Capitalism will always have a tendency towards mass unemployment and economic crisis. So why do some of us support it so passionately? Is it because of economic ignorance, a natural risk aversity against paradigm change or a genuine capitalism-loving rationale?
There appears to be considerable confusion about what capitalism is about these days. At its most basic it seems to be the idea that through group sacrifice resources can be concentrated into certain endeavours that will achieve a better life for all. While there is no question that the sacrifices have been made, the endeavours accomplished and continue apace, after a seemingly overlong period of time during which resources have become so plentiful that almost as much is wasted as consumed, the benefits of these endeavours have never been shared as equably as reasonably expected. It seems that control of resources has fallen into the hands of solipsists. What proof is necessary of their complete disregard of others than their speculating on the price of wheat that condemned millions to death by starvation.
1: Because we have been told that the only alternative to capitalism is the Stalinist era Soviet Union 2: Because we're too busy with our jobs and everyday lives to thing about opposing the system 3: Because we're scared of change 4: Because the true left has been smashed while the mid-left have become centrists, we don't have any big political parties fighting for the workers
Just adapt Hotelling's location analysis for voting and one can see the rationality of drifting rightwards in order to maxmise the probability of being elected. Of course the same analysis concludes that is an inefficient outcome with the average voter being further away from the party's manifesto. And of course the middle ground have delightful soundbites to hide from economic reality: such as 'education, education, education' whilst hiding from structural deficiencies which allows underemployment and discrimination to run amok
the problem is not capitalism but corporatism. most of what people criticize as capitalism is actually corporatism.
Even if that was true (e.g. you avoid the reality of how capitalist markets are created through economic planning), you still wouldn't have sufficient analysis to be pro-capitalist. Schumpeterian analysis, for example, refers to the end result being socialism
Not many years ago, the average person would change jobs 7 times, usually bettering themselves, and it was the employer who tried to maintain an experienced work force. No, we were built as a Nation/Society to allow success for any person that wished to make the effort. This works for employers, striving to become the next Rockefeller or today maybe Sam Walton or employees that work hard and work their way up in any one Company. What we are being told is, this system is no longer valid and we need only be members of the society to gain wealth. That's not the system that built the Country, most of you were born into. No, we have become a society of "followers" and our leaders seek those out and pander to them to gain their power. Justin Beaver could very well become the 49th President, simply because he is cool, but to the point, interest in the Nation, with in the World Community has been forgotten. No, it's just the opposite. The Constitution allows for change in a number of ways. Amendments though Congress had been used, but today its all about drama, the personal satisfaction of being powerful in gang style groups. I'll add most are trivial in content. No, the left has become the political power in the US, frankly acting disoriented in their intent. They have so many goals for there different ideologies, those in power have no idea what to work on.... In fairness, I wouldn't worry to much, because where we are heading is back to the 1930's, when everything was talk and few had the possibility to work, much less succeed and Unions did speak for the workers...all 15 of them...
Name a system that would eliminate corruption. The problems you blame on a free-enterprise system stem from corruption. Regulations are written by the corporations, via lobbyists, they are intended to regulate for the purpose of eliminating competition. Lawmakers go along with whomever donates the most to their campaign chest. That is the most simple way to describe the problems with our current system.
Corruption will necessarily be a considerable problem in capitalism because of market concentration and the need for government to stabilise the macroeconomy. Free enterprise system? No such beast. The analysis into capitalism will always be skewed towards understanding coercive relationships
There are no capitalist countries in the world. Never has and never will be. Every country has some form of meddling in one form or another. Why? Because a politician's only goal is to get reelected. If they destroy the economy in the process so be it. Case in point, rent control. There is a saying economist have, "Outside of bombing, rent control is the best way to destroy a city." Every economist agree on this. Does the mayor care? Of course not, they slap tight rent control laws to get elected. Then they wonder why no developer wants to build a building in their city.
Capitalism has always gone hand in hand with interventionism. The very existence of capitalist markets is typically the result of government coercion (e.g. use of trade protectionism to hinder competition such that domestic industry can grow). You're therefore making no sense.
The link between capitalism and patriotism will always be etched in peoples' minds. The original American capitalists propagated the link and feed it on a regular basis. The typical American on the street has NO idea what the capitalists are about.
Just more smoke and mirrors that allows the already-rich to become richer. We know that every economic system ever devised has had individual successes and individual failures.
I think capitalism exists everywhere you look. It's that markets don't exist. Capitalism's ultimate aim is to DESTROY markets.
Capitalism's aim is to benefit capitalists. Competition doesn't, so obviously they are working towards monopoly, and they control the government. Examine the discussions of the press going on over here and guess who will win!
It's called evolution. Survival of the fittest. It never ceases to amaze me how the biggest proponents of this in the classroom have the hardest time accepting it in action. Capitalism is the default state of everything. You can fight it all you want, but it always comes back because it's designed to keep the species growing and advancing. Trying to eradicate it is like trying to hold back the ocean. Good luck with that.
Yeah, that's the issue. "Less regulation" is code speak for "there's nothing wrong with 100% market share."
We don't have that though do we? We have inter-generational divides distorting individualism and market concentration creating profit levels that are sympathetic to managerial uselessness
For humans cooperation is the default state, it's in our most basic instincts as humans (differentiating us from other animals). As for survival of the "fittest" - it wasn't about the strongest, it was about fitness in an environment. Humans are possibly the only animal that is able to live in just about any enviroment, using intelligence to adapt the environment rather than relying on physiological fitness. Capitalism has no moral or evolutionary underpinnings, if it did then it would have been there from day one of homo sapiens.
Capitalism is all I know. Everything else is speculation on my part. I want what delivers the most amount of freedom and being equally fair to all at the same time. Corruption walks side by side with our species, not possible to eliminate it.
There seems to be a lack of consistency in your comment. I can understand the merits of both elements: (1) Given risk aversity, highlight that capitalism (sort of) works; (2) Support an economic paradigm that delivers maximum desirable traits (here twinning freedom and equity issues). The latter demands comparisons and therefore ultimately you have to consider the desirability of replacing capitalism
The haram assures the fittest have the most offspring. For men like Genghis Kahn, it was about personal strength. In other harams, it was about wealth, power, etc. The "moral instinct" is partially a result of being able to think through the results of a choice. "Dogs" (wolves, coyotes, etc.) and "Cats" (lynx, mountain lion, tiger, lion, etc.) cover almost as large a range of environments. Why do you think it wasn't?
