Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[JimC]

I'll add something further to consolidate my centrist tendencies...

It is difficult to see moving to a realistic alternative to capitalism from our current situation. Full-on socialism has its own, virtually automatic tendency to reduce individual freedom beyond reasonable limits, suppress innovation and slide towards authoritarian rule. So, my view is the classic social democratic position of allowing free enterprise, but having a range of well designed controlling structures via democratically elected governments, unions and informed public opinion. Possibly a fool's hope, I know...

This is why fanboi's for Capitalism always take any and all critiques as a direct threat and/or an attempt to eradicate it wholesale - imagining an coherent alternative is almost impossible, and this immediately close off the possibility of progressing discussions which explore more complimentary approaches.

However, the potential downsides to state-based socialism cannot be simply written off as self-serving anti-capitalist spin. History suggests otherwise, even if proponents say "we haven't tried real socialism yet..."

[Brian Peacock]

Oh come on, don't put the ills of the world in politics and social arena on capitalisms plate. Ridiculous. It is an economic system ranging from individuals to state capitalism based on risk, reward and failure economically.

an economic system. That is, it is a system for dealing with money and wealth. In a capitalist country, citizens, not governments, own and run companies. These companies compete with other companies for business.
Capitalism helps propel innovation and prosperity in modern society, it can also create inequalities and contribute to market failures. Capitalism is the direct opposite of communism, which is a system that is controlled by the government.

Economics does not operate independently, orthogonally, beyond, above, or in spite of society. Economic activity is social activity. Economic structures are social structures. Economic relationships are social relationships. Economic conditions are social conditions. The operations of society is mitigated through political systems and legal/enforcement systems. Therefore economics, society, and politics are all necessarily and irreducibly bound together.

[Brian Peacock]

I'll add something further to consolidate my centrist tendencies...

It is difficult to see moving to a realistic alternative to capitalism from our current situation. Full-on socialism has its own, virtually automatic tendency to reduce individual freedom beyond reasonable limits, suppress innovation and slide towards authoritarian rule. So, my view is the classic social democratic position of allowing free enterprise, but having a range of well designed controlling structures via democratically elected governments, unions and informed public opinion. Possibly a fool's hope, I know...

This is why fanboi's for Capitalism always take any and all critiques as a direct threat and/or an attempt to eradicate it wholesale - imagining an coherent alternative is almost impossible, and this immediately close off the possibility of progressing discussions which explore more complimentary approaches.

However, the potential downsides to state-based socialism cannot be simply written off as self-serving anti-capitalist spin. History suggests otherwise, even if proponents say "we haven't tried real socialism yet..."

Indeed, which is where the concept of complimentarity comes into play. We cannot progress towards a just system that meets everyone's irreducible minimum needs through forced eradication or clean-slate thinking. We need to explore approaches which compliment, maintain, and enhance our needs, rights, and resources but start from where we find ourselves right now. Of course, that means challenging assumption around profit being its own end, or a good in and of itself, but it doesn't mean burning the whole lot down and starting afresh either.

[Tero]

The trickle down...40 years later
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-r ... ckle-down/

[pErvinalia]

What happened 40 years later?

[Tero]

Well we had 40 years of data. It brings no benefit to the bottom 90 plus percent.

[macdoc]

Yep makes sense. Abject failure that still goes on of govs unwilling to tax and pols often being bought off by wealthy corps to pass favourable ( to them ) legislation.

That is not the case everywhere but particularly glaring in the US. GINI indicators are telling. Don't conflate capitalism with willingness to corrupt politicians.

[JimC]

Sorry, mac, but in capitalism, the temptation to increase profit by whatever means (including corrupting politicians) certainly exists, simply because it works. Not all capitalist organisations/leaders will succumb to this temptation, but enough will.

[macdoc]

You can say the same thing about ANY organization ..,.none are immune.
The key os oversiight with teeth for ALL organaizations.

[Brian Peacock]

Sorry, mac, but in capitalism, the temptation to increase profit by whatever means (including corrupting politicians) certainly exists, simply because it works. Not all capitalist organisations/leaders will succumb to this temptation, but enough will.

Not all capitalisms are equal of course. Fiscally responsible German capitalism is different to socially progressive Scandi capitalism which is different to US/UK laissez faire, finance-sector focused capitalism, which is different to the Chinese state-run capitalism. Nonetheless, discussing more pro-social forms of economics, in which gains are more fairly distributed in a system which meets everyone's irreducible minimum needs, requires discussing political, social and economic transformation - even if some people believe that's just profit-hating nonsense.

[JimC]

You can say the same thing about ANY organization ..,.none are immune.
The key os oversiight with teeth for ALL organaizations.

Sure, all organisations run by humans are subject to human failings of various sorts. But a corporation automatically has a stronger motivation than most to indulge in unethical behaviour such as corrupting politicians, to achieve an increase in profit (note that this is not an attack on achieving profits per se, but on the tendency to increase profits, often by any means)

[Svartalf]

You keep asserting that there's basically nothing wrong with the system, it's how it's implemented which is where the problems lie. What you're reluctant to accept is that how things are operated in practice is the system, and that that system is designed, constructed, operated, and enforced by those who already have the financial and political power to materially influence things in accordance with their values and ideals. Those people are clearly not workers or unions, and as if to highlight this you yourself point out that companies are not obliged or authorised (mandated) to raise living standards, and therefore are not responsible for enhancing the well-being of society at large.

QFT

[macdoc]

and ??
I've said all along that there is a need for oversight with teeth.....for All human organizations.
However that requirement is in no way restricted to capitalism ....perhaps you can explain to me how the constant stream of religious abuse by various organized religion bodies are different?

You keep beating on capitalism and ignoring all the rest of the misbehaving humans including govs...gets very old

[pErvinalia]

Won't somebody think of the capitalists!

[Brian Peacock]

and ??
I've said all along that there is a need for oversight with teeth.....for All human organizations.
However that requirement is in no way restricted to capitalism ....perhaps you can explain to me how the constant stream of religious abuse by various organized religion bodies are different?

You keep beating on capitalism and ignoring all the rest of the misbehaving humans including govs...gets very old

But that's not true, because I don't see Capitalism as a separate thing, some discrete entity or force or system, hiving off the economical from the social and/or the political. I've been saying that Capitalism is the system - or, if you prefer, the overarching justifying ideology of social-economic-political organisation. Aren't you just taking issue with some kind of strawman, as if you're being automatically triggered by critiques of Capitalism, perhaps because you identify with it - like the Christian who's triggered by criticisms of religion. And like that Christian, you presume that you're entitled to criticise the religion because you're a part of it, where the non-religious are not?