri dish or something?
What school did you attend? Did your parents teach you that?
Schools I went to had maybe one freaking worthless class that directly involved capitalism discussion, Civics. The rest was English, Sciences, History, PE, Arts, Mathematics, from 3rd through 12th grade. I believe you are wholesale making this stuff up based on the evidence of my own years in the U.S.

We are a meritocratic society with a meritocratic way of doing business (which, ironically enough, we'll abandon as soon as you spook us). We reward people who do well in business with vast fortunes and a great deal of leeway with their professional and personal behavior.

There are probably thousands of examples of malfeasance on behalf of corporations (which are the major organs that drive our economy) that have resulted in a settlement that was truly pitiful. A company that dumps chemicals in a river for twenty years gets hit with a fine of $50-60 million even though dumping that chemical saved them almost $200 million over the course of the time they were doing it. There are no probation or lasting effects from corporate settlements, it's just a business expense as far as they're concerned.

Companies operate under their own culture, rules, etc. You are stereotyping. Really, let's come up with a word that is equivalent to racism but against corporations, because that's what you're doing. I know many private companies that operate with visions, rules, tradition, that are utterly good and compassionate. I know really stellar CEOs that put us lesser humans to shame in how much burden they take on and how much they do for their communities.

I'm sure there are plenty of CEO's and other business people that are very good people and who dont do anything illegal ever. But the problem is there ARE plenty who DO cross that line and the effect can be devastating. Should we turn a blind eye to or ignore corporate malfeasance because, according to you, "there are good apples too"? I never said that all corporations or people who are in corporations are evil. I DO believe that the corporate structure breeds corruption by it's very construction.

Reality encourages that for pete's sake man. We have anti-trust laws for a reason. You do understand that in a system where say, the government not only has legal authority, but also owns means of production, that's a monopoly the likes of which we can't even begin to experience in the U.S. You know, the types that destroyed civilizations, or collapsed them from within.

At least with a government you have the power to vote changes within the system or replace it entirely. What say do you have in how corporate America is run? Your wallet? You think your weekly shopping trips make ANY difference at all to companies that make more money in five minutes than you will in ten lifetimes?

But honestly, how are you net worse off right now, because of this "perceived phenomenon"? Really how? NET worse off.
You pay 30c more per gallon of milk. Oh no! But you just got food/shelter/transportation/entertainment so fast that you have leisure time to complain about it and actually spend time complaining about 30c on a gallon of milk.

I'm doing pretty well right now. But I feel it's my responsibility NOT to slam the door in other's faces once I've gotten through and to fight for good conditions for my children and THEIR children.

Bill gates has done more for that cause than anyone on earth in human history, as a direct result of capitalism. You need to get evidence to support your fictional notions.

He is a very altruistic man but his company has done some very not-altruistic things.

Furthermore, the truth is, most people really don't care to provide clean water and food to everyone on earth. Not that it's not somewhere on their hierarchy of priorities...it's somewhere below "posting about stuff on debate forums".

Good thing we have people like me around who DO care that everyone has clean water and food. I'm sorry but that attitude is almost sociopathic; there ARE other people in this world and while it may not be reasonable to expect you to sacrifice all you have so that they may have something, saying that "it's just not a priority" is...pretty cold.

That approaches anarchy, not free market. Free market principles require something to keep them in place. We use government.

So what do you do when the free market has bought out or bought AROUND the controls that keep it in check?

Consumer protection laws? You mean like laws against fraud? Fraud is an infringement against the free market. No quality standards? I might be misunderstanding what you mean here but if you mean quality in products the only thing a free market would need for quality products is demand and a company willing to supply it. no rules =/= free market.

What do you have to ensure rules are followed?

When capitalists become greedy, they risk destroying the very system that makes them rich....

That is the very irony that runs through Capitalism. Capitalists are (generally) not interested in the long-term survival of the viability of the economic system.

Take the dot com boom. You had people throwing fistfulls of cash at absolutely insane and ultimately unworkable long-term ideas. But people kept doing it because some of them were getting insanely rich. A sound business examination of that environment should have sent up red flags that this was an unsustainable situation and the ideas that were getting funded were completely unsound long-term. But none of that happened, at least not in any meaningful way, and you had a frat party that lasted until the floor dropped out.

Easy money tends to blur foresight.

are you saying that was a good thing?
oops, messed up, reading too fast and forgetting where others are on this issue....
No, it doesn't appear that rational people want to return to the early 1900's, at least I hope not...

Actually that's a scenario I'm terrified of returning to. But that is a great example of Laissez faire Capitalism. This is why I say people who truly advocate for Laissez faire Capitalism do so because they have an unrealistic view of what it ultimately means. It SOUNDS like a good and workable idea on paper but at the end of the day, it's a terrifying picture for about 90% of the population. What's worse is people who genuinely DO realize what Laissez faire Capitalism would look like and want it anyways because they're banking on being one of that 10% who doesn't have to work in a factory for 19 hours a day making a dollar a day.

 

[Councilman]

Most of those people who excel at business and reap great rewards for their efforts pay a great deal back to the nation because they are the ones who start new businesses and then work hardest to keep them going and employ most of the workers in the Nation.

What most people who are cheering for Obama don't have any idea what it means to be dirt poor which is what comes from Socialism/Marxism/Communism where only those in charge are the only ones who prosper and there is no middle class or anything close to it.

Hat is wrong with Capitalism is that too damn many people have been told they don't need to do anything but take from those who work and let those who created the welfare system take from those who try to get ahead through taxes and that kills the economy and jobs.

When the Welfare state gets too big it begins to take a toll not too unlike Socialism/Marxism/Communism where all the incentive is sucked out of society, and people end up in bread lines, or starve to death.

Obama, and others are trying to put us in that hole now. He talks a good game but Like with George Soros, I find it's just a game and his actions tell the true story.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

At least with a government you have the power to vote changes within the system or replace it entirely.

Only when voters and leaders correctly interpret areas of the constitution that allow the majority to rule the system and if voters and leaders are in agreement.

So what do you do when the free market has bought out or bought AROUND the controls that keep it in check?

I would bring attention to the idea that there are occurrences that are inconsistent with the free market. Based on the assessments that I and others have made, others may investigate infringements on the freemarket. After thorough investigation we then should come to a resolution and we explore our options depending on the resolution. Should we discover that infringements were caused by individuals initiating force or options may or may not include market activism like boycotts and ostracism or appropriate actions if contracts are involved which may or may not permit the use of defense agencies to retaliate accordingly.

But that is a great example of Laissez faire Capitalism. This is why I say people who truly advocate for Laissez faire Capitalism do so because they have an unrealistic view of what it ultimately means. It SOUNDS like a good and workable idea on paper but at the end of the day, it's a terrifying picture for about 90% of the population. What's worse is people who genuinely DO realize what Laissez faire Capitalism would look like and want it anyways because they're banking on being one of that 10% who doesn't have to work in a factory for 19 hours a day making a dollar a day.

You do not need government or non-capitalism to prevent satellite despotism when a society is armed and has the ability to associate freely. What you are describing can only happen in a society where people cannot speak freely or homestead property without infringing against coercive law that dictates despot ownership of unsecured unoccupied land. This scenario requires that people are subject to laws that they did not agree to thus the term "laissez faire" cannot apply.

Labor is a market as well. Associations and the people who serve in them want quality, safety and happiness in their lives because this is what we all want as individuals. This means safe work environments, satisfactory labor conditions and competitive currencies would be something that associates strive for and will try to provide. This is why we mechanize and automate production to not only optimize the companies operations but to also to create better environments and jobs for the worker that do not require poor wage and long hours. The working conditions you describe do not reflect a free society with a moving economy that progresses technologically. It instead reflects a society that has stagnant economy and technology which can only occur from a lack of freedom. We've accomplished a lot since the 1900's which is why there is no going back unless something dictates that we should or else.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

That's like asking what's wrong with the weather.

 

[Hoplite]

Only when voters and leaders correctly interpret areas of the constitution that allow the majority to rule the system and if voters and leaders are in agreement.

Armed insurrection works as well.

I would bring attention to the idea that there are occurrences that are inconsistent with the free market. Based on the assessments that I and others have made, others may investigate infringements on the freemarket. After thorough investigation we then should come to a resolution and we explore our options depending on the resolution. Should we discover that infringements were caused by individuals initiating force or options may or may not include market activism like boycotts and ostracism or appropriate actions if contracts are involved which may or may not permit the use of defense agencies to retaliate accordingly.

So you want to enforce the free market with rules...

You do not need government or non-capitalism to prevent satellite despotism when a society is armed and has the ability to associate freely. What you are describing can only happen in a society where people cannot speak freely or homestead property without infringing against coercive law that dictates despot ownership of unsecured unoccupied land. This scenario requires that people are subject to laws that they did not agree to thus the term "laissez faire" cannot apply.

This scenario already happened in the United States and can happen again if we decide that economics are more important than the welfare of our own citizens.

Labor is a market as well. Associations and the people who serve in them want quality, safety and happiness in their lives because this is what we all want as individuals. This means safe work environments, satisfactory labor conditions and competitive currencies would be something that associates strive for and will try to provide. This is why we mechanize and automate production to not only optimize the companies operations but to also to create better environments and jobs for the worker that do not require poor wage and long hours. The working conditions you describe do not reflect a free society with a moving economy that progresses technologically. It instead reflects a society that has stagnant economy and technology which can only occur from a lack of freedom. We've accomplished a lot since the 1900's which is why there is no going back unless something dictates that we should or else.

Competition only works if everyone is running. If everyone stops, you have no competition. Working conditions stayed terrible at the turn of the century because there was nothing forcing business owners to improve them. They gained nothing by increasing wages or working conditions and only did so once MADE to do so by the federal government.

 

[Manc Skipper]

What's wrong with it is that American bankers broke it.

 

[Paschendale]

So, is anyone else willing to admit that here are good and bad things about capitalism, and then reach a conclusion? Instead of just trying to prove good or bad? Competition is a great idea. Pitting new technologies and business models against each other to ensure that the best ideas win out, that's a great idea. If only we did that in America... The problem with our system is that we have turned the reins of our society over to those whose primary desire is financial gain. And yes, our current setup promotes and rewards this. Not every capitalist system would. It is quite possible to be a capitalist and still have a conscience.

We foolishly reward people who do nothing more than shuffle money around. Bankers, stock brokers, business executives, and a large portion of the legal profession do nothing more than move money around from one person to another. Often by force, trickery, or bribery. And we pay them a ton of money to do that. Why?

We have also gone way overboard in embracing the notion that a person does not a duty to his neighbors. Charity is optional. Helping those who are in need is apparently above and beyond the basic standards of decency. Why does a man whose primary accomplishments involve firing people and increasing profits (for a very limited number of people) deserve a third house with expensive artwork in it? Why do we reward this kind of self-centered behavior? We shouldn't. The problem with American capitalism, not all capitalism, is runaway greed, and forgetting about social consciousness.

 

[Hoplite]

So, is anyone else willing to admit that here are good and bad things about capitalism, and then reach a conclusion? Instead of just trying to prove good or bad?

There are plenty of apologists without me having to give an obligatory nod in the other direction.

I see it as an evolutionary process. Capitalism has brought us far, yes. But now it's becoming a burden and the times are demanding a more collective approach to government.

 

[UtahBill]

If we could just extract the greed gene from capitalists....either that or much more serious prison time for those who want to corrupt an otherwise good system..

 

[Slartibartfast]

There are plenty of apologists without me having to give an obligatory nod in the other direction.

I see it as an evolutionary process. Capitalism has brought us far, yes. But now it's becoming a burden and the times are demanding a more collective approach to government.

Nah Capitalism is a great system. We just need to soften the edges a bit, which is the reason why we need social spending.

 

[Hoplite]

Nah Capitalism is a great system. We just need to soften the edges a bit, which is the reason why we need social spending.

The problem is you will ALWAYS have a battle between people who dont want to spend money on something that doesnt directly benefit them and are too myopic to see that it will, in the long run, be of great benefit to them.

Also we have to consider that when we let Capitalism get as out of control as we have, we start needing social spending to fix problems that our system creates.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The problem is you will ALWAYS have a battle between people who dont want to spend money on something that doesnt directly benefit them and are too myopic to see that it will, in the long run, be of great benefit to them.

Also we have to consider that when we let Capitalism get as out of control as we have, we start needing social spending to fix problems that our system creates.

This is true.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

Armed insurrection works as well.

Weren't we talking about voting?

So you want to enforce the free market with rules...

Are you implying that my hypothetical implementation of the free market is incompatible with what a free market is? Free market =/= anarchy. If you do not understand that infringements against the free market other than state regulation can exist and that any enforcement of rules is "unfree" then you do not understand what the free market or what even "free" means.

This scenario already happened in the United States and can happen again if we decide that economics are more important than the welfare of our own citizens.

"This scenario"(a reference I assume you used to describe the free market) never existed and even if it did what is true yesterday is not necessarily true today. The scenario that does exist(a reference I used to describe the reality that is absent from a free market), and has always existed, is one where leaders draft laws that permit ownership of land and conditions of ownership by initiating force against everyone within the systems boundaries.

There is no such thing as economics being more important than welfare or anything like that. I could have gone with what you said and reply with, "Thanks for admitting that welfare is counterintuitive to economy and therefor welfare cannot be provided without economics but instead by force" but that would only play to the idea that economy is meant to be social and that welfare requires aggression, both of which are false.

Competition only works if everyone is running. If everyone stops, you have no competition. Working conditions stayed terrible at the turn of the century because there was nothing forcing business owners to improve them. They gained nothing by increasing wages or working conditions and only did so once MADE to do so by the federal government.

Why does a government need to force firms to improve worker safety? Why can't people associate freely into a union, stop production by going on strike and require that conditions must be met in order for them to work again?

The problem here is that you all are using "capitalism", "system" and "society" in the same sentences when criticizing capitalism. All three should be separate from each other and not assumed that all must be together at a dark street corner.

The social aspect: All economic models assume a normative social behavior when the economic model is successful. People from all economic -isms admit this but only as an introduction to say that their -ism is the most natural in human behavior. Most -ism economic theories do not require a system that does an all encompassing practice of it or a society that follows it voluntarily or by coercion. Capitalism(and most economic -isms) cannot be criticized for any implied social consequences because the consequences are not a part of the theory. This is why I was very specific in defending free markets in general but free market capitalism for the sack of the topic because "free market" isn't economic, it's social.

The "system": A system is a structure that encompasses everything within it's boundaries. Our use of the word system in this discussion is talking about existing economic systems. The existing systems we have now encompass large areas. These systems assume oversight over the trade made between firms, individuals and the government that enforces the system. If firms were independent and if individuals were sovereign systems would be limited to voluntary interactions. We would be merely making transactions where all parties involved come to agreements. This system is a decentralized system of subsystems and their components in voluntary use. -isms are not systems, they're components.

We foolishly reward people who do nothing more than shuffle money around. Bankers, stock brokers, business executives, and a large portion of the legal profession do nothing more than move money around from one person to another. Often by force, trickery, or bribery. And we pay them a ton of money to do that. Why?

Because the system and not capitalism extorts money and property from the individual. What we do foolishly is we do not retaliate against the system of representatives that do aggressive things against our will. Our system permits that mob rule or representative minority can permit force against others without the consent of others.

The problem with American capitalism, not all capitalism, is runaway greed, and forgetting about social consciousness.

This is a social problem; an american one. Not one that exists merely because capitalism exists. Without a central system, we would need to rely on giving in order to get. Let's use gambling as an example.

One casino I went to, I would constantly lose and on top of that I have to pay to play, pay for their food and pay for their rooms regardless of how much I have put into this casino. Down the street is a casino where my chances of losing are the same but next door my action of gambling may go towards the casino providing me with "free food" and a "free room" and a good time is had by all until I'm out of money or until the casino cannot afford to give much until people start losing again, which people will. Obviously, I prefer the second casino. Anyone should. In a decentralized system, the first casino that does not give in order to get, doesn't get anything unless this casino can change the system into one that is central and permits force against gamblers and other casinos without their consent whether or not this system is meant to give or not.

This give action get action also applies to forums which is why I don't post so much and yes, anyone can please take this as a hint.

 

[MichaelW]

Nah Capitalism is a great system. We just need to soften the edges a bit, which is the reason why we need social spending.

But capitalism isn't a political system whatsoever. It's just anarchy without the looting. People are free to do whatever they want outside or inside the law. There's no structures or rules which everyone has to adhere to. There's no masterplan or central planning.

 

[Hoplite]

Weren't we talking about voting?

And I'm talking about if voting and Democratic methods should fail.

Are you implying that my hypothetical implementation of the free market is incompatible with what a free market is? Free market =/= anarchy. If you do not understand that infringements against the free market other than state regulation can exist and that any enforcement of rules is "unfree" then you do not understand what the free market or what even "free" means.

I never said free market meant anarchy. It's entirely my fault for not being clear in my previous posts, when I say "no rules" I do mean "no government rules".

"This scenario"(a reference I assume you used to describe the free market) never existed and even if it did what is true yesterday is not necessarily true today. The scenario that does exist(a reference I used to describe the reality that is absent from a free market), and has always existed, is one where leaders draft laws that permit ownership of land and conditions of ownership by initiating force against everyone within the systems boundaries.

I invite you to pick up any basic history textbook concerning the turn of the century or Industrial Revolution. What you had was the best example of a free market we've had in this country; almost zero state regulation and near complete freedom to do whatever the market wanted.

There is no such thing as economics being more important than welfare or anything like that. I could have gone with what you said and reply with, "Thanks for admitting that welfare is counterintuitive to economy and therefor welfare cannot be provided without economics but instead by force" but that would only play to the idea that economy is meant to be social and that welfare requires aggression, both of which are false.

Emphasizing the profit motive at the expense of other concerns IS having economics be more important than welfare. When you have a system more concerned about profit than the well-being of it's members, you've effectively started fueling the furnaces of your economy with the workers and that is neither an acceptable nor a sustainable situation.

Why does a government need to force firms to improve worker safety? Why can't people associate freely into a union, stop production by going on strike and require that conditions must be met in order for them to work again?

Because the last time they did just that without federal backing, they were shot.
Pullman Strike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prior to the intervention of the federal authorities, management's tactic of choice when dealing with unhappy workers was usually force.

The problem here is that you all are using "capitalism", "system" and "society" in the same sentences when criticizing capitalism. All three should be separate from each other and not assumed that all must be together at a dark street corner.

This is partially true. What we have combines all three. Our society HAS a Capitalistic mindset to it and Capitalism (in the US) is built around our society and the system we use to keep our society running is at least built with the same mortar as the others.

Because the system and not capitalism extorts money and property from the individual. What we do foolishly is we do not retaliate against the system of representatives that do aggressive things against our will. Our system permits that mob rule or representative minority can permit force against others without the consent of others.

But can we not point the finger at Capitalism with a perfectly valid claim that Capitalism effects the mentality of those that make up the system (and thus the system itself) to be so corrupt?

This is a social problem; an american one. Not one that exists merely because capitalism exists. Without a central system, we would need to rely on giving in order to get. Let's use gambling as an example.

One casino I went to, I would constantly lose and on top of that I have to pay to play, pay for their food and pay for their rooms regardless of how much I have put into this casino. Down the street is a casino where my chances of losing are the same but next door my action of gambling may go towards the casino providing me with "free food" and a "free room" and a good time is had by all until I'm out of money or until the casino cannot afford to give much until people start losing again, which people will. Obviously, I prefer the second casino. Anyone should. In a decentralized system, the first casino that does not give in order to get, doesn't get anything unless this casino can change the system into one that is central and permits force against gamblers and other casinos without their consent whether or not this system is meant to give or not.

Not quite sure what it is you're getting at here.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

I invite you to pick up any basic history textbook concerning the turn of the century or Industrial Revolution. What you had was the best example of a free market we've had in this country; almost zero state regulation and near complete freedom to do whatever the market wanted.

So free markets allow extortion, conscription, legal tender as currency monopoly, tariffs, laws against gambling and other things that infringe on liberty.

Emphasizing the profit motive at the expense of other concerns IS having economics be more important than welfare. When you have a system more concerned about profit than the well-being of it's members, you've effectively started fueling the furnaces of your economy with the workers and that is neither an acceptable nor a sustainable situation.

Economic sustainability a goal for society? This is why it is entirely economical for producers, merchants and consumers in a free markets to have their own system of voluntarily funded safety nets for people who need them the most.

Because the last time they did just that without federal backing, they were shot.
Pullman Strike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prior to the intervention of the federal authorities, management's tactic of choice when dealing with unhappy workers was usually force.

I was defending the right to strike, not the right to vandalize, arson or threaten strikebreakers with violence.

What force did management use in the Pullman Strike? Who was doing the shooting of strikers?

But can we not point the finger at Capitalism with a perfectly valid claim that Capitalism effects the mentality of those that make up the system (and thus the system itself) to be so corrupt?

No. I don't believe that practice of theories compatible with the nonaggression axiom or access to inanimates or anything like that permit or influence corruption, aggression or ignorance.

Not quite sure what it is you're getting at here.

It was my attempt at demonstrating the lack of coercion in a voluntarist free market where in order to get something, you need to give something. I chose gambling because "give action get action" thrives in their competition and I also originally heard it as a gambling term and it satisfied my voluntarist biases.