capitalism
- Started
- Last post
- 458 Responses
- rafalski0
Without capitalism, none of you woud have a computer to post here. Or would QBN exist. Or the interwebs.
- true dat. But then again we wouldn't have global warming, environmental degredation and systemic povertyTheBlueOne
- Point being, capitalism is a "social tool", nothing inherently good or bad about it, just how it is used.TheBlueOne
- rafalski0
BlueOne, for me capitalism is freedom. It is bad for many people, because they can't handle the responsibility for themselves that comes with freedom.
Freedom to do anything you want that does not limit other people's freedom is also freedom to make mistakes and pay their price. People don't want that, they want nanny state to be responsible for them. They want what they think is "protection".
- lowimpakt0
so hedge is the new QBN "look how loaded i am" joker/bullshitter.
who was the other guy a few years back? i think he was irish?
- lowimpakt0
how do you know with any degree of certainty that we wouldn't have computers without capitalism? can you predict the future too?
and Blue One - there was major environmental degredation under communism.
Stupidity, short-sightedness and greed isn't only the domain of the capitalist.
- rafalski0
Have to agree on environmental degradation lowimpakt.
China is probably the biggest eco-catastrophy on the planet. And the only place I saw industrial chimneys producing huge amounts of black smoke like the ones I saw in Cuba, was Poland during the Soviet era.- The Aral Sea in Uzbekistan is one major Communist environmental catastrophylowimpakt
- TheBlueOne0
lowimpakt - Communism and capitalism are far closer than you think. It was a civil war of economic brothers of similar mass industrial production, the difference being were one put the control mechanisms, in a private hands with limited or negligible state control or completely in the hands of state control - the enviromental impact comes from the mode of production, not the capitalist/communist mindset...
- i.e. environmental costs are both left off the balance sheets, regardless of capitalist/communist approachTheBlueOne
- TheBlueOne0
I really think we've got locked into this capitalist/socialist mindset, which I think is a trap. Capitalism, or the concept of a social order based on private property, profit, and income distributed largely through the operation of markets, is merely one way of ordering society. In a given set of circumstances it does provide the most for the most, but it certainly has many inherent weaknesses that become glaringly apparent as circumstances change - population pressures, environmental degredation, scarcity of basic materials (primarily food and energy), concentrations of power (economic & legitimate use of force), alienation of society...the whole idea of a market being "free" as if it were some sort of Platonic model that can be magically invoked in the really real world is, as I said above, a form of Utopianism, and this can be seen easily in regions where "free market capitalism" is welded onto traditional societies. The pro-free market critics always fall back on the rub "well they didn't implement the WHOLE program"...ah...yes..I see..
Capitalism is a tool of social construction we've used in the West for about five, six hundred odd years now. We should be wise enough to know it's short comings - especially in it's inefficiences of wealth distribution (allowing concentrations of power in fewer and fewer hands over time without check form a State entity - the old truism of "he who has, gets") and weaknesses in the area of providing for the common good (again a Free Market fallacy that ignores the social/environmental costs of doing business) and social justice (self explanatory).
I do like capitalism, and it's basis in allowing the widest range of economic freedom for individuals, but in my mind it's a tool, and should be a flexible one for it to be as efficient as possible, and that flexibility should come from checks and criticisms on it, not from allowing to be free with no checks, or else it will naturally head to it's nearest systemic attractors with concentrations of unbalanced power and violence...
- hedge0
I somewhat agree except for the wealth distribution and common good part. Capitalism is the closest system we have to a true Meritocracy. That is what I like about it.
- TheBlueOne0
It's not a meritocracy if left unregulated. Then it simply becomes an oligarchic, monopolistic system.
As for the "common good" all these free market capitalist seem to easily forget the value of a solid and safe transportation system, fire fighters, police, et al. They say "fuck why should I pay taxes for that!!" Hmmm. In that case you can go to Africa or Iraq for example where they don't provide safe roads and then when your uber-efficient meritocracy has to ship stuff, well either it never arrives or get hijacked and then you have to pay a ransom to pirates and freebooters to get i through. And well there goes your profit. Extrapolate out to all other issues that could be considered "common good"..but you'd probably be more comfortable in the 14th century..you know provided you're a rich nobleman and don't have to deal with the peasants.
- hedge0
I'm not going to continue arguing with a bitter Marxist whose arguments lack any real sustenance or logic.
- TheBlueOne0
Me? Marxist? Ha. Think not. I am a liberal capitalist - a bit of Adam Smith, a bit of Keynes, a bit of Polayni. You're the won who drank the kool aid. If you don't see raw capitalism left unchecked - and we have tons of historical examples by the way - running into the same steady states of oligarchic monoplies and power concentration, well, you're just blind brother.
- TheBlueOne0
So quality water isn't important to you?
All that free good quality water that say Coors uses to make beer or agribusiness uses for it's crops? Is maintaining the quality of that water on Coors balance sheet? Um, no. Taxes pay for that. Common Good utilized for the greater good of commerce.A working, efficient Justice system? How are you going to enforce those contract you write with others, eh? If you have a corrupt underpaid judicial and law enforcement system, and you're the little capitalist on the block say against a guy with a larger wallet? You lose sucker.
The fact that all these 'free market economist" wanting "government off their backs" is just fucking laughable. Imagine if they had to put on their balance sheets all the risk they dump onto the public sector.
- fugged0
you guys are seriously harshing my mellow.
- When we get done your mellow will be all itchy and bumpy and shit.TheBlueOne
- whut0
a) their has never been a free market (alexander hamilton and the federal reserve), their never will be (opec, sovereign wealth funds).
b) stop worshiping false idols. the "free market" is merely an artificially leveled playing field.
the game is human creativity, innovation through science, technology, art and philosophy...
and if the nfl salary cap and net neutrality (both leading to rabid profit and innovation) are any measure, we should keep that field as level as possible.
c)i doubt hedge is true to his laissez faire rhetoric. in a free market, labor would be a commodity as any other...
your for completely open us.s borders hedge?
- *nods headTheBlueOne
- Isn't an 'artificially-levell... playing field' the opposite of 'free market'? (and used to 'tame' the free market to achieve social goals, essential services etc)ribit
- ...achieve social goals, essential services, equal opportunities etc..ribit
- ********0
capitalism = slavery . . . or there abouts. unfortunatly i'm too rich and incubated with material nonsence to see it or give a shit
- or elaborate on your outrageous claimhedge
- a type of slavery...see below.********
- moamoa0
hey hedge you remember me, I met you last summr in Nice, or was it Monte Carlo, or Cannes? ... St. Moritz? ..ähmmm Dubai.. shit can´t remember... but I remember you clean my yacht, and I gave you a 10€ tip...
or was it the other YACHT?
- ********0
elaboration: ownership + people = human captial, the most valuable form of capital, that fact is not lost on capatalists. Sure people are actually paid more often then not for labour, a few cents a day technically makes you employed but that's not really the point. Not to mention "wage slaves" or various other forms of slavery, it makes it increasly difficult to consider yourself a 'free' individual the more you're dependant on abstracted forms of wealth like credit or are in the absolute service of some larger entity for your survival. Not to mention that a lot of money people earn is spent on more things that a small minorty profit from even more subsequently making your life as a consumer in the servatude of this 'master' the capatilist machine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sma…
Human capital is talked about in this book a little. But it's more about natural resources and unsustainable economies.
- wronghedge
- ok elaborate then********
- I don't buy the whole enslavement bit... I do stuff for people, they pay me.. its fair.ribit
- If I don't like what they pay me, or don't like the job, I go do something else...ribit
- good for you. forget the millions who have no power in the least for how or what they work for. sort of my point from above.********
- ...above.********
- sure there's people in some countries and systems who don't have many choices...ribit
- .. its the 'consumers in servitude to capitalist machine' bit I think is overblown, coming from creative professionals..ribit
- like millions? china loves capitalism just check out their factories********
- call me wat you want it doesn't stop the fact that we're wealthy because millions are forced to work********
- I'm a 'creative' but i'm also a business man, i know a shit deal when i see one.********
- jjoeth60
Couldn't agree more with BlueOne... I haven't spent as much time thinking about this as you guys (nor have most designers out there setting their ethics aside trying to make a decent living in a capitalist world)... but truly free market capitalism sounds like Ultimate Fighting without any rules at all. In other words, getting away with murder.
Interesting side note, which I just discovered on Wikipedia... Senator John McCain played a big role in the UFC's establishing rules to protect its athletes. I'm no McCain fan (and have never been an Ultimate Fighting fan), but that's not bad for a republican.