That would be natural selection at its finest.Since those that most espouse the necessity of capitalism (typically conservatives) are those most averse to any hint of state intervention and social welfare, is capitalism about to fuck itself over by driving down the very thing it depends on? — Kenosha Kid
That would be natural selection at its finest. — baker
Of course. Natural selection.Although they might also be best placed to survive the collapse of capitalism — Kenosha Kid
Since those that most espouse the necessity of capitalism (typically conservatives) are those most averse to any hint of state intervention and social welfare, is capitalism about to fuck itself over by driving down the very thing it depends on? — Kenosha Kid
Even systems are (and need to) change constantly. The problem with social planning is that it cannot predict what changes will take place and therefore socialist systems accumulate errant plan after errant plan until the whole thing comes crashing down. — synthesis
The point of the market "being in control" is that it can react much quicker (and with a great deal more accuracy) to the needs of all concerned. — synthesis
Progressives have it right when they see the need for change, but they have it wrong when they believe that they know what the change needs to be. — synthesis
The point of the market "being in control" is that it can react much quicker (and with a great deal more accuracy) to the needs of all concerned. — synthesis
Take, for example, Scandinavian countries and their use of electric cars. Seems nice and environmentally friendly, yes?Countries with the strongest socialist policies tend to be more reactive to problems. The obvious example is environmental concerns. /.../ This strikes me as a success for the reactivity of the state to emerging crises. — Kenosha Kid
Except that the damage is done elsewhere on the planet. Parts of Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina are destroyed in the process of producing lithium for batteries for electric cars. — baker
No, they encouraged by state intervention, such as through subsidies for "green technology".Lithium batteries in cars aren't produced by state intervention, — Kenosha Kid
The state, if it would be a moral agent acting morally, would intervene with 1. this demand, and 2. the response of corporations to it.but by corporations responding to demand for cars that don't burn fossil fuels.
Even systems are (and need to) change constantly. The problem with social planning is that it cannot predict what changes will take place and therefore socialist systems accumulate errant plan after errant plan until the whole thing comes crashing down.
— synthesis
As I think I pointed out elsewhere, this isn't obviously the case. Countries with the strongest socialist policies tend to be more reactive to problems. The obvious example is environmental concerns. More progressive countries are even at the stage of buying in waste from other countries for green reuse. This strikes me as a success for the reactivity of the state to emerging crises. The same cannot be said for more capitalist countries which keep kicking the environmental can down the road. — Kenosha Kid
On which:
The point of the market "being in control" is that it can react much quicker (and with a great deal more accuracy) to the needs of all concerned.
— synthesis
That might be the idea but evidence doesn't weigh it out. Capitalism is extremely myopic and, left to its own devices, will pollute indefinitely, poison its own customers, lobby against long-term solutions in the legislature, buy up and bury long-term solutions in the market, all for the sake of maximising profit in the short term.
This is precisely why I think capitalism might destroy itself. The long-term future of capitalism is, by virtue of being long-term, outside of capitalism's area of interest. — Kenosha Kid
Progressives have it right when they see the need for change, but they have it wrong when they believe that they know what the change needs to be.
— synthesis
I'm not seeing a credible alternative on offer. I'd intended the OP to address a specific issue that pluralism might resolve (up for debate). It's not a generic mudslinging against capitalism, nor is it obvious that generic feelings against socialism are going to be enlightening. But if you have something more concrete in mind, I'm sure that would be interesting. — Kenosha Kid
No, they encouraged by state intervention, such as through subsidies for "green technology". — baker
The state, if it would be a moral agent acting morally, would intervene with 1. this demand, and 2. the response of corporations to it. — baker
The point of the market "being in control" is that it can react much quicker (and with a great deal more accuracy) to the needs of all concerned.
— synthesis
Another, perhaps more pertinent example of capitalism's ability to seed it's own destruction due to its inability to react to long-term problems is the financial crisis of 2008. From a short-termist viewpoint, it obviously made a lot of sense for financiers to carry on with their legalized pyramid scheme. However it was pretty obvious that such a scheme would self-destruct.
In the end, it was state interference which was required to save the day, with the taxpayer bailing out most of the failing banks. In fact, it surprises me that people still tout the reactivity of the markets and ineffectiveness of state intervention when capitalism's inability to react and the necessity of the state to stop the country being brought to bankruptcy is a fresh memory. — Kenosha Kid
Just the same, in the end I believe that the country with freer market will win-out in the long run. I am not sure anybody wants a poor environmental outcome, so the mistakes made (via greed/corruption) become self-correcting as the market figures it out and demands change. — synthesis
Here's the deal, freedom is ALWAYS the answer, be it in personal matters, matter of the state, or the economy. Allow people to make decisions and take responsibility for themselves. There are certainly needs for a state, but not so many. The last thing that is needed is somebody telling everybody what they need. This is when it starts to get ugly. — synthesis
If you look at the medium to long term, it seems pretty clear that capitalism (even though it is political corruption that causes most/if not all of the difficulties) is a system that provides the best life for the most people. — synthesis
The problem is that sometimes, when people make their own decision and act freely, this results in difficult situations that they themselves cannot mend, and those negative situations negatively affect other people.Here's the deal, freedom is ALWAYS the answer, be it in personal matters, matter of the state, or the economy. Allow people to make decisions and take responsibility for themselves. — synthesis
I'm talking about, for example, the state paying part of the price if you choose to buy an electric car or install a solar system on the roof of your house.Actually, yes, I suppose there were general electric car battery subsidies that inevitably funded lithium ion battery research. — Kenosha Kid
If you look at the medium to long term, it seems pretty clear that capitalism (even though it is political corruption that causes most/if not all of the difficulties) is a system that provides the best life for the most people.
— synthesis
I did look at the medium to long term, e.g. the 2008 economic collapse, its obstinate reaction to the climate crisis. The blind faith in capitalism to react is simply not something that can be taken very seriously in light of the evidence. As I said, I didn't raise the question to start a religious war between fervent capitalists and fervent socialists, since I am neither. Facts, evidence, argument based on those... good. Ideology... not helpful. Sorry. No offense meant, just not the sort of discussion I was fishing for. Others might take you up on it though. — Kenosha Kid
I'm afraid that this is a matter of ideology.Ideology — Kenosha Kid
Here's the deal, freedom is ALWAYS the answer, be it in personal matters, matter of the state, or the economy. Allow people to make decisions and take responsibility for themselves.
— synthesis
The problem is that sometimes, when people make their own decision and act freely, this results in difficult situations that they themselves cannot mend, and those negative situations negatively affect other people.
An example of such a difficult situation is consumerism, which, if left unchecked, is on the trajectory to destroy the planet. — baker
This is simply unrealistic.the best path seems to be to allow for each participant to chart his own course (within the context of respecting others' rights to do the same). — synthesis
Nobody can understand this kind of complexity, yet proscribe solutions for it. Therefore you allow those participating to figure out what works best for them in their situation (and guard against folks over-reaching and corruption). — synthesis
Even the simplest of things is infinitely complex, so the best path seems to be to allow for each participant to chart his own course (within the context of respecting others' rights to do the same). — synthesis
In a Mad Max scenario?Well, everybody has to put on their big-boy pants and figure it out. — synthesis
Oh, you mean it like that. As if Earth should look forward to becoming more like Triton ...And I don't believe the planet has much to worry about. It will rid itself of us when the time is right.
State intervention prevented the market from cleaning-up much some the problem. Capitalism (like everything else) sucks when you massive corruption coupled with state intervention. — synthesis
I couldn't possible take offence from anything you have said. — synthesis
The point is that society is based on an infinite number of things going on at the same time. Nobody can understand this kind of complexity, yet proscribe solutions for it. — synthesis
I'm afraid that this is a matter of ideology.
How are people going to change their consumer habits if they don't first change their minds? — baker
Or do we just need robots and fast? I for one welcome etc. — Kenosha Kid
1. take capitalism seriously and let the banks fall, bringing down every saver, every mortgage payer, every business depending on provision of loans with them.
2. inject taxpayer money into the sector, allowing the banks time to recover and ride out their own wave of destruction. — Kenosha Kid
As long as there are so many people on the planet, there is no danger to capitalism.What is obvious is that a capitalism that destroys its own worker and consumer base is not capable of sustaining itself. — Kenosha Kid
the best path seems to be to allow for each participant to chart his own course (within the context of respecting others' rights to do the same).
— synthesis
This is simply unrealistic.
Those who have more power, more resources can afford not to respect the rights of others and get away with it.
If someone wrongs you and you don't have the money to sue them, you're screwed. — baker
I am not sure I follow you. — synthesis
society is based on an infinite number of things going on at the same time. Nobody can understand this kind of complexity, yet proscribe solutions for it. — synthesis
Therefore you allow those participating to figure out what works best for them in their situation (and guard against folks over-reaching and corruption). — synthesis
Even the simplest of things is infinitely complex — synthesis
so the best path seems to be to allow for each participant to chart his own course (within the context of respecting others' rights to do the same). — synthesis
State intervention prevented the market from cleaning-up much some the problem. Capitalism (like everything else) sucks when you massive corruption coupled with state intervention.
— synthesis
Although actually this is worth treating. When the financial sector self-destructed this century (due entirely to its own practices, and from which it was unable to react constructively), the affected nations faced two alternatives:
1. take capitalism seriously and let the banks fall, bringing down every saver, every mortgage payer, every business depending on provision of loans with them.
2. inject taxpayer money into the sector, allowing the banks time to recover and ride out their own wave of destruction.
Neither are good options, but the first was, rightly, seen as the worst.
There was a perfect opportunity to ensure that this never happened again using a pluralistic approach. Ethical banks that followed a more stringent, preservative set of regulations could be guaranteed to be underwritten by the state, just as banks effectively are now, since if they fail again, we must bail them out again).
Meanwhile freer, more reactive (short-termist) banks could carry on as usual, but should they fail, market forces hold without the intervention of the state.
Customers who want security could opt for the state-secured banks; those who don't can risk the casino banks. The latter are free to exemplify capitalist dogma... Until they die, as they should and would. New ones can rise up and take their place, and the people who used them have lost out, but with fair warning.
This to me shows how pluralism, not capitalism, exemplifies choice. Capitalism underwritten by the state is not capitalism at all: it's just a scam to part taxpayers with their money. Capitalism as part of a pluralism can be as free as capitalists pretend capitalism already is, including free to die. — Kenosha Kid
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.