Print

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

[misko27]

And I think it's because free markets breed competition, and competition makes for the fastest progress.

However, there is already competition. There is the competition between nations.

Now that you mention it...


Ladies and Gentlemen (or both, or neither, or Financial demons, what have you), I know of only one alternative to Capitalism: Mercantilism. Come on, give it another go. I could use some gold bullion.

[Angle]

I've been posting my ideas for an Economic & Political system on and off around here for forever. Do you want me to post them one more time? It's a real pain to write them all out, so I don't wanna do it if people aren't interested.

[Tack]

Bring it down to a jolly 6 panel comic.

[Thecard]

I find it rather funny that capitalism only seems to benefit the whole of society when it doesn't work completely, while communism only benefits the whole of society when it does work completely.

True free market would pretty much result in slavery, with only a handful who actually succeed. Government laws prevent businesses from poisoning everyone then selling the cure.

Communism doesn't work because it assumes people can work together. In reality, the assholes who'd be on top in free market societies just cheat everyone else.


Which is why a mix of the two, with a heavier focus on free market, is best. Well, this is a paraphrased argument, but still.

[alexandertnt]

If they want to be free they need money. That is the spirit of capitalism.

Yes, this. This is why I dont believe a pure free market is actual "freedom", even if it technically is legally. If you can't afford something like education or healthcare, then you don't have the freedom to access these services. The poor are considerably restricted in what they can actually do, even if there is no law actually restricting them.

[Mr. Palau]

Who ever said Slavery and Capitalism contradict eachother?

I do. There's not much "free enterprise" in whips and shackles.

Sure there is.  Just not for the people wearing the shackles, because they already lost.

Capitalism and slavery can co-exist, capitalism is merely a situation in which the ruling class of a society is made up of those who possess capital, and slavery is a case in which people are bought and traded. There is no contradiction.

Monetary competition can lead to companies being stimulated to innovate and provide better services, but it can also lead to companies trying to more efficiently manipulate their target audience more effectively than the other (hence why psychology is involved in advertising).

I would think pure Capitalism could work if people were completely rational beings. Unfortunetely they are not.

Apparently (in America), people generally respond better to the term "Free enterprise" than they do "capitalism"

Also, 1/4 of conservatives have a positive image of socialism

I never really understood why American politics have aligned the way they have. We have the situation where the democrats are pro-government in the economic sphere, but anti-government in the personal sphere (abortion, gay marriage, drugs), and republicans are anti-government in the economic sphere but pro-government in the personal sphere.

You think it would be aligned Pro-Pro vs. Neg-Neg, not Pro-Neg vs. Neg-Pro. Although that would complicate my voting because the dems pretty accurately  represent me.

There are essentially three big problems:

1. Resource depletion.

2. Lack of scarcity.

3. Non-capital economy.

1) Resource depletion is characteristic of all forms of society, indeed even all forms of life deplete resources. Not a specifically capitalist problem, but a legitimate critique of humans and other organisms. Capitalism has survived and dealt with many resource shortages, shortages of whale oil (invention of Kerosene), shortages of ivory (lead to the invention of plastic), shortages of conventional oil (shale reserves), shortages of conventional natural gas (fracking), shortages of tin (refining aluminium from bauxite for use in things like aluminium foil instead of tin foil), shortages of diamonds (artificial diamonds).

2) Never will be such a thing as true lack of scarcity, everything will always cost something to produce, and thus have a cost that must be paid for, nothing is ever free. Capitalism gradually brings us closer to abundance for all goods, because it encourages cost cutting because that would increase margin if you kept prices steady, or if you lower prices perhaps increase profits by increasing volume. Progressively lower prices for the same quality of good, caused by competition, bring us closer to the ideal of having everything for free. People always think of new things they want, and they can think of things faster than they can satisfy their desires, thus there is always scarcity.

3) Capitalism can and likely will survive all of the things you mentioned as the capitalist class will still dominate society. The only alternatives are domination of society by the government or the land owners, and the innovations you mentioned would not bring any of those people closer to power.

If they want to be free they need money. That is the spirit of capitalism.

Yes, this. This is why I dont believe a pure free market is actual "freedom", even if it technically is legally. If you can't afford something like education or healthcare, then you don't have the freedom to access these services. The poor are considerably restricted in what they can actually do, even if there is no law actually restricting them.

The fact that some people can not afford an education means that the supply is simply scare, or that by providing the services you incur costs that the poor can not adequately compensate for. If the former where true, than the only alternative to rationing via the price mechanism would be an alternative scheme of rationing, which would just shift the lack of freedom onto different people, and in the case of the latter the only way to give the poor an education would be to force people to teach them at reduced cost, or force another party to subsidize the poor, both of which also result in a lose of freedom.

You don't have an inherent right to have other people educate you or care for you when you are sick. You only have rights when it comes to your person and the things borne of your labor, ie your life, your liberty, and your property.

I find it rather funny that capitalism only seems to benefit the whole of society when it doesn't work completely, while communism only benefits the whole of society when it does work completely.

True free market would pretty much result in slavery, with only a handful who actually succeed. Government laws prevent businesses from poisoning everyone then selling the cure.

Communism doesn't work because it assumes people can work together. In reality, the assholes who'd be on top in free market societies just cheat everyone else.


Which is why a mix of the two, with a heavier focus on free market, is best. Well, this is a paraphrased argument, but still.

This guy gets it. You need some of the competition provided by free and well regulated markets, and you also need some of the co-operation that you can only get through central planning. That is one of the reasons why firms (as in companies) exist, the benefits from co-operating outweigh the benefits of competition.

[Felius]

Yes, yes, we all know that capitalism is, in fact, flawed, including its defenders. It's also completely irrelevant in itself.

What is relevant is how Capitalism compares to the alternatives. So far, due to circumstances, human nature, logistical issues with centralized forms of organization, etc. capitalism is the best form, if with heavy adjustments to better fit the present social context. It'll continue to be so until technology develop enough for resources to be essentially non-scarce (it'll be always technically scarce, but at some point decreasing marginal utility means that more of the resource means so little it might as well be nothing).

Not to enter the issue that the term "capitalism" is far too broad, enough to be effectively meaningless. Capitalism might go from something Ayn Rand would think it's liberal to an incredibly heavily regulated nearly socialist society, which can lead to people debating from different premises. If someone means Swedish capitalism when the other means Rand's, it won't be much productive.

[Angle]

The main problems with capitalism aren't so much problems with capitalism, they're problems with capitalist culture. Somehow, we've come to the conclusion that it is a persons right to amass as much money as they can, no matter how that affects anyone else, and that anything that would prevent them from doing so is bad and should be gotten rid of.

@Rights: You have whatever rights society says you have. If society says you have a right to free cheese, then that's how it is, if Society says you don't have the right to not be murdered, then that's also how it it. You can argue with society that you should have different rights, and you might even succeed. But unless you can change societies mind, then that's how things are.

[Thecard]

We often say that capitalism is what we have not because it's good, but because it's better than the alternatives. But then, shouldn't we spend more time trying to figure out a better economic system (one that isn't communism, that sucks even more)? I mean, people didn't stop at mercantilism, should we really just stop here?

Of course, capitalism does have some good points. Most of it's actually accurate, except for the whole "it benefits the whole of society" thing. It did back then, considering "society" was just white land-owning men; we have different standards now.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

1) Resource depletion is characteristic of all forms of society, indeed even all forms of life deplete resources. Not a specifically capitalist problem, but a legitimate critique of humans and other organisms. Capitalism has survived and dealt with many resource shortages, shortages of whale oil (invention of Kerosene), shortages of ivory (lead to the invention of plastic), shortages of conventional oil (shale reserves), shortages of conventional natural gas (fracking), shortages of tin (refining aluminium from bauxite for use in things like aluminium foil instead of tin foil), shortages of diamonds (artificial diamonds).

While resource depletion is indeed an inevitable consequence of intelligent life, capitalism is an egregious offender because it incentives maximum extraction from a short-term viewpoint, in order to maximize profit. This makes the threat of depletion far greater than it otherwise would be.

Your listed examples are just jumping from one source to another as they are depleted. That's the problem. Capitalism does not encourage sustainability. (This is partially off topic, but we don't have real shortages of diamonds. They're quite common, but DeBeers creates artificial scarcity and inflated prices in the name of profit.)

2) Never will be such a thing as true lack of scarcity, everything will always cost something to produce, and thus have a cost that must be paid for, nothing is ever free. Capitalism gradually brings us closer to abundance for all goods, because it encourages cost cutting because that would increase margin if you kept prices steady, or if you lower prices perhaps increase profits by increasing volume. Progressively lower prices for the same quality of good, caused by competition, bring us closer to the ideal of having everything for free. People always think of new things they want, and they can think of things faster than they can satisfy their desires, thus there is always scarcity.

Cost does not equal capitalism. While cost will almost certainly persist, the exact nature of that cost is the important part. Whether or not something is "truly" scarce is an irrelevant distinction when it costs so trivially little to produce that it might as well be free.

As for the second part of your argument, cutting costs and maintaining/increasing quality are usually at odds. It isn't a meritocratic race to produce the best product. It's a race to produce the most bought product. You can benefit from quality, but you can also benefit from the psychology of economy, market manipulation, and destroying competitors. What matters is the bottom line, and that means getting away with spending as little as possible while getting as many sales as possible. As I said, the capitalist "sweet spot" is not what is best for consumers.

3) Capitalism can and likely will survive all of the things you mentioned as the capitalist class will still dominate society. The only alternatives are domination of society by the government or the land owners, and the innovations you mentioned would not bring any of those people closer to power.

[citation_needed]

That's a very odd and narrow view of society, especially considering the "capitalist class", as you put it, are also the ones who own nearly all of the land (the other land being owned by the government). Societies do not necessarily remain within the boundaries that all past societies have been within. While it is impossible to be certain, the revolutionary nature of our current technology suggests to me that we are nearing such a paradigm shift.

[alexandertnt]

If the former where true, than the only alternative to rationing via the price mechanism would be an alternative scheme of rationing

Not necessarily, given that education is not a material mined out of the ground, more education can be made available by investing more money into education, i.e. the supply can actually be increased if there is a deficiency.

or force another party to subsidize the poor, both of which also result in a lose of freedom.

That is the current system that most countries use, and your right. It does lead to a loss of freedom. That is why I do not support absolute freedom, because it does not necesarily lead to a better quality of life for people overall, and that freedom may de facto not exist (even if it does de jure) for some.

You don't have an inherent right to have other people educate you or care for you when you are sick. You only have rights when it comes to your person and the things borne of your labor, ie your life, your liberty, and your property.

You only have those rights if they are legally and socially recognised, they are not a universal constant, and they are not "inherent" just because you are human.

[SalmonGod]

I remain unconvinced that we have no choice between central planning and free market.  I don't understand why we can't manage resources in a fashion that is both cooperative and de-centralized, especially in the information age.

[Tack]

2) Never will be such a thing as true lack of scarcity, everything will always cost something to produce, and thus have a cost that must be paid for, nothing is ever free.

1. Digital property is non-scarce. It can be endlessly copied.

2. Solar Energy is non-scarce.

And then there are 'renewable resources', which have scarcity but can regenerate on it's own or with human aid- like wood, etc.


And if people CAN get it free, they WILL get it free, no matter how many businesses liquidate because of it.

[Frumple]

All of those are, well. Actually scarce, if you're talking from a "true" perspective. Digital property takes (scarce) physical resources to create, store, and propagate. Electricity, varying hardware materials, human effort, etc., so forth, so on. It doesn't just manifest from the aether.

Solar energy takes (scarce) resources to be able to collect and utilize. Even biological sources (plants) consume soil fertility and water, both of which are definitely scarce resources, in the long run (and, in some cases over history, the relative short run, too.). Even beyond that, the sun's reaction is, well. Limited. It won't go on forever.

There's just... no such thing as free, really. There's direct and indirect costs, so to speak, sure -- the direct cost of digital property may be functionally non-scarce (you can copy endlessly, assuming the situation doesn't change), but the indirect costs (what allows that copying to occur) definitely aren't. In regards to that, at least, Palau is speaking flat and absolute truth. Everything has a cost to it, and everything is finite. There's no such thing as a limitless resource, at the moment. S'actually one of the larger problems with capitalism, t'be honest. It by and large assumes that resources are infinite in amount, if not necessarily intake speed. Which is kinda' MSH's point on resource depletion.

Now, effectively non-scarce, as MSH notes... that's more of a thing, yeah. Anything that we can't deplete over the course of a few tens of thousands (/millions) of years is probably effectively non-scarce, ferex. But truly non-scarce? Nah. Even the sun'll burn out, in due time.

[alexandertnt]

1. Digital property is non-scarce. It can be endlessly copied.

If every single programmer stopped developing games, they would become scarce, assuming that you want new, different games. A single piece of digital property could possibly be regarded as not-scarce, but digital property as a whole cant be.

Solar Energy is non-scarce.

If no one produces solar panels (which are scarce), than solar energy becomes scarce.