Designer capitalism

[FBM]

If you're against capitalism altogether, please explain what you think is wrong with it and why. How can people co-exist in society without producing, buying and selling goods? What's so unnatural or unhealthy about it? What's a superior alternative, and why?

Please be aware that I'm no fan of any 'ism'; I'm open-minded about workable alternatives.

For others, what's wrong with (what needs to be improved about) the version of capitalism - or whatever economic system there is - where you live?

[Tero]

It does not work without growth in economy and population. Eventually it will consume all. A global Easter Island.

[JOZeldenrust]

It does not work without growth in economy and population. Eventually it will consume all. A global Easter Island.

I agree that capitalist systems require economic growth, but why does it require growth of the population?

[FBM]

It does not work without growth in economy and population. Eventually it will consume all. A global Easter Island.

I agree that capitalist systems require economic growth, but why does it require growth of the population?

I'm thinking that means of production tend towards greater efficiency over time, so the same number of workers will produce increasing amounts of product over time, requiring increasing numbers of consumers. Or, it requires fewer workers to produce the same amount of product, requiring a greater variety of products to keep the workers busy. That said, I'm still not sure why a steady-state economic system would be so hard to design, except that such a system would make it harder for the rich to get richer except at the increasing expense of the worker, who would eventually revolt...history repeating itself, etc...

[JOZeldenrust]

It does not work without growth in economy and population. Eventually it will consume all. A global Easter Island.

I agree that capitalist systems require economic growth, but why does it require growth of the population?

I'm thinking that means of production tend towards greater efficiency over time, so the same number of workers will produce increasing amounts of product over time, requiring increasing numbers of consumers. Or, it requires fewer workers to produce the same amount of product, requiring a greater variety of products to keep the workers busy. That said, I'm still not sure why a steady-state economic system would be so hard to design, except that such a system would make it harder for the rich to get richer except at the increasing expense of the worker, who would eventually revolt...history repeating itself, etc...

Why can't consumers just consume more per capita?

[Sisifo]

How can people co-exist in society without producing, buying and selling goods? What's so unnatural or unhealthy about it?

That's not capitalism. That's trade. Capitalism is that the goal of economic profit runs the system by means of free (unregulated) market. The most obvious flaw it's that if profit seek becomes the only market rule, then unprofitable activities will not be taken by anyone. Those activities are like health system, education, transport and other human needs of the dispossessed.
The second flaw it's that without said regulation, it can easily create social and environmental abuse.

In both cases, you have to establish a regulation. In the first one, taxes and fiscal policies. In the second one, other laws (child labour, working hours, minimum wage...).

The only point would be how much of those norms to put. Too few, and you are truly capitalist. Too many, and you are socialist.

I think evident that capitalism is the best system for economic maximisation, but it sucks at social welfare. And socialism rules for social welfare, but sucks at finding economic efficiency... To be in the middle or swing among the systems with healthy regular policy changes is the way to find a good balance.

But now I will let Seth and .Morticia. to tear each other to pieces.

[charlou]

Concisely put, Sisifo.

[Seth]

How can people co-exist in society without producing, buying and selling goods? What's so unnatural or unhealthy about it?

That's not capitalism. That's trade. Capitalism is that the goal of economic profit runs the system by means of free (unregulated) market. The most obvious flaw it's that if profit seek becomes the only market rule, then unprofitable activities will not be taken by anyone. Those activities are like health system, education, transport and other human needs of the dispossessed.

Wrong. First, capitalism is not simply "profit seeking," nor does capitalism demand "unregulated" markets. It is true that unprofitable activities will not be undertaken in free market capitalism, but you fail to understand what "unprofitable" actually means. It does not mean simply "social goods," it means activities for which there is no consumer demand. Capitalism operates on the laws of supply and demand, or rather demand and supply. Where a demand appears, in a free market, supply will naturally arise to serve that demand because there is profit potential. Health systems are demand driven because people need medical care. Education is demand driven because parents want their children educated and business wants educated employees. Transport is in demand because people have to move from place to place. You are falsely trying to malign capitalism based on its unwillingness as an economic model to serve demand for free. But that's not capitalism's job. It's job, as an economic system, is to create wealth for individuals by encouraging them to work hard to find, create and serve the needs of the market.

Caring for the "dispossessed" is the province of society as a whole, through altruistic and charitable acts. One cannot create an economic system that has as its primary motive to provide entitlements and services for people because there is nothing in such a system (like socialism) that creates the wealth that is a necessary component of being able to fund entitlements and services.

This is the fundamental flaw of socialism. It presumes falsely that the purpose of government is to provide for the needs of the citizens. But no government can provide anything to anyone that it does not first take from someone else, because governments create nothing, they only consume wealth. As a result, any government entitlement or service WHATSOEVER must be funded by the generation of wealth, which is to say excess capital that can be taxed in order to fund the services of government. Without the capacity of the society to generate wealth, there's nothing to tax and therefore nothing to give away to the "needy."

So, socialism is a parasite on capitalism and cannot exist without it. Socialism can exist only so long as there is excess capital in the system that can be taxed or seized in order to fund the social programs and entitlements that socialists have been lead to believe are their birthright. Once that excess capital is expended, all socialist systems will inevitably fail because nobody's creating wealth or excess capital, so there's nothing to seize to fund entitlement programs, and the dependent class, who have become accustomed to living on the dole and are unable to become members of the productive class, not that they even want to, quickly begin to starve. And there is nothing more dangerous to civilization than a starving dependent class, and the inevitable result is chaos, rebellion, anarchy, destruction and death.

The second flaw it's that without said regulation, it can easily create social and environmental abuse.
In both cases, you have to establish a regulation. In the first one, taxes and fiscal policies. In the second one, other laws (child labour, working hours, minimum wage...).

Here you engage in the typical socialist conflation of police-power regulation necessary to prevent force and fraud (which includes "environmental abuse," which is a form of both force and fraud) and redistributionist social engineering regulation that seeks to rectify "social abuse" which is commonly defined as "unfairness" in the system, which is further defined as social and economic inequality.

The only point would be how much of those norms to put. Too few, and you are truly capitalist. Too many, and you are socialist.

I think evident that capitalism is the best system for economic maximisation, but it sucks at social welfare. And socialism rules for social welfare, but sucks at finding economic efficiency... To be in the middle or swing among the systems with healthy regular policy changes is the way to find a good balance.

Socialism doesn't "rule" for social welfare, except temporarily, until the OPM runs out, at which point it becomes the destruction of civilization and the progenitor of death en masse.

Natural altruism and charity are generally sufficient to cope with those who are truly destitute and cannot help themselves. The problem with socialism is that it CREATES a dependent class, most of whom are perfectly capable of working, but choose not to do so because they prefer idleness and sloth on the public dole to hard work and personal accountability.

Capitalism provides for unlimited rewards for hard work and personal industry and accountability, and the wealth created by capitalism ( and ONLY capitalism) makes charity and altruism much more effective and available, because when people are doing well and are allowed to keep the fruits of their own labor, rather than having it taken from them for redistribution, they tend to be much more willing to donate part of their disposable income to the needy...the truly needy, not the slothful proletariat, who deserve to starve...who NEED to go hungry because that's the best way to instill some industry and accountability in them and get them to go out and work and create wealth and improve their economic lot, rather than allowing and facilitating them to be dependent and useless.

[Sisifo]

No. Suppy and demand are an economic law. Not a capitalist one. Demand without profit would be unattended in an entirely capitalist system.

The rest of the statements, such as "the destruction of civilization and the progenitor of death en masse", "the slothful proletariat, who deserve to starve" "who NEED to go hungry because that's the best way to instill some industry and accountability in them" denotes that more than a exchange of opinions, we would need an exchange of life experiences to understand each other.I believe you are too engaged emotionally to the topic of economic organisation to build any kind of educational debate.
I am glad that you are so attached to your beliefs though. On my part, I prefer to be more open to ideas from every side and see the world less burdened and angered by my opinions

[Seth]

No. Suppy and demand are an economic law. Not a capitalist one. Demand without profit would be unattended in an entirely capitalist system.

Supply and demand are part and parcel of capitalism. And yes, demand without profit would be unattended, and rightfully so. Just because you want something does not obligate others to labor on your behalf to provide it to you without the compensation of profit for their labor.

The rest of the statements, such as "the destruction of civilization and the progenitor of death en masse", "the slothful proletariat, who deserve to starve" "who NEED to go hungry because that's the best way to instill some industry and accountability in them" denotes that more than a exchange of opinions, we would need an exchange of life experiences to understand each other.I believe you are too engaged emotionally to the topic of economic organisation to build any kind of educational debate.

Refusing to recognize the economic reality of collectivism is not the path to enlightenment.

I am glad that you are so attached to your beliefs though. On my part, I prefer to be more open to ideas from every side and see the world less burdened and angered by my opinions

When you see oppression, death, destruction and tyranny resulting from Marxism and socialism as a universal, unavoidable consequence of the core principles of the ideology, it's perfectly justifiable to point out the fundamental flaws as a counterbalance to the propaganda that makes collectivism superficially attractive to the dependent classes. Collectivism, socialism and particularly Marxism depend upon the ability of the intellectual elite class to propagandize the proletarian class and stir them to action without actually telling them everything. That's why the Marxist dialectic focuses on the supposed inequities of "exploitation of the working class" without critically examining the role of capital investment and the necessary rewards for risk-taking through capital investment that make free markets function.

I note that nothing in US law prevents any group of workers from "owning the means of production," and indeed large segments of the population do exactly that, like family farmers, small business owners and others who labor long and hard to acquire the means of production precisely so that they can enjoy the fruits of their labor. Moreover, nothing prevents groups from "socializing" together to create a company that owns the means of production collectively, and such companies do exist in the US. They are in fact ubiquitous. They are called "corporations."

In a corporation, you see, they generally start out small, with a group of individuals getting together to pursue some grand idea for a product that will sell in the market. These people both invest their personal capital assets and their labor and they work together, usually putting in long hours at high risk of personal bankruptcy, to create a profitable business. Generally, start-up corporations are founded with the capital of the initial partners, who agree to operate the business collectively, although they may assign duties and roles depending on the particular strengths of each partner.

Over time, if the company is successful, they begin to hire employees. They may offer profit-sharing or stock options to create loyalty to the company through a direct financial interest in its success. As time passes, the original shareholders, who rightfully control and profit from that which they have created, hire employees, build factories and seek investment from others who see the potential for profit.

Then the Marxists show up and complain that they are being "exploited" because they came late to the table, risked nothing, and accepted a wage in return for their labor. Understandably and rightfully, the people who worked to build the company, who own the majority of the share of stock, and their investors, who invested and risked their money to help the business succeed and expand, tell the Marxists to go fuck themselves.

The problem with Marxists and socialists is that they think that they are entitled to walk in whenever they feel "exploited" and demand that the people who built the company from the ground up, who risked their personal fortunes, their houses and everything they owned, who worked day and night to build the company into a success, turn the "means of production" over to the employees the owner hire to do a day's work for a day's pay.

Fuck them. If they want to own the means of production, then they can fucking well BUILD IT THEMSELVES, from the ground up, using THEIR OWN capital investment and THEIR OWN labor to create whatever the fuck they want by way of "means of production." They have no right, and no moral expectation to be able to seize from someone else what that person worked to create, no matter how large or successful that corporation may have become over time. The asswipes in the autoworkers unions had absolutely NO RIGHT whatsoever to be granted an ownership share in GM under ANY circumstances, and particularly not over the interests of the secured bond holders whom Obama defrauded in one of the biggest Marxist government rip-offs in history.

If the labor unions want, they can go pool their own money and either BUY the assets of GM, or go build their own fucking auto plants and set them up any way they like. But they don't, they collude with the Marxist asswipe in the White House to steal GM from the people who risked their own money to keep it in business instead.

But for them to steal the money of the secured bond holders is reprehensible beyond all imagining. It's a violation of law and custom that defies reason, and it has egregiously damaged our economy because now people are not willing to invest their money in corporations as secured bond holders because they know the government can simply lawlessly step in and strip them of their property without so much as a by-your-leave. This cripples our corporations and our economy, and it's why both businesses and investors are sitting on their cash and not investing it.

The fact that every corporation on the face of the earth started out with some individuals pooling and risking their own money and their own labor to fund a good idea and build it into a wealth-generating juggernaut that employs the proletarian dependent class is lost on Marxists, who, in their individual greed and selfishness, think that all that wealth just created itself and therefore ought to be seized by the working class because not to do so is to exploit them.

Lunatics, every one.

[charlou]

How can people co-exist in society without producing, buying and selling goods? What's so unnatural or unhealthy about it?

That's not capitalism. That's trade. Capitalism is that the goal of economic profit runs the system by means of free (unregulated) market. The most obvious flaw it's that if profit seek becomes the only market rule, then unprofitable activities will not be taken by anyone. Those activities are like health system, education, transport and other human needs of the dispossessed.

Wrong. First, capitalism is not simply "profit seeking," nor does capitalism demand "unregulated" markets. It is true that unprofitable activities will not be undertaken in free market capitalism, but you fail to understand what "unprofitable" actually means. It does not mean simply "social goods," it means activities for which there is no consumer demand. Capitalism operates on the laws of supply and demand, or rather demand and supply. Where a demand appears, in a free market, supply will naturally arise to serve that demand because there is profit potential. Health systems are demand driven because people need medical care. Education is demand driven because parents want their children educated and business wants educated employees. Transport is in demand because people have to move from place to place. You are falsely trying to malign capitalism based on its unwillingness as an economic model to serve demand for free. But that's not capitalism's job. It's job, as an economic system, is to create wealth for individuals by encouraging them to work hard to find, create and serve the needs of the market.

Unprofitable ... Demand and suppy ... Are you trying to equate the pragmatic needs of social welfare with the luxuries afforded by free market trade?

Caring for the "dispossessed" is the province of society as a whole, through altruistic and charitable acts. One cannot create an economic system that has as its primary motive to provide entitlements and services for people because there is nothing in such a system (like socialism) that creates the wealth that is a necessary component of being able to fund entitlements and services.

Primary motive? This was not advocated.

This is the fundamental flaw of socialism. It presumes falsely that the purpose of government is to provide for the needs of the citizens. But no government can provide anything to anyone that it does not first take from someone else, because governments create nothing, they only consume wealth. As a result, any government entitlement or service WHATSOEVER must be funded by the generation of wealth, which is to say excess capital that can be taxed in order to fund the services of government. Without the capacity of the society to generate wealth, there's nothing to tax and therefore nothing to give away to the "needy."

Which is where that 'balance' comes into it. You've agreed that there must be an element of altruism and charity in society to care for the 'dispossessed'. The most effective way to ensure this is to create balance via the tax system.

So, socialism is a parasite on capitalism and cannot exist without it. Socialism can exist only so long as there is excess capital in the system that can be taxed or seized in order to fund the social programs and entitlements that socialists have been lead to believe are their birthright. Once that excess capital is expended, all socialist systems will inevitably fail because nobody's creating wealth or excess capital, so there's nothing to seize to fund entitlement programs, and the dependent class, who have become accustomed to living on the dole and are unable to become members of the productive class, not that they even want to, quickly begin to starve. And there is nothing more dangerous to civilization than a starving dependent class, and the inevitable result is chaos, rebellion, anarchy, destruction and death.

Capitalism is a parasite on society and cannot exist without it.

The idea put forward was striving for balance between the two. Do you not agree that is the best course?

[Seth]

How can people co-exist in society without producing, buying and selling goods? What's so unnatural or unhealthy about it?

That's not capitalism. That's trade. Capitalism is that the goal of economic profit runs the system by means of free (unregulated) market. The most obvious flaw it's that if profit seek becomes the only market rule, then unprofitable activities will not be taken by anyone. Those activities are like health system, education, transport and other human needs of the dispossessed.

Wrong. First, capitalism is not simply "profit seeking," nor does capitalism demand "unregulated" markets. It is true that unprofitable activities will not be undertaken in free market capitalism, but you fail to understand what "unprofitable" actually means. It does not mean simply "social goods," it means activities for which there is no consumer demand. Capitalism operates on the laws of supply and demand, or rather demand and supply. Where a demand appears, in a free market, supply will naturally arise to serve that demand because there is profit potential. Health systems are demand driven because people need medical care. Education is demand driven because parents want their children educated and business wants educated employees. Transport is in demand because people have to move from place to place. You are falsely trying to malign capitalism based on its unwillingness as an economic model to serve demand for free. But that's not capitalism's job. It's job, as an economic system, is to create wealth for individuals by encouraging them to work hard to find, create and serve the needs of the market.

Unprofitable ... Demand and suppy ... Are you trying to equate the pragmatic needs of social welfare with the luxuries afforded by free market trade?

"Social welfare" is when you go get a job and earn a living for yourself and your family, one that society does not owe you. If you're truly disable and unable to care for yourself, have the humility to ASK people to help you instead of demanding that they do so and using a gun to take what you want from them.

If you're capable of working, but choose not to, well, hunger is the best sauce and as Franklin put it, you need to be made uncomfortable in your poverty, so you will be induced to work hard to raise yourself up out of it.

Caring for the "dispossessed" is the province of society as a whole, through altruistic and charitable acts. One cannot create an economic system that has as its primary motive to provide entitlements and services for people because there is nothing in such a system (like socialism) that creates the wealth that is a necessary component of being able to fund entitlements and services.

Primary motive? This was not advocated.

It's always advocated by collectivists.

This is the fundamental flaw of socialism. It presumes falsely that the purpose of government is to provide for the needs of the citizens. But no government can provide anything to anyone that it does not first take from someone else, because governments create nothing, they only consume wealth. As a result, any government entitlement or service WHATSOEVER must be funded by the generation of wealth, which is to say excess capital that can be taxed in order to fund the services of government. Without the capacity of the society to generate wealth, there's nothing to tax and therefore nothing to give away to the "needy."

Which is where that 'balance' comes into it. You've agreed that there must be an element of altruism and charity in society to care for the 'dispossessed'. The most effective way to ensure this is to create balance via the tax system.

Taxes are not altruism or charity, they are forcible redistribution of wealth at the barrel of a gun. Government is nothing but naked force. Altruism and charity are voluntary, not compulsory.

So, socialism is a parasite on capitalism and cannot exist without it. Socialism can exist only so long as there is excess capital in the system that can be taxed or seized in order to fund the social programs and entitlements that socialists have been lead to believe are their birthright. Once that excess capital is expended, all socialist systems will inevitably fail because nobody's creating wealth or excess capital, so there's nothing to seize to fund entitlement programs, and the dependent class, who have become accustomed to living on the dole and are unable to become members of the productive class, not that they even want to, quickly begin to starve. And there is nothing more dangerous to civilization than a starving dependent class, and the inevitable result is chaos, rebellion, anarchy, destruction and death.

Capitalism is a parasite on society and cannot exist without it.

Not quite. Like the bacteria in your gut, it's not a parasite, its a symbiote that's necessary if the society is to remain healthy.

The idea put forward was striving for balance between the two. Do you not agree that is the best course?

So long as the balance does not require any compulsory redistribution of wealth from one person to another for the purposes of social engineering, we can discuss it. But the instant that you propose to take what's mine and give it to someone else to satisfy their needs or desires without my consent, all agreement ends.

[Tero]

Easter Island. Who will cut down the last tree and sell it to a neighbor in trade for food?

[FBM]

It does not work without growth in economy and population. Eventually it will consume all. A global Easter Island.

I agree that capitalist systems require economic growth, but why does it require growth of the population?

I'm thinking that means of production tend towards greater efficiency over time, so the same number of workers will produce increasing amounts of product over time, requiring increasing numbers of consumers. Or, it requires fewer workers to produce the same amount of product, requiring a greater variety of products to keep the workers busy. That said, I'm still not sure why a steady-state economic system would be so hard to design, except that such a system would make it harder for the rich to get richer except at the increasing expense of the worker, who would eventually revolt...history repeating itself, etc...

Why can't consumers just consume more per capita?

How much fatter can we get? How many more gadgets can we own? How can a growth-based economic system continue to grow on a finite planet with finite resources?

[JOZeldenrust]

It does not work without growth in economy and population. Eventually it will consume all. A global Easter Island.

I agree that capitalist systems require economic growth, but why does it require growth of the population?

I'm thinking that means of production tend towards greater efficiency over time, so the same number of workers will produce increasing amounts of product over time, requiring increasing numbers of consumers. Or, it requires fewer workers to produce the same amount of product, requiring a greater variety of products to keep the workers busy. That said, I'm still not sure why a steady-state economic system would be so hard to design, except that such a system would make it harder for the rich to get richer except at the increasing expense of the worker, who would eventually revolt...history repeating itself, etc...

Why can't consumers just consume more per capita?

How much fatter can we get? How many more gadgets can we own? How can a growth-based economic system continue to grow on a finite planet with finite resources?

Value isn't a material property. As long as we develop new shit that we appreciate more then what we previously had, the total worth of our economy goes up. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with physical resources.