Capitalism, Good or bad?

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: hagbard
Depends how you define it. Free Markets without government control or support----Good. Capitalism is a term first coined by Karl Marx, and is loaded with Marxist thinking. When I think of how most people view "capitalism", it is a market based system with government playing big-daddy. So, I don't support Capitalism, I do support laissez-faire free markets. In fact, if you really support freedom and liberty, you can't support authoritarianism when it comes to the economic sphere of human action.

wouldn't work because most actors have no clue what other actors are doing with the economy, so they can't acurately judge what maximizes their benefit. what you're describing would work best in world of perfect knowledge and an infinite-horizon for the timeline. which we don't have.

You're missing that this is the reason why nothing can work as well as the free marketplace. The free market provides spontaneous order amongst millions of players without a single one overseeing or directing the process. The "market" is: the exchange of ideas, goods or services between and among individuals are groups of individuals. As your statement acknowleges that fact that we are not capable as individuals of assessing the trillions of little individual acts, then how can we direct such actions? We can't, either individually or collectively. Command economies try, but they fail. Have a look at Hayek's The Counter-Revolution of Science especially the first bit of the book, or his "Road to Serfdom" is pretty good to at explaning this.

no, the free market only works that well with perfect information. no one has perfect information. end of story. the invisible hand doesn't work that well.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: flavio
No government control over business? So no pollution regulations, safety checks, health inspections, minimum wage or worker age requirements?

Like what I tell my wife when there are dishes in the sink "the free market will take care of it!"

Are you making my point for me?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: hagbard
Depends how you define it. Free Markets without government control or support----Good. Capitalism is a term first coined by Karl Marx, and is loaded with Marxist thinking. When I think of how most people view "capitalism", it is a market based system with government playing big-daddy. So, I don't support Capitalism, I do support laissez-faire free markets. In fact, if you really support freedom and liberty, you can't support authoritarianism when it comes to the economic sphere of human action.

wouldn't work because most actors have no clue what other actors are doing with the economy, so they can't acurately judge what maximizes their benefit. what you're describing would work best in world of perfect knowledge and an infinite-horizon for the timeline. which we don't have.

You're missing that this is the reason why nothing can work as well as the free marketplace. The free market provides spontaneous order amongst millions of players without a single one overseeing or directing the process. The "market" is: the exchange of ideas, goods or services between and among individuals are groups of individuals. As your statement acknowleges that fact that we are not capable as individuals of assessing the trillions of little individual acts, then how can we direct such actions? We can't, either individually or collectively. Command economies try, but they fail. Have a look at Hayek's The Counter-Revolution of Science especially the first bit of the book, or his "Road to Serfdom" is pretty good to at explaning this.

no, the free market only works that well with perfect information. no one has perfect information. end of story. the invisible hand doesn't work that well.

No, that's the reason why the market is the only thing that can (and does, even in socialist countries) work. If there is no perfect information, how any anyone or group hope to effect it without actually making things worse? This is why noble goverment plans never wind up working in the way that is intended.

Hence, no control...free market.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: flavio
No government control over business? So no pollution regulations, safety checks, health inspections, minimum wage or worker age requirements?

Like what I tell my wife when there are dishes in the sink "the free market will take care of it!"

Are you making my point for me?

The dishes always wind up being clean by morning. You tell me?

 

[sandorski]

Capitalism, like any economic system, is merely a Tool to be used to acheive an End. Unfortunetly, what that End is seems to be somewhat of a mystery, Global Domination, Unity of Mankind, Extinction? Sandorski's equation Economic System + ? = ?? and it's that simple.

Capitalism is really good, the best so far, at creating Wealth. With that Wealth and other advantages of Capitalism, such as directing Wealth towards certain Technological or Infrastructural(word?) endeavours(sp), many great feats have been accomplished. Without Capitalism many of what we have today, including Anandtech, would not exist, at least not yet and likely not for a long time. Capitalism(starting with the Industrial Revolution) has accelerated the Developement of Humanity so much so that daily discoveries are made or technologies are developed that would have turned the World on it's ear just a few centuries ago.

Using my awesome equation , I gotsta know, what is (??)? The answer to that is of a prime importance. For most Idealisms, (??) is a form of Heaven on Earth, an Earth where everyones needs are met, an end to disease, a cessation of conflict. Are Capitalism's goals any different?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Capitalism, like any economic system, is merely a Tool to be used to acheive an End. Unfortunetly, what that End is seems to be somewhat of a mystery, Global Domination, Unity of Mankind, Extinction? Sandorski's equation Economic System + ? = ?? and it's that simple.

What is "capitalism"? Its too vague a concept to debate. The "purpose" of free markets, if you can call it a purpose, is exchange.

Capitalism is really good, the best so far, at creating Wealth. With that Wealth and other advantages of Capitalism, such as directing Wealth towards certain Technological or Infrastructural(word?) endeavours(sp), many great feats have been accomplished. Without Capitalism many of what we have today, including Anandtech, would not exist, at least not yet and likely not for a long time. Capitalism(starting with the Industrial Revolution) has accelerated the Developement of Humanity so much so that daily discoveries are made or technologies are developed that would have turned the World on it's ear just a few centuries ago.

Markets have always existed, or we wouldn't.

Using my awesome equation , I gotsta know, what is (??)? The answer to that is of a prime importance. For most Idealisms, (??) is a form of Heaven on Earth, an Earth where everyones needs are met, an end to disease, a cessation of conflict. Are Capitalism's goals any different?

I don't know about "capitalism", but markets don't have "goals" they just are. They are the act, not the actor.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: sandorski
Capitalism, like any economic system, is merely a Tool to be used to acheive an End. Unfortunetly, what that End is seems to be somewhat of a mystery, Global Domination, Unity of Mankind, Extinction? Sandorski's equation Economic System + ? = ?? and it's that simple.

What is "capitalism"? Its too vague a concept to debate. The "purpose" of free markets, if you can call it a purpose, is exchange.

Capitalism is really good, the best so far, at creating Wealth. With that Wealth and other advantages of Capitalism, such as directing Wealth towards certain Technological or Infrastructural(word?) endeavours(sp), many great feats have been accomplished. Without Capitalism many of what we have today, including Anandtech, would not exist, at least not yet and likely not for a long time. Capitalism(starting with the Industrial Revolution) has accelerated the Developement of Humanity so much so that daily discoveries are made or technologies are developed that would have turned the World on it's ear just a few centuries ago.

Markets have always existed, or we wouldn't.

Using my awesome equation , I gotsta know, what is (??)? The answer to that is of a prime importance. For most Idealisms, (??) is a form of Heaven on Earth, an Earth where everyones needs are met, an end to disease, a cessation of conflict. Are Capitalism's goals any different?

I don't know about "capitalism", but markets don't have "goals" they just are. They are the act, not the actor.

True, Capitalism doesn't have "goals", but we as Humans do. Capitalism as a Tool is subject to Our goals. I should have worded that last part better, perhaps as , "Are the goals we are attempting to accomplish using Capitalism any different?"

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: hagbard

No, that's the reason why the market is the only thing that can (and does, even in socialist countries) work. If there is no perfect information, how any anyone or group hope to effect it without actually making things worse? This is why noble goverment plans never wind up working in the way that is intended.

Hence, no control...free market.

1) you'll never know someone else's whole preferences so the chances of getting a pareto efficient outcome are... low
2) it might be better for a group of people to defect from the pareto efficient outcome for a short time (short time, 1 human life perhaps) and then cash out ruining the ability to get a pareto efficient outcome ever.
3) you buy a cup of coffee and ask for decaf, how do you know its decaf without expending a huge amount of money on chemical tests? you don't. stuff like that could happen all the time. ruining any chance at a pareto efficient outcome.

trying to get to the pareto efficient outcome is why we let the gov't dick around in the market. it almost never happens on its own.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: flavio
No government control over business? So no pollution regulations, safety checks, health inspections, minimum wage or worker age requirements?

Like what I tell my wife when there are dishes in the sink "the free market will take care of it!"

Are you making my point for me?

The dishes always wind up being clean by morning. You tell me?

I'm lost. What is the point? So do you think there should be no pollution regulations, safety checks, health inspections, minimum wage or worker age requirements?[/

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Dudd
Carbonyl, the problem with true socialism is that human nature does notwork under that system. It sounds great in theory, but in practice it wouldn't work. Why would I yearn to be a success when I can simply work at a simple job and then live as well as the guy who got educated and became an engineer or a doctor? If socialism truely is a classless system, then that would have to happen. If doctors or engineers were paid more or received better benefits than Joe Six-pack working at the local mall, then you have a capitalistic class. If not, you'll have a society of people with no job skills all hoping to live off the other guy. Sure, there's going to be the few people who still strive for success not for the perks but simply to be educated and be a success, but those people are few. Besides, how do you plan on divying up the resources under socialism? The economy can only make so many private jets, and everyone wants one. Under capitalism, they are expensive so only the few can afford them, but in classless socialism, if anyone can get one, everyone should get one. It's only fair. Obviously, since resources are scarce, everyone cannot get one. So, what would happen? Would the government take control of the private jet industry and share it with everyone? Would they use that as a ruse to be able to use it for their own selfish means? Let's face it, people always are trying to get the upper hand on each other. Moonbeam thinks that before capitalism, we all lived in peace and harmony. What about all the wars in the past, the rise of the Roman empire, the wars between the Greek city states, the Crusades, the wars between European nations during the middle ages? Capitalism wasn't in vogue, yet people were still competing for resources, competing for land, competing for power. Face it, competition is part of the human psyche.

This is what makes capitalism the best alternative out there. Instead of fighting against human nature, it tries to use it to further its goals. Competition in a capitalistic society is great. It brings new products to market and brings down costs. It forces people to do something if they want to succeed in life. Sure, there is a small segment of the population that lives of their inheritence, but those people will never go away. For the rest of us, capitalism forces us to compete to try and make something of our selves. Greed is a natural part of the human psyche, and capitalism gives you a worthwhile outlet for that greed. Remember, for every Enron out there, there are a thousand small businesses starting up, all of which have the potential to strike it big and unleash some new product or idea onto the world. Apple computers was started by two guys in a garage. Microsoft was created by a college drop out. Now, they are huge companies bringing new things to us each and every day. You decry capitalism, but it brought you the computer you are using today. Why would Bill Gates have written DOS if he would get the same return on that investment as the guy working an eight hour shift down at the factory? It's not perfect, but nothing is. For what we have right now, it's far and away the best.

Wow there is a lot of questions here. I will answer them if your really interested but it will take some time since ther're are so many issues to address and I'm a slow two fingerer. But lemme just say the two class division and profit motive under capitalism are the root of almost every problem we have in the world today and without them there is no will to take what you don't need. In capitalisism yes they would loot the free food supermarket only cause it's a scarce commodity and competitive enviroment but under socialism like at your home dinner table you would share. It's all about perception. If you preceive your community really cares about you why would you ever worry about working too hard or them starving you?

 

[dighn]

well experience tells us it's better than anything else we've attempted , at least at this time. well... maybe not socialism (not the extreme communist kind). though it's my belief that as the world changes suitable ideologies would change too.

 

[wfbberzerker]

good for what? for the economy, yes. for the environment, no. its better at making more people rich than anything else we've tried so far. so, it depends where your priorities lie.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: flavio
No government control over business? So no pollution regulations, safety checks, health inspections, minimum wage or worker age requirements?

Like what I tell my wife when there are dishes in the sink "the free market will take care of it!"

Are you making my point for me?

The dishes always wind up being clean by morning. You tell me?

I'm lost. What is the point? So do you think there should be no pollution regulations, safety checks, health inspections, minimum wage or worker age requirements?[/

I believe they'd be better dealt with by means other than the State (ie: government).

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: wfbberzerker
good for what? for the economy, yes. for the environment, no. its better at making more people rich than anything else we've tried so far. so, it depends where your priorities lie.

My priorities and yours sums it up nicely.

 

[flavio]

I'm lost. What is the point? So do you think there should be no pollution regulations, safety checks, health inspections, minimum wage or worker age requirements?[/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I believe they'd be better dealt with by means other than the State (ie: government).

What means would you have handle these issues?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: flavio

I'm lost. What is the point? So do you think there should be no pollution regulations, safety checks, health inspections, minimum wage or worker age requirements?[/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I believe they'd be better dealt with by means other than the State (ie: government).

What means would you have handle these issues?

Other institutions that would fill the gaps. I can't predict what exactly would evolve, but I could speculate.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: flavio

I'm lost. What is the point? So do you think there should be no pollution regulations, safety checks, health inspections, minimum wage or worker age requirements?[/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I believe they'd be better dealt with by means other than the State (ie: government).

What means would you have handle these issues?

Other institutions that would fill the gaps. I can't predict what exactly would evolve, but I could speculate.

That doesn't sound very realistic.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: flavio

I'm lost. What is the point? So do you think there should be no pollution regulations, safety checks, health inspections, minimum wage or worker age requirements?[/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I believe they'd be better dealt with by means other than the State (ie: government).

What means would you have handle these issues?

Other institutions that would fill the gaps. I can't predict what exactly would evolve, but I could speculate.

That doesn't sound very realistic.

So, does the current system work well by your estimation?

 

[Booster]

But I'd say luck had as much to do with it as hard work.

I agree, in this world very little depends on the man himself, more on what his initial posessions are, and pls don't give examples of people who were born poor and became wealthy and famous. They did have a chance, an opportunity. Of course, they also had the guts to take the chance, but they would've never achieved any significant results had they been taken out of the system.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Booster

But I'd say luck had as much to do with it as hard work.

I agree, in this world very little depends on the man himself, more on what his initial posessions are, and pls don't give examples of people who were born poor and became wealthy and famous. They did have a chance, an opportunity. Of course, they also had the guts to take the chance, but they would've never achieved any significant results had they been taken out of the system.

You become nothing without desire. It is practically impossible to become wealthy without hardwork. As it is practically impossible to become a complete failure if you work hard.

It is easy to find wealthy people that pissed their money away because they wanted to do nothing. It is even easier to find examples of people who came from nothing to achieve great wealth.

 

[Mallow]

the best option available.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Good yes
Bad yes

Depends on context. Capitalism is great for some to make money. It however is more concerned about the stock value in the next quarter, and how the balance sheet looks at the next meeting. It does not have vision. It does not look forward to the problems of being dependent on Middle eastern oil. If fact it DEMANDS we use it since it is cheaper than alternatives.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Good yes
Bad yes

Depends on context. Capitalism is great for some to make money. It however is more concerned about the stock value in the next quarter, and how the balance sheet looks at the next meeting. It does not have vision. It does not look forward to the problems of being dependent on Middle eastern oil. If fact it DEMANDS we use it since it is cheaper than alternatives.

And unfortunatly there is no better system.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider Good yes Bad yes Depends on context. Capitalism is great for some to make money. It however is more concerned about the stock value in the next quarter, and how the balance sheet looks at the next meeting. It does not have vision. It does not look forward to the problems of being dependent on Middle eastern oil. If fact it DEMANDS we use it since it is cheaper than alternatives.

And unfortunatly there is no better system.

But because there are no better, does not mean there is no room for improvement and it cannot be augmentes. Taxes my boy. Dirty words. Take tax money and put into R&D. Things like fuel cells and solar and tidal. Things which are too risky or have less of a dollar return, but greater value in other areas. Have people look at long term solutuons, and even if it did not produce a buck in a hundred years, if it made the world safer or better in the long run, do it.

 

[Anubis]

good. better then a lot of whats out there but it can be improved on