Parasitic capitalists - a point to ponder.

[Atheist-Lite]

Capitalism works, or worked, too well if you notice the state of the biosphere & global economy just lately? Every system is the best yet until the day it crashes bigtime. There is nothing special about capitialism today other than it hasn't so far hit the fatal mass mortality buffers. Some people listen to that Zizek guy saying capitalism is resiliant blah blah blah....he's a real communist....egging this fragile system and it's adherents to open full throttle with a resource limit wall right ahead. What is gonna happen? It doesn't take a economist to work out what happens when the food runs out....for a while.

[John_fi_Skye]

And what tragedy might that be, Crumple?

The thing about capitalism is that it works. Maybe not well, but it works. People will strive with great effort to enrich themselves and their families, where they will not work hard unless coerced under any other system.

So what do you propose as an alternative? Royalty? Communism? Totalitarianism? Anarchy?

The best system so far is a managed capitalism. People working hard motivated by greed, and with the worst excesses controlled by government. The problem with this system is not the capitalism. It is the government, which is often corrupt, and over-influenced by lobby groups promoting the welfare of the wealthy. So what needs changing is not the capitalism, but the government.

I broadly agree. But not just government, a healthy system needs a variety of checks and balances. Unions, consumer groups, a strong press and activist shareholders are all part of the mix. In many parts of the world, the balance is way off, but a cry that it's all wrong and should be torn down is a recipe for power-hungry opportunists to trump the idealists of the revolution, and the way is paved for totalitarian rule...

I don't agree, because the fundamental principle - motivation by personal gain - is what the problem with capitalism is. As a species - as a world society - we need now to be turning our thoughts towards finding a sustainable way of all getting on together in the long term. Surely, altruism - rather than "my-gain-and-your-loss" - is the right principle to underlie such thoughts. Marxism was a primitive stab at it, and as I've said because of its perverted implementation by totalitarianists it hasn't worked. But that simply cannot be taken to imply that therefore we must fall back on capitalism, or regard it as a system that will do the job for us in the longer term.

[redunderthebed]

Politics - "democracy" - is at base a sham, a show put on to mislead us into thinking we are influencing events, so we'll be more docile. Real power resides with those who have wealth, and who use the capitalist world order to ensure they keep it, and augment it, for themselves.

+1

[Hermit]

... The problem with this system is not the capitalism. ... what needs changing is not the capitalism, but the government.

I broadly agree. ... a healthy system needs a variety of checks and balances. Unions, consumer groups, a strong press and activist shareholders are all part of the mix.

It's all been tried, and kept failing, Jim. Look at Australia's social, economic and media developments since the Harvester judgement by Justice Higgins in 1907, just to pick one example. You're doing no more than defending the status quo.

[JimC]

And what tragedy might that be, Crumple?

The thing about capitalism is that it works. Maybe not well, but it works. People will strive with great effort to enrich themselves and their families, where they will not work hard unless coerced under any other system.

So what do you propose as an alternative? Royalty? Communism? Totalitarianism? Anarchy?

The best system so far is a managed capitalism. People working hard motivated by greed, and with the worst excesses controlled by government. The problem with this system is not the capitalism. It is the government, which is often corrupt, and over-influenced by lobby groups promoting the welfare of the wealthy. So what needs changing is not the capitalism, but the government.

I broadly agree. But not just government, a healthy system needs a variety of checks and balances. Unions, consumer groups, a strong press and activist shareholders are all part of the mix. In many parts of the world, the balance is way off, but a cry that it's all wrong and should be torn down is a recipe for power-hungry opportunists to trump the idealists of the revolution, and the way is paved for totalitarian rule...

I don't agree, because the fundamental principle - motivation by personal gain - is what the problem with capitalism is. As a species - as a world society - we need now to be turning our thoughts towards finding a sustainable way of all getting on together in the long term. Surely, altruism - rather than "my-gain-and-your-loss" - is the right principle to underlie such thoughts. Marxism was a primitive stab at it, and as I've said because of its perverted implementation by totalitarianists it hasn't worked. But that simply cannot be taken to imply that therefore we must fall back on capitalism, or regard it as a system that will do the job for us in the longer term.

If a change to an altruistic & communal way of living could happen by a process of evolutionary change, involving a majority of the people, fair enough...

However, frequently it's stated that a corrupt democracy serving capitalism can only be overthrown by violence; a minority of morally righteous visionaries will be a vanguard of the people, the ends will justify the means...

The road to the gulag is paved by good intentions...

[JimC]

... The problem with this system is not the capitalism. ... what needs changing is not the capitalism, but the government.

I broadly agree. ... a healthy system needs a variety of checks and balances. Unions, consumer groups, a strong press and activist shareholders are all part of the mix.

It's all been tried, and kept failing, Jim. Look at Australia's social, economic and media developments since the Harvester judgement by Justice Higgins in 1907, just to pick one example. You're doing no more than defending the status quo.

I'm really only wondering what the alternative is...

Previous attempts to find one are not encouraging...

[Hermit]

... The problem with this system is not the capitalism. ... what needs changing is not the capitalism, but the government.

I broadly agree. ... a healthy system needs a variety of checks and balances. Unions, consumer groups, a strong press and activist shareholders are all part of the mix.

It's all been tried, and kept failing, Jim. Look at Australia's social, economic and media developments since the Harvester judgement by Justice Higgins in 1907, just to pick one example. You're doing no more than defending the status quo.

I'm really only wondering what the alternative is...

Previous attempts to find one are not encouraging...

That's the most depressing part about it. I like Churchill's quip on the matter, but given where we have been heading for decades now, it's was horrible thing to say. "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." In other words, this is as good as it gets. Fucking great.

[John_fi_Skye]

And what tragedy might that be, Crumple?

The thing about capitalism is that it works. Maybe not well, but it works. People will strive with great effort to enrich themselves and their families, where they will not work hard unless coerced under any other system.

So what do you propose as an alternative? Royalty? Communism? Totalitarianism? Anarchy?

The best system so far is a managed capitalism. People working hard motivated by greed, and with the worst excesses controlled by government. The problem with this system is not the capitalism. It is the government, which is often corrupt, and over-influenced by lobby groups promoting the welfare of the wealthy. So what needs changing is not the capitalism, but the government.

I broadly agree. But not just government, a healthy system needs a variety of checks and balances. Unions, consumer groups, a strong press and activist shareholders are all part of the mix. In many parts of the world, the balance is way off, but a cry that it's all wrong and should be torn down is a recipe for power-hungry opportunists to trump the idealists of the revolution, and the way is paved for totalitarian rule...

I don't agree, because the fundamental principle - motivation by personal gain - is what the problem with capitalism is. As a species - as a world society - we need now to be turning our thoughts towards finding a sustainable way of all getting on together in the long term. Surely, altruism - rather than "my-gain-and-your-loss" - is the right principle to underlie such thoughts. Marxism was a primitive stab at it, and as I've said because of its perverted implementation by totalitarianists it hasn't worked. But that simply cannot be taken to imply that therefore we must fall back on capitalism, or regard it as a system that will do the job for us in the longer term.

If a change to an altruistic & communal way of living could happen by a process of evolutionary change, involving a majority of the people, fair enough...

However, frequently it's stated that a corrupt democracy serving capitalism can only be overthrown by violence; a minority of morally righteous visionaries will be a vanguard of the people, the ends will justify the means...

The road to the gulag is paved by good intentions...

I don't think a system based on altruism could work at all if only "a majority of the people" embraced it voluntarily. I think it will only work if EVERYBODY embraces it voluntarily. (And for the avoidance of doubt, I want to repeat that I'm talking about this happening voluntarily, with everybody understanding that it's the right thing for humanity, and nobody being coerced. No gulags.)

Think what would happen if that weren't the case: let the number of people in the world = n. If the number of people committed to an economic system based on altruism is n - 1, then that one starts up a business, and within a very short time he or she's enormously wealthy, and we have a capitalist system again.

No, I believe that as a species we need to think in a different way. I'm not bright enough to tell you what that way is, but I believe that when some cleverer person comes along, and explains to us what that way is, it will be based on altruism, and not personal gain. I think Marx was thinking along those lines, and was in that sense a visionary. I've known of a number of altruistic people in my lifetime, so I believe it's a possible state for a human person to be in. I believe that as a species we now need to feel our way towards that, so that in the longer term every person (and not a third of us) can have enough to eat, everybody (and not just whatever minority proportion it is at present) can have the chance of fulfilment and happiness, and the system by which we all get along together can be sustained away into the future.

[mistermack]

You can't change human nature. No matter what you do, people will find the best way to exploit what they encounter. We evolved it to survive, the majority of the altruistic ancestors died out millions of years ago.

You have to aim at a system that rewards and exploits human nature.
Capitalism does that, it can't be denied. And it's essential to provide security.
What's wrong with people saving for their old age, and putting that saved capital to work in the meantime? Nothing.

What is wrong, it the inheritance part. That's what causes the unfairness. Some are born with more than what the hardest worker can ever save. It's there that society gets divided.

I would keep capitalism, but tax inheritance to the hilt.
And that tax would go towards equalizing OPPORTUNITY in society, by improving the worst schools to the level of the best. And supporting poorer kids during their education.

Of course there would be a drop in incentive at first. And it would be difficult to enforce at first. But you learn as you go. I wouldn't do everything in one big hit, it wouldn't be fair. I would phase it in so that people could adjust and lessons could be learned.

[Rum]

You can't change human nature. No matter what you do, people will find the best way to exploit what they encounter. We evolved it to survive, all the altruistic ancestors died out millions of years ago.

You have to aim at a system that rewards and exploits human nature.
Capitalism does that, it can't be denied. And it's essential to provide security.
What's wrong with people saving for their old age, and putting that saved capital to work in the meantime? Nothing.

What is wrong, it the inheritance part. That's what causes the unfairness. Some are born with more than what the hardest worker can ever save. It's there that society gets divided.

I would keep capitalism, but tax inheritance to the hilt.
And that tax would go towards equalizing OPPORTUNITY in society, by improving the worst schools to the level of the best. And supporting poorer kids during their education.

Of course there would be a drop in incentive at first. And it would be difficult to enforce at first. But you learn as you go. I wouldn't do everything in one big hit, it wouldn't be fair. I would phase it in so that people could adjust and lessons could be learned.

Ah, but it is also human nature to want to provide for and leave your shit to your kids.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

MM, you don't have to change human nature, you just have to find ways to live with it. We've learned to live with our inner caveman for the most part. Now we need to go an extra step.

[mistermack]

Ah, but it is also human nature to want to provide for and leave your shit to your kids.

Yeh, I know. That's what I meant by a drop in incentive. But if you can't leave them loads of money, then perhaps people will concentrate on raising them well.

Of course that loss of incentive is the stumbling block. BUT, if you pay more tax when you die, then tax could be less while you are alive. I'm not saying we should increase the overall tax take, apart from enough to improve the worst schools, and anyway, that would be self-financing in the very long term.

So lower income tax when you are alive, is an extra incentive, to counteract the lost incentive of leaving your kids a fortune. And your kids would ALSO have more incentive to actually work, as tax rates would be lower, and they won't inherit a fortune.

There are pluses and minuses.

[mistermack]

MM, you don't have to change human nature, you just have to find ways to live with it. We've learned to live with our inner caveman for the most part. Now we need to go an extra step.

I agree. I'm just saying that, at the moment, we are wasting the talents of a huge chunk of society, by allowing so much inherited privilege.
It keeps the poorest kids in the gutter and badly educated. And it keeps the richest kids comfortable, with no incentive to go for it themselves.

And it means we tax you for working, more than for inheriting. I'm saying tax inheritances heavily, and reduce taxes on work. I think human nature could adjust to that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

MM, you don't have to change human nature, you just have to find ways to live with it. We've learned to live with our inner caveman for the most part. Now we need to go an extra step.

I agree. I'm just saying that, at the moment, we are wasting the talents of a huge chunk of society, by allowing so much inherited privilege.
It keeps the poorest kids in the gutter and badly educated. And it keeps the richest kids comfortable, with no incentive to go for it themselves.

And it means we tax you for working, more than for inheriting. I'm saying tax inheritances heavily, and reduce taxes on work. I think human nature could adjust to that.

Unfortunately, if you have enough estate to make the inheritance tax a factor, you also own a few legislators. So the imbalance is self-perpetuating.

[John_fi_Skye]

MM, you don't have to change human nature, you just have to find ways to live with it. We've learned to live with our inner caveman for the most part. Now we need to go an extra step.

I agree.