Can capitalism survive?

[sandorski]

It really was, with each word people who refute it become more and more wrong, so to confine it to one word, gives the best possible refutation.

You win.

Ultimate efficiency. Those forms of "Capitalism" refute themselves.

 

[BoberFett]

I think freedom of speech is a good comparison.

The problem is, the government is not allowing the banks to face the consequences of their actions.

When people are not held accountable for their actions, there is nothing to deter repeat negative behavior.

Ah, so then capitalism is not the problem, government is. Glad to see you agree.

Facebook paying workers $1 an hour is what I would classify as exploitation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9118778/The-dark-side-of-Facebook.html

OK, so $1/hr is exploitation. $1.01/hr is not exploitation?

Please draw the line where exploitation begins.

 

[Texashiker]

OK, so $1/hr is exploitation. $1.01/hr is not exploitation?

Please draw the line where exploitation begins.

If you want a number, lets use 30.

When the highest paid employee makes more then 30X the lowest paid employee/contractor/sub-contractor, the lowest paid person is being exploited.

Example:

Company ABC makes widgets; highest paid employee makes $30 million a year, the lowest paid sub-contractor of a sub-contractor should make $1 million a year, give or take a few bucks.

In before "would I consider 29X exploiting", the answer is no.

 

[woolfe9999]

Please, list the alternatives. I'd love to hear about all of those succesful non-capitalist economies.

I've love to hear about the successful pure capitalist economies as well. There aren't any in either category mentioned by either of us. Even the most statist systems have free enterprise at least on a localized level. You can't stop people from selling shit to other people. Conversely, even the most free market oriented approach will inevitably embrace some form of state involvement in the economy.

The entire question framed by the OP is over-simplified. The most successful economies on the planet are all mixed economies. The remaining debate seems to be what is the best mix of free market versus government involvement. Is it the mix in Europe, what we have here in the U.S. currently, something in between the two, or something to a further extreme in either direction?

 

[Texashiker]

The remaining debate seems to be what is the best mix of free market versus government involvement.

We will never reach a perfect fit.

On one side of the scale we have greed, on the other side of the scale we have laziness.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with making money. But on the other hand, there is something wrong when the spread of wealth is lopsided.

I can not justify how a single person can be worth billions of dollars, or even hundreds of millions.

 

[Steeplerot]

I've love to hear about the successful pure capitalist economies as well. There aren't any in either category mentioned by either of us. Even the most statist systems have free enterprise at least on a localized level. You can't stop people from selling shit to other people. Conversely, even the most free market oriented approach will inevitably embrace some form of state involvement in the economy.

The entire question framed by the OP is over-simplified. The most successful economies on the planet are all mixed economies. The remaining debate seems to be what is the best mix of free market versus government involvement. Is it the mix in Europe, what we have here in the U.S. currently, something in between the two, or something to a further extreme in either direction?

I recommend "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell -a free associative society that rejects capitalism do work and have, but have always been crushed ruthlessly by capitalists and state capitalists (marxist so called communists) throughout history. You will never see his other book Animal Farm in the same light. It's a very interesting part of history our consumerist society keeps very quiet about when options come up.

The whole wage slavery (neo liberal capitalism) or state capitalism (marxism) is a false choice, both are based off of Victorian era chattel slavery, the rich hold power by keeping us gamed into safe for them status quo by framing debate. Or simply rewriting/obtusificating history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neNwAZSBMb0&

 

[Matt1970]

If the products were made in the USA, yes they'd cost more than they do now. But then we'd also have less families relying on minimum wage service sector jobs. Or worse, government assistance/handouts. The average household income level would be higher and people could afford the higher price of such items. But in their rush to satisfy investors, companies have taken out the legs of the American economy. Moving those jobs overseas to take advantage of lower wages and lax regulations kept their products cheap but removed those jobs from our economy. Now we reap what we sow.

When was the last time you actually looked to see where something was made when you were shopping? Everyone will buy their $5 toaster over at Wal-Mart but bitch that jobs are going overseas. Did you buy a nice top of the line $200 Kitchenaid mixer or did you buy the one at Wal-Mart for $39?

We do reap what we sow but we were warned in the 70's that every time we buy a foreign car or stereo, we lose jobs. Now it is just convenient to blame corporations for shipping the jobs overseas but a lot of times they are just trying to survive and have to follow were the money is going to do that.

 

[Ausm]

I actually do, but I don't think you understood my post. I personally don't care how much anybody earns, as long as they haven't coerced their way into that profit.

Yeah like Wall Street.

 

[QuantumPion]

We do reap what we sow but we were warned in the 70's that every time we buy a foreign car or stereo, we lose jobs.

That is not exactly true. When we buy more goods from other countries, it makes the relative value of the dollar compared to their currency lower. This makes American goods cheaper to them, so they buy more of them, which increases demand and creates jobs. While some uncompetitive sectors may lose jobs, other sectors gain jobs to meet new demands. It's a equilibirum which moves back and forth.


...normally. The hitch is when the government deficit spends or prints money which devalues our own currency without the exporting goods to compensate for it. Government spending weakens the economy and costs jobs, there is no getting around this fact.

 

[Atreus21]

How many friggin times has capitalism been predicted to imminently collapse?

 

[momeNt]

That is not exactly true. When we buy more goods from other countries, it makes the relative value of the dollar compared to their currency lower. This makes American goods cheaper to them, so they buy more of them, which increases demand and creates jobs. While some uncompetitive sectors may lose jobs, other sectors gain jobs to meet new demands. It's a equilibirum which moves back and forth.


...normally. The hitch is when the government deficit spends or prints money which devalues our own currency without the exporting goods to compensate for it. Government spending weakens the economy and costs jobs, there is no getting around this fact.

Except that equilibrium only works in relatively free unfettered markets. There are many commodities which around the time of the foreign product boom required that they be purchased in USD, the biggest of which is oil.

These budding foreign nations had to acquire dollars to buy commodities, which necessitates prolonged trade imbalances to acquire USD. The Fed was able to oblige these foreign nations by offering them the opportunity to take the paid for trade imbalances out of circulation by offering them treasury bonds, this enabled the USD to maintain artificially strong, allowing foreign goods to remain cheap relative to the USD, which allowed them to acquire larger trade imbalances and commodity purchasing ability. These nations that went along with this obviously lost vast amounts of purchasing power for their citizens but the boom their GDP was too great to pass up, so they continued suppress the strength of their currency buy reinvesting trade imbalances with the Fed.

So we as Americans should feel pretty good about ourselves that for the last 40 years we fueled a LOT of growth. It just happened to be everywhere but at home.

 

[Steeplerot]

How is a system based off of work to enrich another for 1/3 of your time on earth or starve not violently coercive? This is where capitalism shows its true historical nature. It may be the reality of the modern era but so was living under religious tyranny in the dark ages. To generalize us as a species that we are inherently lazy or greedy is a cop out. All of history to get where we are proves different. IMO this condemnation of the species is more a gauge of ones own flaws in the individual's making it, or their lack of perspective.


To say capitalism is the end game is foolish, although with a few more billion people populating the finite planet with Capitalism's unstable/unsustainable boom/bust cycles and the inevitable wealth/land concentrated in the hands of a few it could be the end of us all.

 

[momeNt]

How is a system based off of work to enrich another for 1/3 of your time on earth or starve not violently coversiveness? It may be the reality of the modern era but so was living under religious tyranny in the dark ages. To generalize us as a species that we are inherently lazy or greedy is a cop out. All of history to get where we are proves different. IMO this condemnation of the species is more a gauge of ones own flaws in the individual's making it, or their lack of perspective.

Can you please restate the part in bold? I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. Who is the "another" we are enriching?

 

[Steeplerot]

Can you please restate the part in bold? I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. Who is the "another" we are enriching?

Capitalism's dirty little secret of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5eNyO658kk

 

[momeNt]

Capitalism's dirty little secret of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5eNyO658kk

Oh. Some communist bullcrap.

You don't have to participate in markets if you don't want to, just learn what plants and fruits are safe to eat and how to treat meat from freshly hunted animals and you're set to live for no man but yourself.

 

[highland145]

Capitalism's dirty little secret of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5eNyO658kk

I strongly suggest that you go into business for yourself.

 

[BoberFett]

I recommend "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell -a free associative society that rejects capitalism do work and have, but have always been crushed ruthlessly by capitalists and state capitalists (marxist so called communists) throughout history. You will never see his other book Animal Farm in the same light. It's a very interesting part of history our consumerist society keeps very quiet about when options come up.

The whole wage slavery (neo liberal capitalism) or state capitalism (marxism) is a false choice, both are based off of Victorian era chattel slavery, the rich hold power by keeping us gamed into safe for them status quo by framing debate. Or simply rewriting/obtusificating history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neNwAZSBMb0&

What works in limited communities doesn't necessarily scale to hundreds of millions of culturally diverse peoples spread across a continent.

The people of a town may work together to build a bridge or a water tower because it's in all of their interest to do so. The Amish work this way, and they seem to like it. But why is some poor guy in New York City stuck building a bridge to nowhere in Alaska?

You're right about wage slavery, but our current government magnifies that problem rather than correcting it. They tax the earner, for his own good of course. Monetary policy that benefits banks and the wealthy at the expense average citizen. Unfortunately roughly half of this country seems to think that throwing more of the same government at the problem will fix it, when the only way to change things is drastic systemic change and bottom up democracy instead of top down. Expecting the change to come from DC is a recipe for continued abuse.

 

[Steeplerot]

I strongly suggest that you go into business for yourself.

In other words become an exploiter or be a wage slave? False choice. And how is one supposed to do this if you make slave wages assembling USB cables for example in Malaysia? You cannot compete. This is a faith based argument that depends on luck or inheritence. Even slaves have hope, still does not mean that the system is justified.

 

[BoberFett]

Yeah like Wall Street.

I agree completely. The concept of Wall Street is mind boggling to me, of course limited liability ownership of companies is going to devolve into the worst possible acts. How could it not? Your only stake is your initial capital. If injured parties could go after shareholders for damages beyond the value of the company, you'd see a whole lot more attention paid to what the officers of that company were doing.

And we differ in that I don't think regulation is the answer. We have the SEC, but what does that do? Lulls people into a false sense of security, assuming that some government agency is looking out for them meaning they can ignore their due diligence. Instead, the SEC looks the other way until some company makes a political enemy, meaning that as long as you buy the right people you can pull off any scam you want and "investors" will hand you money as long as they see a return.

 

[BoberFett]

In other words become an exploiter or be a wage slave? False choice. And how is one supposed to do this if you make slave wages assembling USB cables for example in Malaysia? You cannot compete. This is a faith based argument that depends on luck or inheritence. Even slaves have hope, still does not mean that the system is justified.

Are the only two options slave or slave owner? Is there any form of human interaction that's acceptable to you as non-exploitative?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

In other words become an exploiter or be a wage slave? False choice. And how is one supposed to do this if you make slave wages assembling USB cables for example in Malaysia? You cannot compete. This is a faith based argument that depends on luck or inheritence. Even slaves have hope, still does not mean that the system is justified.

You can start your own business and pay fair wages, no one is forcing you to exploit anyone.

 

[Steeplerot]

I reject the inherently weak attitude based off of Some arbitrary population numberBober, that's like saying people in large cities cannot organize, homo sapient are amazingly adaptable, and besides our intellect we grow stronger in numbers. You make a argument for the status quo with defeatism. This is how they keep power, through apathy, although the history of humanity shows the very opposite. Don't be so emo.

 

[Fern]

Can capitalism survive?[/url]

I'd turn the question around. Can you get rid of capitalism?

I'd say the answer is "no". It flourishes even when illegal (drugs sales, black market goods, etc.).

Fern

 

[Steeplerot]

You can start your own business and pay fair wages, no one is forcing you to exploit anyone.

I do own a small coop actually for 3 years now and I am doing fine, which if anything else proves my view more. But thanks for your career advice. As usual 2 steps ahead there comrade. :3

 

[bfdd]

I've love to hear about the successful pure capitalist economies as well. There aren't any in either category mentioned by either of us. Even the most statist systems have free enterprise at least on a localized level. You can't stop people from selling shit to other people. Conversely, even the most free market oriented approach will inevitably embrace some form of state involvement in the economy.

The entire question framed by the OP is over-simplified. The most successful economies on the planet are all mixed economies. The remaining debate seems to be what is the best mix of free market versus government involvement. Is it the mix in Europe, what we have here in the U.S. currently, something in between the two, or something to a further extreme in either direction?

Governments have shit all over pure "capitalist economies." Look up the Kowloon Walled City for an example. They can't control it, so destroy it. Central planning, from idiots who wish to think there is some order in the universe, fuck everything up. Stop central planning.