PvP Lives Here

This topic has been split out from the Ron Paul/US Election thread to give it room to be it's own discussion. This is the correct thread for discussing Marxism vs. Capitalism and such. Please refer back to about the 23rd page of the Ron Paul thread if you're wondering where this came from.

I don't think the United States has a problem with thinking globally on the whole. I think if anything we're suffering from entrenched interests fighting to embed themselves further, while the up and coming nations (by necessity) are more concerned about the big businesses of the future. The U.S. is most concerned about protecting agricultural interests, the oil, gas, and coal trio, and Disney - while, for example, China is investing very heavily in high tech manufacturing. It's pretty obvious how that goes long term, but dealing with it politically is intractable.

Debt is complicated in the best of times, and is really messy when you're stuck in the middle of an economic depression. Net foreign deficits have been falling the last couple years. Private debt has been trending downward, slowly. Both of these are good in the long term. Federal debt levels are exploding, of course, but predictably so; it's basically impossible for it not to in the middle of a depression. No, it's not a good situation to be in, but it's not intractable, and it certainly isn't so bad that it should be a substantial drag on the economy.

In the long term? It's very possible that we have an outlook problem. I do think it's a real concern that so much of our political culture is backwards looking instead of forward looking. It has always been a real problem, in every country, that the captains of industry of yesterday have enormous political clout today, while the captains of tomorrow do not. If you cannot balance that out you fall behind. As you say, you can only coast on the investments of the past for so long; exponential growth being what it is, if you don't keep on the growth train you eventually fall behind.

(Everlasting) Exponential growth is something that should never have been the primary focus of any country, and for so long, too. It is something that may exist forever in virtual domains, e.g. in a game economy, but is otherwise a completely faulted goal for any system that wants to persist. Both bigger systems so far (capitalism and socialism) are faulted in that regard and will not survive unless changed/adjusted drastically.
Moreover, you say that technology improvements are the main cause for severre inequality, but it's far more than just that. It's a combination of a systems mantra (capitalism being, well, capitalistic and resolving solely about profit and the abuse of both the environment as well as people in order to gain the most out of them, ensuing in ruthless competition, poverty, grievances and individualism.) along with the set of values in a certain society. Technology is not necessarily bad, but when misued and abused, much like any other invention, it will work against the good of the majority, because the ones with the power to mis/abuse it are never the ones who could profit from it most 8and who normally do not hold the power to gain the most of such matters to start with). Why is that so? One could write walls of text on how our current system(s) systematically work against us (read: the 99%), on general human nature (and how such systems bring the worst out of it) and the way human societies promote certain things over the rest through education, the media, the politics and in every day life. Bottom line is not enough is done (but can more be done at all?) to change an evidentaly bad situation to better.
You probably aren't blaming technology alone, but I just had to add this to be certain.

And as far as American politics are concerned, well, sucks to be an American. And a Republican. Why vote for them anyway? Fox-news brain-washed much?
Besides, Obama is about as militaristic as a Republican candidate anyway. Nobel prize for peace = /lol.

On a side note, I can't believe I actually registered on the notorious QQ forums, damn.

Economic growth should certainly be a goal of every country. People want to work hard to create a better life for themselves and their children, and growth is both the engine and the fruit of that process.

Now, in fairness, we need to keep ourselves grounded in what are realistic growth prospects and what are not. There's real economic growth that comes from population growth; from expansions in the natural resource base; and from improvements in technology. We have expectations on growth that are based on historical trends in all of these. But we know full well that population growth is wholly unsustainable and honestly needs to start moving backwards; we're counting on ~1.5% per year of population growth and that is not going to continue through the rest of the century. We've had big economic booms in the past from acquiring new natural resources; that number has been stagnant for a couple decades now and is going to turn around sooner or later.

In the long run, we're just looking at that roughly 1% improvement per year from increased efficiency. Our political and economic systems are not prepared to deal with an economy growing at 1% per year - hell, they can't even seem to figure out how to dig themselves out of a depression with 2.5% growth. You're absolutely right that this needs to change.

But people want better lives for themselves and their children, and that means a focus on economic performance is a big, big deal. Governments ignore it at their own peril.




Er, I didn't mean to make such a wide reaching argument. My feeling is that technological improvements of the last 30 or 40 years or so represented a pretty big shock to the system and the result was a large jump in inequality. Automation has definitely shifted economic power from the working classes to the ownership class.

But you're right, there's a lot more to it than that. It's a matter of historical record (and of theory) that the fruits of economic growth, in a vacuum, don't 'trickle down' to help everyone at the bottom (like water) as much as they rise and concentrate at the top (like a hot gas). Unregulated capitalism naturally rewards winners and punishes losers into perpetuity; it snowballs, with winners locking in their gains and leveraging them to become even bigger winners, while losers are locked out even harder.

In fact under its own power, despite being such an engine of growth, unconstrained capitalism concentrates wealth and power to such an extent that we had massive social revolutions all over the world to break up those concentrations of wealth - and the question of the day necessarily shifted from 'how can we make as much money as possible' to 'capitalism is great and makes us a lot of money, but we need to figure out how to smooth out the edges and keep it from screwing most everyone, or we are not going to be able to keep doing this'.

So your modern capitalist economy is, to some extent, necessarily a social democracy. We love markets and they do great things, but if we don't deal with monopoly power and market failures - natural consequences of capitalism - we get massive social unrest. You need systems in place that ensure that everyone benefits from technological and economic growth.

The automation shock has lead to a lot of growth, at the same time that some of those systems have been eroded. The result has been soaring inequality and massive accumulation in the hands of a few plutocrats. The pendulum naturally has to swing back the other way - not just to keep the system afloat at all, but because - again, from experience - the whole system works better when everyone benefits from it. We just have to figure out what form it will take - here's hoping for a peaceful, productive resolution instead of violent revolution.

I believe that sustainability is more important than growth, simply because growth cannot last with limited resources; instead, living standards can be >maintained< on a fairly high level without any real growth, but for that the system itself needs to change, because capitalism will never allow for such notion to prevail.
Moreover, it is the quality of lives, the living conditions, the state of the natural environment, the differences between incomes that are the true measure of the quality and even of how progressive society is. Currently, societies in developed countries worldwide are approaching the status of third world countries simply because calls are being made and laws are being passed that in effect try to remove as much state interference as possible from most public affairs, in effect approaching the situation you see in countries marked as ‘third world countries’ by the developed world, where in essence there is no real state/government to ensure the well-being its people – a lawless society, basically. But in those countries the local communities, the bonds between people are (well, they have to be) far stronger and far greater than in comparison to the pervasive (and ignorant) individualism in developed countries simply because their survival would be impossible otherwise. The interesting part is that regardless of the fact most people in such local communities are extremely poor, they are often very happy and optimistic, far, far more than your average individual in developed countries is. Clearly the developed countries need to do some proper introspection in that regard.



I'm going to make make a lengthy off-topic session now, but I'll do my best to at least keep it interesting.

Capitalism is a very rotten system, and you can see the rotten insides especially well in times such as this one. It is probably the one most separated from the qualities that make human – a human. And as you mentioned, the fruits of economic growth never really reached the grand majority, the 99%, which was one of the main arguments speaking for capitalism, and even more so, for deregulation that is greatly to blame for the current state of affairs. Given the fact it is more than evidential that argument was one big lie, it baffles me as to why people don’t protest against such a hostile and harmful system like they have protested during the War in Vietnam – the type of protests that could bring about real changes. It appears the masses have been brainwashed to such an extend they are not only ready to live in such a system hoping a few more ‘drops of water’ will reach them, but they even support it by voting for the politicians who have it on their agenda and whose goals include further reinforcing of such a system.

Moreover, capitalism is also a very unnatural system, simply because it turns the society into a fight for survival, basically making one’s existence subject to Social Darwinism. What it neglects is the fact that human beings are social beings – they work best when individuals stop being individuals and instead bond with each other, thus creating a helpful and supportive community. Such communities give their members a sense of belonging and hence increase the general amount of happiness as well as promote optimism instead of pessimism. In capitalism, especially unregulated capitalism, everything works towards enhancing the general feel of unhappiness and pessimism (an unhappy customer is a bigger consumer of various useless junk, after all) via the media (which usually consider bad news as good news and thus help creating an everlasting negative atmosphere filled with discontent). When drastic laws need to be enforced, the system uses fear to scare that 99% and force its way through to bypass what little is left of democracy (example: the immense amounts of money that were ‘needed’ to save financial corporations and Wall Street because they were ‘too big to fall’ – let them fall and we’ll see what happens; they did more damage than good so far, so the 99% would very likely benefit from their fall even).
The recent protests of the 99% were a start, but still too small to bring about real change. The grand majority that makes average to decent living is (unfortunately) unlikely to go to the streets ‘simply’ because a system is corrupt and harmful.

Yes, I believe social democracy is currently the best option to choose. Markets NEED to be regulated, environment MUST be protected, people’s health and living conditions DO matter, but the bigger question is how on earth will you bypass the huge obstacle called marriage between corporations and politics. If the 99% wishes to bring about change, massive revolutions and worldwide protests (possibly peaceful, but that can lead to another lenghty off-topic session, especially when it comes to 1% trying to display the protesters as a violent mob when it is actually the police and other law enforcement bodies that instigate violence and have the media portray it as protesters' violence) will have to erupt, such that the 1% will not be able to suppress nor hide, even less manipulate.
But if one looks ahead and just takes the Arabian spring (well, more like winter now) as an example, it is evidential that the driving force behind the protests must be well organized and have solutions, or at least draft ideas, ready to implement after they have finally managed to bring about some change. Otherwise the power will simply transfer to the next most influential group that will yet again only work towards its own goals instead of those of the society.

The question now is how could social democracy be implemented in countries such as China, or the US, for that matter. In China, the general opinion about the European work and health system is fairly negative, often involving adjectives such as ‘lazy’ because there are work holidays, an 8h/day working schedule and the likes. If such mental blocks and revulsion exist now already, how on earth will you bring about change in an environment that essentially considers its own system (because of massive propaganda, amongst other) as superior to more ‘humane’ systems.

A combination of both socialism and capitalism with emphasis on sustainability (in the sense of smart consumption, smart use of resources, recycling, generally a greater responsibility on state as well as individual level), long-term efficiency, protection of both the environment and the people to the max possible extent and an overhaul of the set of values are just a few instances of things that are called for, but it will take a lot to make all the changes needed, both in legislation as well as in peoples’ minds. And those tend to take decades to change, sadly.

I have to admit I am rather pessimistic as to the outcome of not only the financial crisis, but to the crisis of capitalism. Once natural resources we now take for granted will become scarce and sought after, systems such as capitalism will fall and chaos will very likely ensue. Very likely we’ll be into a 3rd WW, too.
That is, if we don’t all wipe in an ice age triggered by a change in climate we didn’t do enough to prevent from happening.

From what I read and heard about current Republican candidates, I cannot possibly imagine they're able or willing to bring about any such changes. Not that Slovenian or (m)any European politicians are any better in that sense though. Sadly.

On a side note, I might have lost track here and there of some of the points you made. It sometimes happens when I make lengthy replies such as this one. Sorry.

Edit: yikes, wall of text.

Edit 2: too many mistakes to fix.

Is nice to see these kind of discussions in these forums, ensign and karla have both nice insights of what the problem is and how it could be handled. A little bit to theoretical for my taste, but I just want to add that I believe that as a nation we have misused technology. In a market economy based like the US, technology is not used for the majority of the people that really needs it. For example we have super-computers, super-gadgets; however we lack the technology to produce better more efficient cleaner energy, transportation, etc. At this moment is pretty hard to overturn this; even though the technology already exists, and several countries are already making the transition. Now as far as the tools needed (sustainability, tech, population, resources, among others) they are very hard to control in a system such as capitalism. I am not saying that capitalism is bad, is just that it makes it some sort of survival of the fittest, so its harder to control, and some sectors will grow more than others creating an unbalanced relationship in society. Now to make things worse it seems like people don't care as long as they have what they need (food, shelter, leisure, etc), just look at the number of voters, lame. Socialism is far worse, without the power of private companies the system will collapse faster (economics 101, the government doesn't make money like a company). I think the main problem with capitalism is not about resources or technology or any of the other factors. I believe the main problem is the dispute of powers between the republicans and democrats; there will never be equality and the tools needed to succeed will never be efficient in a long run.

And it is exactly Social Darwinism and individualism that are the biggest evils of the current form of capitalism, next to the general drive for profit and power and the fact the system puts the type of people in power that accumulated power by illegit (if not illegal) means and who have strong connections with the right people.
I believe you're giving private companies way too much credit. Especially because most of them normally only become successful thanks to fat investment from the state which gives them the necessary push to get things going.
As far as the problem between the dems and reps is concerned, see my 1st paragraph. The reps clearly represent the interest of influential individuals and corporations (next to their own hunger for power, that is), so I cannot possibly ever see them work for the well-being of Americans and the country as a whole. Pointless to expect them to show some sign of responsibility and do what they were actually elected for. Oh wait.

On a side note, the whole process of choosing the republican candidate to face the democrat in power is just, well, working against the candidates themselves and it makes it fairly easy for (a competent and well sponsored) president to finish off a wounded animal, so to say.

Insofar as we assume the very policies that spur economic growth don't harm the common good, yes. Unfortunately, in practice, pursuing economic growth - and even achieving it - paradoxically tends to make the aggregate worse off. The current sweeping policy recommendations of the WTO and especially the IMF (and the many influenced by the Chicago school) advocate the usual - mass privatization, currency devaluation (floating it), the cutting of government spending, free markets, and deregulation, especially of foreign capital and multinationals. To some degree these programs work, especially in promoting aggregate economic growth, reflected in GDP. However, as you noted, the massive downside is the plutocratic systems they put in place that ultimately value foreign capital and the domestic elites (often involved in politics) that interact with it above the masses of poor. It's not just crippling inequality - its a complete abolition of safety nets and a disruption of life. The latter isn't just in economic terms; after all, capitalism is a valuation system. As such, the doctrine tends to usurp local networks of power and to aggressively challenge cultural systems in place. I'm not the only one who finds the almost mystical power of reification morally repugnant - there is a sweeping narrative that associates the system with the devil in Bolivia and Colombia. Indeed, as Marx noted - and as others like TW Adorno expanded upon - the illusionary power of capitalism is that one can't help get caught up in the spectacle of the commodity, forgetting the labor that made that thing possible. With these reasons above, I have a hard time considering economic growth a goal in and of itself, but rather a useful tool - if carefully controlled - that can support the common good.




It remains a mystery to me. Once I am able to fathom the true stupidity of mankind, I would imagine this answer becomes more clear.

I wholeheartedly agree.

It'd be great if the mods would create a split thread for this discussion since it has little direct relation to this thread's topic, but is all in all a very interesting matter to discuss.

Edit: cheers for the split.

We tried that, or something similar, in the various communist states. They successfully locked in 1940's era technology and living standards for decades - at least until they got blown up by population growth. Seems we needed technology to deal with a surging population, or wealth and prosperity to lower the natural birth rate - neither of which were provided by a stagnant economy.




We have run that particular experiment before. When you run your country like a third world country, it does, in fact, start to look and act like a third world country. You do get something that looks suspiciously like a feudal society with widespread poverty and very poor growth prospects.

I like to think of it as a form of Darwinism on a national scale. Nations that choose successful policies will thrive and flourish. Nations that choose idiotic policies stagnate and fall behind. Eventually the people of the nations that fall behind get pissed off enough about the situation to overthrow the ruling hegemony and try to copy the effective nations.

Thus is the slow lurch of progress. It's just a shame that there's so much unnecessary misery along the way.




I'd like to expand on the point. I don't see there being any inherent problem with a merger of business and political interests. Many of the important revolutions of the last couple centuries were more or less prompted by a need for more, not less, cooperation between business and political entities.

The problem isn't being pro-business, but pro-corporate. Is government using its power to promote business development and growth, or is it using its power to enforce emergent monopolies and collect rents? Because when you migrate into the latter camp, you stop being pro-business, and start looking an awful lot like an aristocracy where your aristocrats are corporations.

Your problems develop when your emergent corporate aristocracy captures the state and uses it to choke off growth. When it chokes your markets, kills your business, and focuses exclusively on funneling a larger and larger share of the nation's wealth to that aristocracy.

That's what a third world country looks like.




Priorities change with situations. China is still a desperately poor country. Desperately poor people are not concerned about long term environmental damage or with maintaining a healthy work / leisure balance. China is responding to that reality. Europe, the USA, and all the other fully industrialized economies went through the same stages of brutal working conditions for not a whole lot of money - but as people gain some amount of wealth and security, their priorities change.

China will start worrying about first world problems once it has a first world level of output. Expecting them to do so before then is unrealistic.




I don't understand how a hard resource crunch causes a crisis of capitalism. Our persistent ability to react like a bunch of fucking idiots to any sort of economic shock, sure, that's dangerous, but supply shocks are pretty mundane. The biggest danger is that the easy solutions tend to lock in entrenched wealth and squeeze everyone else, and without counteracting policy that steps on your long run growth and generally pisses people off.

But it's just a monetary and a distribution problem.

Yeah, ok, I shouldn't just dismiss it as a monetary and distribution problem because that's all that *any* of this is, and it's basically impossible for people to agree on this in general since everyone in their own interest fights for a bigger share.

But it's a political problem. It's not violating any mathematical laws or the like.




Human beings have these specialized nervous systems that evolved for surviving as a tribe on the savannah, and have massive blind spots - before even considering that the instincts that are relevant there are utterly, utterly wrong in a modern industrial society. When times are bad, people get very reactionary, and revert to those hard tribal, authoritarian instincts - and it is 100% wrong, every time.

So you get hard right nutjobs in power at just the right time to do the most possible damage - and we wonder why things are such a mess.

At least, as an American, as ridiculous and stupid as we seem we can be, at least we can't hold a candle to Hungary.

Yet.

Yes, constant population growth is another big problem when it comes to sustainability and general demand for resources. Huxley's Brave New World comes to mind as an extremely grotesque (but possibly the only feasible?) solution to that problem.
I blame the lack of any real natural enemies (excluding viruses, cancer and the likes), our living style (the fact we are living ‘above’ nature instead of with it) and the fact there is no real safeguards (excluding China’s one-child policy which had catastrophic consequences) which would at least mitigate the consequences of constant population growth.
Without some sort of intervention on state or even global level, the population will simply continue increasing. I guess the next ice age or just an extremely changed climate will ‘take care’ of that problem.



And my point was that Darwinism is an extremely faulted approach to take – not everything is competition, nor should it be. One important thing to note about humans is their tendency to live in communities – we are extremely social beings, it is in our nature to work together and help each other, but capitalism deliberately isolated people, turning them into individuals with the sole goal to survive, often at the expense of someone else. Sure, it is how the natural world works to a certain extent, but ‘communities’ are a very common thing with many other living beings too. They’re possibly even more common than ‘individualism’ is, because it helps a group of beings survive more easily. Individualism is usually the case with predators, but even there we see well-organized and tightly-knit groups (e.g. wolves, lions) simply because a group stands more chances of survival. There is little reason why people should work against each other if they can ‘join forces’ and instead help each other in the process. Given the notorious 1%, joining forces will be a must to achieve anything and that is why individualism is SO promoted by capitalism. The 99% is a ‘threat’ only when people group and fight against
Injustices and abuse together.

Moreover, given the current state of affairs, it seems that competition did little good overall, and individualism only aggravates the whole situation. Deregulation and a general drive to abolish the welfare state along with all other safeguards that are preventing mass revolutions from happening will in effect return us to times that gave rise to nationalism and fascism. It is hilarious how the very system that got us into this shit is offering itself as the only solution by bringing to naught what was achieved with the victory over the said regimes.



Business (read: large corporations or extremely wealthy individuals/families/groups) along with its interests never seeks the welfare of the majority – it seeks ways to increase its own profit. By lobbying politicians who were put in power by the majority (but sponsored by the rich which in return gives them power over politicians and the choices they make) to accept policies that are in favor of the 1% instead of working for the well being of the majority, they’re essentially cheating the system. Or perhaps, that was the whole intention of the system to start with. Capitalism, or more exactly, economic liberalism, is structured in such a way – it first creates extremely rich 1%, lets it control political entities (often by sponsoring and thus help electing candidates they see most suitable to further their goals) and thus in essence bypasses democracy.
What makes you think growth has not been choked yet? Do the numbers of unemployed Americans not ring any bells? Or of those living below the poverty line.
A third world country is a country where the 99% is left to themselves – without any health insurance, health care, without police, without anything that is sponsored by the state – it is exactly that kind of situation that economic liberalism wishes to create. The problem you mention in forlast paragraph has already been created and it started festering in the Reagan&Thatcher era.



I know they are most concerned about day-to-day survival, but they cannot go through an industrial-revolution-like era Europe went through. If they do, the planet won’t be able to handle all the mass pollution. Chinese (and most other) cities are an abysmal place to live in now already (the last Olympics nicely demonstrated that fact), can you possibly imagine what might happen if the Chinese will sacrifice the environment for development and progress as the West has? Either they will find a way to deal with (well, prevent) mass pollution and green house emissions or they will have no future. It is as simple as that. With one billion people going through the same scenario Europe went though during industrial revolution, they will take down everyone else. The same applies to other rising economies (basically, the BRICS group).
I know no one wants to think about the quality of life, the degradation of the environment they’re living in and how it might affect them. But as the saying goes, the chicken come home to roost – human influence on the environment has been ignored and manipulated with long enough. The rising economies will hopefully learn from the mistakes the West has made.



Capitalism/economic liberalism = depletion of natural resources  Competition for depleted and limited natural resources (survival of the fittest)  conflicts with other nations  wars  chaos, catastrophes aggravated by extreme climate conditions, high food prices, lack of fresh water (i.e. limited resources).

Capitalism/economic liberalism’s goal (well, consequence) is to distribute wealth in such a way as to create the extremely rich on one side and (in comparison) poor on the other. It is hat type of people and organizations that promote it.
The middle class has been disappearing for decades. So you are given extremely wealthy pop culture stars, politicians, corporations and so forth, but its baffling how the grand majority could let such ridiculous distribution of wealth happen when it became obvious that they have been receiving bread crumbs or not even that in the process. The sheer amount of delusion the 99% has been ‘suffering from’ is appaling.

The distribution problem is just a consequence of the bigger problem called a rotten system with rotten set of values and principles, driven and manipulated by rotten people pursuing their own rotten goals (yes, I like that word and a fitting term to use in this case, too).



And that is why fear is such a strong tool when deployed by those in power (or those with influence over them) to manipulate those below them in order to achieve their goals by passing legislation that further reduces the influence and presence of the state and removes as much welfare as possible, all in the name of capital and profit, free markets and growth.

It really is baffling how horribly the Left parties failed to capitalize on what is one of the biggest crises of capitalism/economic liberalism (pun) ever and let the Right take the initiative – not realizing that we’re returning to the 1930s.

How pitiful and, given the rise of populism and extreme right parties, dangerous too.

And yes, Hungary is a disaster, but so is the EU parliament who apparently supports it because the parties share the same ideology. At least the Commission made a move.
Then again, the US has many problems of its own (including degradation of the environment and atmosphere) and is very similar to many oppressive regimes when it comes to matters of security and Internet control (well, the attempts so far) so I'd say it's just a matter of time before it 'comes out the closet' and take a leaf out of other countries' book. Democracy is just a facade anyway.

On a side note, you're making me feel the whole weight of my lack of vocabulary regarding such matters.
Meh.

The irony is that the opposite is happening. You have states in some of the key developing regions - Africa and Latin America - that have seen the failure of so called growth economics time and time again. You're wrong - the people aren't lobbying to copy the effective nations, they're voting to get the fuck away from the policies of the United States. I feel this underlies a significant problem with the economics profession in general - it is one of the most out of touch groups of people on the planet, preferring to operate on quixotic assumptions and to stubbornly uphold ideology and theoretical models over engaging actual circumstance. Say what you will about Paul Krugman, but I am with him completely when I question the scientific validity of your field. Economics isn't physics. Sorry, try again.

The problem in my mind is that the vehicles of growth recommended today to developing countries are fundamentally different than the long and complex road Europe and the United States went down to achieve relative prosperity. We are recommending these nations enact dramatic, sweeping reforms, as they attempt to industrialize and modernize overnight. This shock is chaotic and in practice it fulfills none of the rosy preconditions economists would like to see.

Personally, I would rather have a state that opts to grow more slowly - to embrace inefficient mechanisms if that means ensuring a better quality of life for the masses. The current brand of neoliberal economics does nothing for the poor, which compromise the vast majority of the populations of these states.

But I think the real issue at the heart of this is the attraction of capital. To me that is the fundamental element of growth and something even socialist states need in order to stay afloat. The problem with neoliberal economics is that their is a glaring confirmation bias. You have lending organizations like the IMF, aside foreign investors. Each of them, paragons on of the Chicago School, are only going to choose to invest in countries to whom they can dictate and control political and economic policy. Thus, you have a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby those countries that privatize the most and offer no protection for their workers get the most capital and subsequently have the best chance at experiencing GDP growth. Now, as outlined earlier, we are just talking about aggregate growth - not well-being; paradoxically, it is these countries that attract capital that tend to do worse off i the utilitarian sense. However, multinationals tend not to care about well-being, so they continue their understandable profit-seeking.

Treating the international stage as a game, with countries as its players, you realize attracting capital is a bit of prisoner's dilemma. I have no doubt solidarity amongst developing nations would lead to better results for each country. After all, even with those states choosing to cooperate, the return on investment would still be high enough - and the comparative advantage still there - for capital to reach them.

Fortunately, for the nations that refuse to have a foreign company dictate their government and their common good - ie exploit the shit out of their workers and rape their resources - there are beginning to emerge new lending/investment entities that don't argue for the ridiculously ideological preconditions of policy makers in the West. Banco del Sur, which is comprised of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela is a prime example. An added benefit is that it is regional so that economic policy can actually account for the cultural and historical particularities of the region. When you consider the legacy of colonialism and the brutal dictatorships the United States helped enact to experiment with neoliberal economic policy, you can see why they rightfully have little trust in the West. Another entity is China, which is far less ideologically fervent with its capital than the United States.

My point is that economics needs to work for the people. The current variety of growth economics is too disruptive and unequal to benefit the majority. As outlined earlier, the trade-off for growth is a plutocratic system marred by instability, widening income inequality, and drops in employment. The key for development in my mind is finding sources of capital that are less exploitative and less ideological.

Gosh, so much populist nonsense in this thread, it's suffocating. You people can write the Holy Bible of Demagogy.

ensign, those 2 quoted paragraphs are especially insulting to common sense. First of all it was SOCIALISM that ended up distributing wealth in such a way that created extremely rich and piss poor everyone else. May i remind you of the collectivization acts that STOLE the CAPITAL of peasants and put into the hands a FEW PRIVILEDGED RADICAL-CAPITALISTS, going by name THE PARTY. The whole act of nationalization ended up being an act of theft, a MILITARY INVASION from within that pillaged everything from everyone and made whole populations to work on the terms of the few masters, who pulled all the strings. The greatest promise, a "FAIR" system, degenerated into a hideous lie, a bastardization-twisted-warped the only true nature of the human.

Capitalism is NOT an ideology - you can't compare it with anything (to socialism for ex.); capitalism is not the brain child of some rotten economic professor or a spoiled rich German philosoph. In fact, i don't consider capitalism being a system at all; 'system' being defined as a discrete mechanism with established and well understood rules and mechanics. What capitalism really is just a word for a very special natural phenomenon, a natural mechanic, an attribute of the Human Being, a behavior that manifests only around us since the day we fell from the trees. Life has never EVER been non-capitalistic. ALL that humans managed recently to do is put a name to it - Capitalism. All the rest is a lousy clerk job at trying to catalog certain mechanics that are make obvious appearance in capitalism. Everything so far in terms of economy and really - history, is a result of an uncontrollable, inviolable evolution. But it is an evolution of the possibilities, not the behavior.

Humans haven't really changed all that much through their short history (in geological terms). Back in the past, when trade was governed by bartering, it too allowed for accumulation of wealth, it too created wars, struggle and inequality. And when humans got complicated and their behavior got unmanageable by bartering, "money" entered the stage in the form of "precious" metals. But those metals are just more convenient form of bartering. After the weight of gold started to tear apart their pockets and the noise made them feel uncomfortable - banks and bills were introduced... Nobody prophesied all this, it's a natural consequence of our advancement; the realization of which (in our minds and literature) came after the fact. And it goes on and on, up to, and past the industrial revolution...

Economic liberalism gives the best opportunity human beings to get what they deserve. All cases of this 99% nonsense are a result of not knowing what the world really is. You'll never get some of those people that pose with 99% posters to become as rich a Buffett, Gates or a City Group executive since they just didn't acquire the knowledge and capabilities to do so. This is a matter of knowledge. Real problems with liberalism and really - modern economics are interest groups, lobbying, certain forms of deregulation. But those are symptoms of ill governing, which results from inadequate electorate - which again is a matter of knowledge and lack of will to do something about it. In a democracy, people are the guarantee of government.

If I were populist I'd state the welfare state is the root of all evil.



Socialism had a good intention, but again had some downsides to it. Surprisingly, most still had a steady job and companies weren't dedicated to making profit and at the lowest costs possible. Besides, if you had actually read the whole thread you'd see no one here is saying we want socialism back. I even stated both socialism and capitalism are bad in the long term because they both rely on a faulted premise - constant growth.
What you really need is a middle ground between the 2 systems (as Ensign mentioned, social democracy is the best available option at the moment), one that will reduce the monstrous differences between the richest and the poorest and won't exploit people and the environment for the sole purpose of making profit, but will still keep some of the better parts of capitalism before it was corrupted by economic liberalism.



You need to redefine your understanding of 'natural'. People also claim gays are not natural. But using the excuse something is bad because is unnatural and vice versa is completely faulted because nature in its essence is neither good nor bad - it just is.

The values promoted in capitalism principles are ACQUIRED, LEARNED by interacting with others; individualism is very unnatural state for humans - as I already posted, we are social by nature. I cannot believe the ignorance you're displaying - saying it's in our nature to be selfish and only care about ourselves. I didn't master in psychology, but even I know that's a load of bs. Do I REALLY need to make a wall of text on why that characteristic is extremely enhanced and promoted in capitalism and with a very specific purpose, too?



You have honestly been brainwashed into thinking it's ok to 'slay' each other in a never ending competition because survival of the fittest is one of the laws in nature. Amazing. You ought to watch actual documentaries on wild life before spouting on natural and unnatural.

What exactly does geology have to do with different systems of trade? Of course some people have always been richer than others. But never have the differences been so big, nor were there SO many who got the short end of the stick because of those who forced their way to acquire the better one. The times when real money was the main form of trade were good in comparison to today where the grand majority of trade takes place 'in computers'.

Economic liberalism is an abomination and if you let it reign supreme now, you'll end up with a renewed version of the setting that gave rise to nationalism and fascism. Because once the last safeguards will be removed and the people will be desperate enough they will flock to whoever promises the best and biggest change by finger pointing at a particular group that has always been subject of general dislike and hate. That is populism and it's been on the march because the Left failed to take the initiative because it was afraid it'd resemble Stalinism too much. How pathetic.

You are blinded by this illusion called the American dream. And it seems the Americans STILL get attracted by those stories like moths to fire. What you misunderstand is that the goal shouldn't be to become a multimillionaire to start with. You don't need millions and millions to life comfortably, no matter how successful you are, nothing warrants such huge accumulation of capital. THAT is main problem and something that should be abhorred instead of promoted.

Reagen and Thatcher sealed the deal with that mass deregulation and removing state interference . Before that capitalism wasn't all that terrible, really. There is NO invisible hand when it comes to free markets. It is actually pretty visible once you take a closer look. But hey, you can sponsor those who started the crisis until you turn blue and are left with nothing but depts. I reckon I don't need to mention the humongous national dept America has created over the decades.

I reckon you consider Obamacare an abomination and completely 'unnatural', too.

On a side note, your avatar is as disturbing as your misguided conceptions. And also, if you cba to read the whole posts I make don't bother replaying.

It's a problem that solves itself. Either you figure out a mechanism to constrain population at a level consistent with western living standards, or you let your population grow unchecked until you're at your resource limit and, well, nature runs its course and your population is constrained by your food and water stocks.

I mean, humanity really did live near that Malthusian limit, of population constrained only by food, water, and disease, for centuries, only really breaking with the industrial revolution - where the ability to support large populations has exploded much, much faster than our ability and will to create them. The one bright spot seems to be that populations level off at a high enough standard of living - see falling birthrates in wealthy countries - that imply that if we *could* push the general level of output high enough, we could solve our population issue naturally.

I doubt we'll be able to do that, however, so some combination of 'draconian policy' and 'people starving to death' will unfortunately be required - and it really is an either/or proposition. If you're a staunch opponent of draconian political policy (even for the best of reasons), you are, whether you like it or not, a supporter of 'people starving to death'. None of the solutions are good, and you're stuck trying to make the best of a really ugly situation.




What are the catastrophic consequences? Yes, it's a brutal policy (though I'd argue no more brutal than 'people starving to death in large numbers' would be), but it *has* been effective at constraining population growth. It is also having quite a few interesting, and I'd argue beneficial, social effects. The social tradition of preferring a male child, for example (that, yes, had led to a disgusting number of abandoned baby girls), has created a society with a starkly imbalanced gender ratio - and, in the process, has empowered women in that country in ways the west could only hope to.




I don't feel like you're arguing against capitalism as much as the Randian social ethic; the sort of 'every man is an island and the best are successful through competition' ethic that, quite honestly, really evolved because it flatters to egos of the already rich. It's a belief that states that the existing social order (that you just happen to be on top of) is just, that both the wealthy and poor get what they deserve, and there is no reason to address these inequities.

But that isn't capitalism. That's just a gilded-age teenage fantasy of a world some people would like to live in, but certainly doesn't reflect the real world we live in.




People are largely self serving. We work not for the greater good of humanity but for ourselves; for our families and friends. Businesses are no different. Everyone is working, fundamentally, for themselves primarily, and a small group of people around them.

This is perfectly ok because the system is not zero sum. Work is not dividing up a pie. Through work people are creating value, not dividing it up. Through cooperation it is, on the whole, a positive sum game. Through that mechanism everyone can be wholly self serving, and create a wealthier, more prosperous society across the board.

That's why capitalism works so well.

Of course, there are several markets where things are *not* positive sum. Natural resources, for example, are frequently zero sum - and without property rights quickly become negative sum. There are markets that fail for various reasons - adverse selection in insurance markets, market power distorting markets and making them uncompetitive, and the like - and there are markets that capitalism serves poorly (capitalism is remarkably poor at the provisioning of even enormously beneficial public goods).

Which is why only raging ideologues want Randian capitalism. It would be wonderful if the core mechanism of capitalism - creation through competition in a non-zero sum world - worked for everything, but it does not, and those failures kill the system if unimpeded. But that isn't an indictment of the core system (which works very well), and it certainly isn't a morality play (which is something for your society to sort out, not property law and trade).

Even if it does spawn some really, really toxic moralities at times.




Let's not bullshit ourselves - the Chinese are going to sacrifice the environment for development and progress. They have to, and they will.

They also will not inflict anywhere near the environmental damage the west did during its development, because they benefit from the know-how we developed in the process. Their ascent will be faster, and it will be cleaner.

Yes, there is a conflict with the west over this - we have a much higher premium on health and environmental concerns than they do. By necessity - we are much wealthier than they are. Since we share the same atmosphere, of course there is conflict over that resource.

We would be well served to figure out a way to adjudicate shared, public resources - after all, capitalism is remarkably bad at handling public goods, and we're going to need a model for it going forward. Not just for air quality, but water quality and so many other environmental issues as we start to press against resource limits with a newfound ability to devastate those resources.

But China needs to pollute to catch up, and if we don't like it we need to figure out a deal that works for all of us. Pointing and feeling self righteous just scores cheap political points.




No, the distribution problem is a problem faced by every single society running every single social and economic system ever. It is not unique to capitalism in any way shape or form. It's one of the fundamental problems of a society - as it is rival, and zero sum - a core source of conflict, and at best you'll get a metastable peace until situations change.

The only thing that can possibly be rotten in there, is ourselves.

I find this thread somewhat interesting but given the length of your replies it feels like big work to give it as much attention as it probably deserves. I do, however, see a need for some clarification to make the arguments more precise.

1. Efficiency vs Equality
Let's start with this. It seems like you vary in how much you value one vs the other. Praising the US capitalist system obviously places the emphasis on efficiency at the expense of equality, whereas a communist system means the opposite. Sure enough there are people who would say the US system is also an equal system at least in terms of equal opportunities. (This is highly debatable, but let's skip it for argument's sake) In effect it creates huge differences between rich and poor. (none of you have disputed this) As far as communist economies go only a very few would argue that they are more efficient than their capitalist counterparts. In sum then this efficiency/equality factor seems to be at first a pure value issue.

2. Free market / capitalism
It is a common misconception to see "free market" to mean a market totally without state intervention. If we backtrace to Adam Smith and his notion of the invisible hand we realise there are several preconditions for a market to work as intended. Let's first look at WHY we should have a market to begin with(this is largely known so I'll be brief). According to market theory this is the (currently known) system that produces the highest output of goods(supply), ie. maximizes welfare, AND allocates those products to those who need/want it the most(demand). Market theory then puts emphasis on efficiency in production and distribution, it says nothing about equality or fairness. People should realise a market is a tool to achieve just these 2 goals, it is not a goal in or by itself. A well-functioning market according to these criteria is NOT as some believe a totally unregulated market. On the contrary a working market needs a regulating state with laws, security and so forth. An obvious example is the emergence of monopolies or cartels, in an unregulated market companies might see fit to join partnerships to limit competition from other/new participants to keep prices high. This is ineffective and contrary to the goals of the market. It is also necessary with rules to prevent corruption, inside trade and similar.

In addition to this a market needs to be supplemented with other needs of society. This is where things like equality, negative sideeffects(pollution, environmental damage) and other value issues come in. The market is like I said a system to ensure maximal efficiency in production and allocation. It is unfair or naive to expect or blame the market for not taking other considerations into account. It is, however, possible to build such other concerns into the market by internalizing them as costs/benefits. Let's look at the 2 things I've seen mentioned in this thread so far, equality and environmental concerns.

1. Equality
This is where a welfare system comes in. By supplementing the market with a safety-net to embrace those who are inevitably losers in the market social costs are reduced. It is even possible to argue that this is not strictly speaking a cost, catching people as they fall to have them land softly gives them a greater chance to get back up on their feet and start climbing again than if there was no net and they slammed into the pavewalk pancake-style. The taxation system also plays a large part, progressive taxes, what sources are taxed and so on. My point here is that this can be added without breaking a working market system. (It does obviously affect the market and so by definition mean less efficiency)

2. Environmental concerns
It is a mistake to see this as being opposed to market efficiency. On the contrary environmental damages have long-term negative effects on the market's effectiveness. Traditional market thinking puts a price on all the elements that enters the market, the raw materials, the labor, the transportation and so on. Some environmental concerns are also in this equation, say the production facilities need a location. The landowner is able to get a rent or a compensation for the damages on his land in return for renting out the space. The problem, however, is that usually there is no one directly harmed. But society is harmed, in some cases future generations will be harmed. The solution is to internalize such costs into the market participants. We have some small/weak attempts at this in the sale of "emission quotas" and similar.

To give my own take on the matter. I don't see a good alternative to a market system so I think we should have more market not less. But a working market not a "free market", it should be left to do what it does best: maximize efficiency and allocation. Environmental damage needs to get an immediate cost(much higher taxes on gasoline prices especially in the US etc) to as closely as possible match the real costs to society, also over time. Market theory can also solve the problem of overpopulation(just like environment changes this is an issue largely ignored by politicians and the public). Is there a demand for more people? No. Is there a large supply? Yes. In other words the incentives to add to the population must be reduced. The earlier we start the less drastic such incentives need be. In Norway for instance families are paid by the government to make kids and they are subsidised throughout their upbringing. These must be the first to go. Second there should be real costs to having babies. In the spirit of market theory this ensures that those who are willing to pay the most(ie. those who want kids the most) are the ones who will get them. (A lot of people who just get kids like a puppy or because society expects them to might think twice about it.) I'm gonna leave it at that, already wrote a new wall of text contrary to my original intentions. :-\