Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tack]

It's beginning to get to the point where people aren't entirely sure whether or not Capitalism is actually an effective system, and whether or not it will continue to function as we are developing further into free solar energy and cheap mechanical labor, as large companies continue to fill with revenue, conglomerating and stockpiling an entire country's economy, or if we lose our ability to exploit foreign nations for easy cash, or if foreign nations exploit us.

Normally these discussions would be started with a link, but as there is just so, so much to be said on capitalism from both sides, and factoring in so many issues, like bank control or conspiracy theorists, it's almost impossible to find one which sums up everything. So here's some random obligatory links:

Forbes: Capitalism's fundamental flaw
Youtube: The American Dream Pt1


So, there's some basics on why commercial Darwinism apparently isn't going perfectly.
Also attempt to keep it civilized. There aren't any particularly 'hot topics', but keep an open mind, regardless of which side of the coin you're on.
Discuss.

[Mlamlah]

Perhaps relevant .

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There are essentially three big problems:

1. Resource depletion.

2. Lack of scarcity.

3. Non-capital economy.

Resource depletion reveals a very simple and horrifying fault in capitalism: If you sell all the shit, you will no longer have shit to sell. Everybody starts killing each other out of desperation. This was not a serious problem back when Adam Smith wrote his thoughts on the matter, sadly, pretty much nobody saw this current order coming. Ultimately, no matter how much they consume, 1 billion humans just aren't going to deplete Earth. But when 1 billion humans inflates to 7 billion humans in under two centuries, shit is going to go down. Capitalism encourages maximum resource extraction and only rarely encourages resource investment, and as such is no longer viable when we're going to soon start to have using what we've got intelligently.

Lack of scarcity is the opposite issue, on things that capitalism has "succeeded" on. This success can not be complete, however, as that would render the capitalism irrelevant. Capitalism will never make that final leap to post-scarce materials, because it has no profits. Eventually certain capitalists who shall remain unnamed will try to oppressively create enforced scarcity in order to return the market to its "sweet spot". This will create an ever-growing rage towards the scarcity creators among the population. You just can't sell things if they aren't scarce. That's simply how it works. Why buy what you can get for free, or essentially free?

Non-capital economy is what I think is the true nail in the coffin, though. Things losing scarcity can at least theoretically be sold, non-capital doesn't function period. You can try to make it function, and with sufficiently draconian measures some non-capital can be hammered into a capital-like shape (here's looking at you, RIAA), but in the end it just doesn't work and pisses people off. The internet and anything that can be transferred through it are a huge part of this, and only growing larger as time passes. There are other things, though. How are you going to have capitalism when you can print anything you need that is made of plastic or metal? (Protip: Most things you use these days are plastic and metal, and much of that which isn't only isn't out of convenience). You could sell the raw resources, sure, but that's going to leave the middlemen (see: almost every section of the economy) without any profit. How are you going to have capitalism once your "job creators" can just have machines do everything cheaper than even the most impoverished African street urchin? How are you going to have capitalism when people who don't see any fault in internet piracy run the government? How are you going to have capitalism when you can download a car?

[SalmonGod]

I would add one more major problem:  When the pursuit of profit creates a conflict of interest against social/technological progress, or quality of service.  There are a bajillion examples where X is not as good as it should be or cannot happen at all because it's not profitable, or Y undesirable thing happening because it is profitable.  I guess your examples could be described much the same way, but I mean something different from issues of scarcity and value.

Examples:  Medical industry encouraged to convince everybody they're sick all the time and to buy drugs instead of living healthier.  Defense industry creating a need for conflict.  Prison industry creating a need for prisoners.  Planned obsolescence.  Etc.

It's huge.  It's constantly getting worse.  It's something everyone is aware of and getting more and more fed up with.

[Xantalos]

I'll be watching this, I think.

[Neonivek]

I do know that Karl Marx didn't actually dislike Capitalism oddly enough... as well the "Champion of Capitalism" that I can never remember the name of... oddly enough didn't love capitalism like he is sometimes attributed.

It is rather odd to me.

Yet oddly enough the pattern seems to be that both of them seemed to believe that Capitalism was an important first step.

[Xantalos]

I do know that Karl Marx didn't actually dislike Capitalism oddly enough... as well the "Champion of Capitalism" that I can never remember the name of... oddly enough didn't love capitalism like he is sometimes attributed.

It is rather odd to me.

Yet oddly enough the pattern seems to be that both of them seemed to believe that Capitalism was an important first step.

Yeah, it had to run its course, fail massively, and then an uprising of the peasantry ie the common American Joe, would rise up and create socialist utopia. Capitalism had to happen first so everyone knew why not to do it.

[Neonivek]

Some part of that is true, another is that Capitalism is the best way to industrialize a country.

[Gamerlord]

Watching this.

[Chaoswizkid]

Some part of that is true, another is that Capitalism is the best way to industrialize a country.

More than fascism? Because Germany was absolutely nuts with its industrialization pre-WW2 and during WW2. Despite massive carpet bombings even late in the war their industrial capacity kept increasing, covering for everything lost and then some.
Not to say that I approve of fascism, I'd just like to know why you think/why its generally accepted (if it is) that Capitalism achieves industrialization in the best way. Just looking for more details, since I don't know about this and I'm curious.

[da_nang]

Sums up my view.

[Chaoswizkid]

Sums up my view.

Hour long video is an hour long. That's definitely going to need a tl;dr/tl;dw summary.

[Tack]

Indeed. Please Tl;dr.


And I think it's because free markets breed competition, and competition makes for the fastest progress. Hence why it helped industrialization so much. Assembly lines were the best way to get the most profit from your manufacturing.
And competition between companies is brilliant until one of two things happen:

1. Someone wins.
At which point you have a massive conglomerate buying up all of the other smaller companies and monopolizing the industry. A short trip on the internet gives you some seriously scary perspective about how many of the different foods you buy in the supermarket are actually all from the same company, just using the gutted shell of the company they bought out to help marketing. This is especially notable in food.

2. Post-scarce materials are the next conceivable idea.
People rushed headlong into the internet without a second glance and began the age of free information, which has cost untold billions or trillions to the music, film and television industry. So no company is going to fall into a pitfall like that again, even if it has the potential to shunt our development forward as spectacularly as the internet did. Again, people don't want to go cheaper and less scarce, because then they get less profit from it.

[da_nang]

TL:DW

Money = Debt only applies to an ideal world of perpetual growth i.e. banks creating money from nothing through loans doesn't work as the exponentially growing interest can only really be paid off if we assume we have an infinite supply of resources and even then the banksters are the ones who get the lion's share. You don't want to pay off loans with more loans.

A monetary reform is needed, whether it is social credit or self-issued credit. We need to free money from the shackles of debt and instead tie it to actual value. More money is created when more value has been created. Money = Value.

[10ebbor10]

Competition stimulates innovation, but it's not the most efficient system there is. Besides, the problem is the prize, which is given to the most succesfull product. Hence why most modern day agricultural products taste pretty bland, because they're grown for yield and looks, not for actually being edible.

Especially when you start to utilize tricks and such to defeat your opponent, rather than a honest best player wins.