Do we like capitalism based on the fantasy of it?

C

Cancel 2020.1

Canceled
I'm hoping for some serious discussion on this, so if you need to get the "commie liberal" comments off your chest, try to limit them to a post or 2.

I'm actually a pure capitalist. I love capitalism - I love determining my own income. More than anything, I love the idea that I can be wealthy someday if I really apply myself to it. And I think that's why many like capitalism - we all think we can be rich.

But how realistic is that? The percentages do not lie. A very small few of us actually get rich, and the vast majority of the population - a # that continues to grow - continues to wallow in the lower-to-mid classes, and see their buying power erode as wages stagnate and they accrue more & more debt to try to pay for a modest lifestyle that is still above their means.

Beyond that, that small few is calling more & more of the shots. Spending millions in Washington, helping to get politicians elected, and helping to write laws.

I feel like we're all being pretty gullible, and doing exactly what those who really pull the strings want us to do. It might be time to consider the possibility that capitalism just isn't working.
 
Thing1 said:
I'm hoping for some serious discussion on this, so if you need to get the "commie liberal" comments off your chest, try to limit them to a post or 2.

I'm actually a pure capitalist. I love capitalism - I love determining my own income. More than anything, I love the idea that I can be wealthy someday if I really apply myself to it. And I think that's why many like capitalism - we all think we can be rich.

But how realistic is that? The percentages do not lie. A very small few of us actually get rich, and the vast majority of the population - a # that continues to grow - continues to wallow in the lower-to-mid classes, and see their buying power erode as wages stagnate and they accrue more & more debt to try to pay for a modest lifestyle that is still above their means.

Beyond that, that small few is calling more & more of the shots. Spending millions in Washington, helping to get politicians elected, and helping to write laws.

I feel like we're all being pretty gullible, and doing exactly what those who really pull the strings want us to do. It might be time to consider the possibility that capitalism just isn't working.
Click to expand...

I like it for what we have accomplished with it, just as I like republican government and civil liberties. All three of these are frequently forsaken in policy. Capitalism gets unseated by corporatism and socialism, republican government by appeals to populism and direct democracy (like initiatives and referenda, and the 17th Amendment). Finally, civil liberties get undone by appeals to national security, city planning/growth (like municipal abuse of eminent domain), and utilitarianism in general.
 
Thing1 said:
I'm hoping for some serious discussion on this, so if you need to get the "commie liberal" comments off your chest, try to limit them to a post or 2.

I'm actually a pure capitalist. I love capitalism - I love determining my own income. More than anything, I love the idea that I can be wealthy someday if I really apply myself to it. And I think that's why many like capitalism - we all think we can be rich.

But how realistic is that? The percentages do not lie. A very small few of us actually get rich, and the vast majority of the population - a # that continues to grow - continues to wallow in the lower-to-mid classes, and see their buying power erode as wages stagnate and they accrue more & more debt to try to pay for a modest lifestyle that is still above their means.

Beyond that, that small few is calling more & more of the shots. Spending millions in Washington, helping to get politicians elected, and helping to write laws.

I feel like we're all being pretty gullible, and doing exactly what those who really pull the strings want us to do. It might be time to consider the possibility that capitalism just isn't working.
Click to expand...

I support a free market. That isn't necessarily the same as capitalism.
 
Establishment said:
I like it for what we have accomplished with it, just as I like republican government and civil liberties. All three of these are frequently forsaken in policy. Capitalism gets unseated by corporatism and socialism, republican government by appeals to populism and direct democracy (like initiatives and referenda, and the 17th Amendment). Finally, civil liberties get undone by appeals to national security, city planning/growth (like municipal abuse of eminent domain), and utilitarianism in general.
Click to expand...

Do we overplay what it has accomplished though? Do the accomplishments benefit all or most, or just a minority?

The Egyptians built the pyramids thousands of years ago. Huge accomplishment - but was it beneficial for that society as a whole, or just the top?
 
To be clear, and to state the obvious, capitalism is not a perfect economic system. I would argue of all the economic systems conceived so far capitalism has been the best. I would site the argument that no other economic system has brought more people out of poverty than capitalism.

This is an excellent topic for discussion though as the OP and 3D referenced there are different ways capitalism can go within a country. For instance when we allow the moral hazard of letting firms be too big to fail with the knowledge they will be bailed out is that a good thing? When government increases it's role in regulating the economy and determining winners and losers is that a good thing? (Before someone goes Desh on me this isn't suggesting complete laissez faire with zero regulations.)

And if capitalism is deemed not to be working I'd ask two questions. Is there something out there that's currently working better? Or what would be an idea for a completely new system? If it's the former I know a lot of people like to point to Europe. I'd say Europe is having some serious economic challenges however. They have an aging society and not enough young workers to maintain the benefits level expected by the older generation. European countries have also relied heavily on America for its defense. Could the European countries continue their liberal social benefits if they had to increase their share of defense spending and rely less on us?

Secondly we could look at China. They've obviously had a rapid rise with their state run capitalism. Is that the future though? There are a lot of economists who think China is facing some major headwinds economically. I think more time needs to be given to see how their situation plays out before saying we've seen the light.

IMO, nothing we are currently seeing is going to replace capitalism in the near future.
 
cawacko said:
To be clear, and to state the obvious, capitalism is not a perfect economic system. I would argue of all the economic systems conceived so far capitalism has been the best. I would site the argument that no other economic system has brought more people out of poverty than capitalism.

This is an excellent topic for discussion though as the OP and 3D referenced there are different ways capitalism can go within a country. For instance when we allow the moral hazard of letting firms be too big to fail with the knowledge they will be bailed out is that a good thing? When government increases it's role in regulating the economy and determining winners and losers is that a good thing? (Before someone goes Desh on me this isn't suggesting complete laissez faire with zero regulations.)

And if capitalism is deemed not to be working I'd ask two questions. Is there something out there that's currently working better? Or what would be an idea for a completely new system? If it's the former I know a lot of people like to point to Europe. I'd say Europe is having some serious economic challenges however. They have an aging society and not enough young workers to maintain the benefits level expected by the older generation. European countries have also relied heavily on America for its defense. Could the European countries continue their liberal social benefits if they had to increase their share of defense spending and rely less on us?

Secondly we could look at China. They've obviously had a rapid rise with their state run capitalism. Is that the future though? There are a lot of economists who think China is facing some major headwinds economically. I think more time needs to be given to see how their situation plays out before saying we've seen the light.

IMO, nothing we are currently seeing is going to replace capitalism in the near future.
Click to expand...

Great response, and an aspect that I think is important to the discussion. What's the alternative? What else has worked as well? I agree that the answer is nothing, really. At least not yet. And I don't have an answer for what COULD work better, but I do believe there is something. Maybe some sort of modified system that takes the best of a lot of theories and combines them somehow. I really don't know - I just know that capitalism feels almost like it's done it's job & gotten us to this point, but is outliving its usefulness. It's simply not working for many people, probably the majority of people.

Capitalism has been largely characterized by abuse in America's lifetime. There were the early days, even up until the mid-20th century, when there were the robber barons, and no worker protections. Low wages, haves & have nots, all of that. Then, around the 50's and 60's, it seemed to really hit its stride - working for almost everyone, no CEO's making inflated salaries, no "too big to fail." Then the '80's hit, and it's been downhill since. A small group making a ton of money, and often at the EXPENSE of those in the lower classes, and not benefiting those classes. Actually hurting most people for the gain of a few.
 
And a good point about Europe. Europe has a lot of their own problems, even WITH America providing a lot of the protections to their security so they don't have to focus on that as much. I don't think the answers lie there.
 
Thing1 said:
Do we overplay what it has accomplished though? Do the accomplishments benefit all or most, or just a minority?

The Egyptians built the pyramids thousands of years ago. Huge accomplishment - but was it beneficial for that society as a whole, or just the top?
Click to expand...

Have we not led the world in just about everything for the last century or more....and shared what we have discovered, created, manufactured, etc. with the rest of
the world.....have we not come to the aid of anyone involved in some natural disaster or calamity....with money, food, medicine, etc.....

There is no utopia, no garden of eden, no heaven on earth....we do the best we what we have and especially what we have to contend with in others.....
 
NOVA said:
Have we not led the world in just about everything for the last century or more....and shared what we have discovered, created, manufactured, etc. with the rest of
the world.....have we not come to the aid of anyone involved in some natural disaster or calamity....with money, food, medicine, etc.....

There is no utopia, no garden of eden, no heaven on earth....we do the best we what we have and especially what we have to contend with in others.....
Click to expand...

America has a huge list of accomplishments, and we have helped the world. That isn't really the question of the OP.

The question is: is capitalism working for the majority of the people here? I don't really know how anyone can answer "yes" to that anymore. Most Americans are not moving forward. Their incomes are stagnating, they're falling deeper into debt. And it's undeniable that there are many who gain wealth in ways that hurt others, instead of benefiting them.

There isn't a utopia. But I don't think we should stop seeking a system that helps the majority of people, instead of a select few. As I said in the OP, I consider myself to be a capitalist, and I love the "dream" of capitalism. I'm just starting to question it.
 
Thing1 said:
And a good point about Europe. Europe has a lot of their own problems, even WITH America providing a lot of the protections to their security so they don't have to focus on that as much. I don't think the answers lie there.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent point.

Maybe we should go back to the system we had in the 50's and 60's. I wonder though if it is not possible because we have many, many more people now. Also, I wonder if poverty simply was not highlighted back then, especially among black people and Hispanics.
 
Seahawk said:
This is an excellent point.

Maybe we should go back to the system we had in the 50's and 60's. I wonder though if it is not possible because we have many, many more people now. Also, I wonder if poverty simply was not highlighted back then, especially among black people and Hispanics.
Click to expand...

The system where much of Europe was recovering from WWII, Eastern Europe was communist, China was in the middle of the cultural revolution and India was just plain poor? Any thoughts on how to recreate those global conditions?
 
cawacko said:
The system where much of Europe was recovering from WWII, Eastern Europe was communist, China was in the middle of the cultural revolution and India was just plain poor? Any thoughts on how to recreate those global conditions?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the conditions in those countries helped America's economy? I was only referring to our economy.
 
Thing1 said:
Beyond that, that small few is calling more & more of the shots. Spending millions in Washington, helping to get politicians elected, and helping to write laws.
Click to expand...

And you're doing everything in your power to help them. Congratulations.

cawacko said:
To be clear, and to state the obvious, capitalism is not a perfect economic system.
Click to expand...

That's because Capitalism is a Property Theory and not an Economic System.

Property Theories only suggest who should control Capital -- the means of production, which includes but is not limited to cash, credit, Labor, Land, vehicles of all sorts, ships, boats, aircraft, buildings, machinery, equipment, tools and even draught animals.

Capitalism posits that individual control of Capital is best, because individuals are more responsive to the Markets, have greater knowledge of the Markets and are less likely to be influenced by GroupThink.

Socialism and Communism are heavily influenced by GroupThink and worse than that, are incredibly slow to respond to changes in the Market, often paralyzed by large bureaucracies.


The Economic System you use is an hybrid of the Free Market and (Soviet style) Command Market Systems, at present leaning heavily toward the Free Market.

Economic Systems answer three basic questions:

1] What shall we produce or what services should we provide?

2] How shall we produce goods and services?

3] For whom shall we produce goods and services?

Capitalism is best when paired with the Free Market, but you can pair Capitalism with Command Markets, like China does.
 
cawacko said:
Doesn't the world economy generally affect what happens to us? We don't exist in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

The World Economy only impacts your exports. If other economies are suffering globally, then they're less likely to import goods from the US for whatever reason.

You import the same things regardless of what's happening globally. If China went into a recession tomorrow, you'd still carry a trade deficit with China.
 
Thing1 said:
America has a huge list of accomplishments, and we have helped the world. That isn't really the question of the OP.

The question is: is capitalism working for the majority of the people here? I don't really know how anyone can answer "yes" to that anymore. Most Americans are not moving forward. Their incomes are stagnating, they're falling deeper into debt. And it's undeniable that there are many who gain wealth in ways that hurt others, instead of benefiting them.

There isn't a utopia. But I don't think we should stop seeking a system that helps the majority of people, instead of a select few. As I said in the OP, I consider myself to be a capitalist, and I love the "dream" of capitalism. I'm just starting to question it.
Click to expand...

It is not the purpose of capitalism to help people.....its purpose is to allow people to help themselves, and be all that they can be....and not burden their neighbors....
It allows them to innovate ideas of value to others and by doing so provide for themselves.....

Does it help the majority ?....Thats irrelevant but it certainly seems it does....its up to the individual to use it as a tool for their own good. If you're useless, you will have to rely on the generosity and charity of others....the alternative is socialism, which helps no one....who will a country of takers take from if no one is will to do any work....
the starving can't feed the starving....the starving can't share what they themselves do not have...
 
Mircea said:
The World Economy only impacts your exports. If other economies are suffering globally, then they're less likely to import goods from the US for whatever reason.

You import the same things regardless of what's happening globally. If China went into a recession tomorrow, you'd still carry a trade deficit with China.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest the lack of global competition played a role in our dominance. Obviously there was technology and automation that eliminated many manufacturing jobs but we weren't offshoring jobs to Southeast Asia in the '50's and '60's. We weren't sending manufacturing jobs to China during that time period. We weren't sending IT jobs to India during that time.

The suggestion that certain policy's and tax rates worked in the '50's and '60's and thus would work today and have similar results doesn't really hold weight as we've shifted from an industrial economy to an information one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top