Why can't capitalism stop its excesses, greed, and other damaging characteristics?

Can you name a communist that was also a Liberal? Stalin? Poi Pot? Anyone? Maybe Saddam Hussein was a "liberal".

 

And many of them give far more of their wealth to charity then your gods like Trump, the Koch Bro., etc.

 

“The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life, seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another. Avarice over-rates the difference between poverty and riches: ambition, that between a private and a public station: vain-glory, that between obscurity and extensive reputation. The person under the influence of any of those extravagant passions, is not only miserable in his actual situation, but is often disposed to disturb the peace of society, in order to arrive at that which he so foolishly admires. The slightest observation, however, might satisfy him, that, in all the ordinary situations of human life, a well-disposed mind may be equally calm, equally cheerful, and equally contented. Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquillity of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice.”
― Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments

 

Cop out.

The singular most important distinction between capitalism and socialism is that the latter does not permit that production of goods/services should be owned privately. Socialism also focused upon the basic provision of Maslow's bottom two-layers in his Hierarchy of Human Needs - thus focusing on the basics of human existence.

Capitalism - a definition:

That is all, there is nothing whatsoever included about the equitable distribution of either Income or Wealth, which should be two principle objectives of any viable economic-system. (Income assures that one lives presently well, Wealth assures that one lives permanently well.)

It is "human nature" as expressed at the ballot-box that decides what capitalism does and does not do. Which is the sole reason that in the European Union - quite unlike the US - there are two basic principles that are formal conditions for adherence:
*Free National Health Care (and as a result one lives 4-years longer than Americans) and a
*Subsidized Tertiary-Education, which is why having been a population impoverished by WW2, the EU is now just a we bit less than the US in terms of those having obtained a Post-secondary Degree. (See here.)

To put it in simpler terms, Europeans are (in general) more healthy and better educated than we Yanks. And the only reason for that is because post-war Europe has almost entirely been run by the principles of social-democracy.

However, in the US, at any given moment, the rule remains: If you are lucky enough to be able to obtain a post-secondary education, and again lucky enough not to get seriously ill, then a rather well off middle-class existence is yours.

But, that end is not a "given" ...

 

BACK OF THE ENVELOPE

Quite right, which is a damn fine reason as well to offer cooperative enterprises that are 100% owned by the workers a special taxation class. Why? Because the profits of the company (net of investments necessary including those of product development) are not taxed since there are none, but incomes are. Typically, they are taxed at rates that - depending upon their level - are both the same and/or larger than "ordinary income-tax rates".

So, what a government loses on the company tax-side, it should recuperate from increased revenues' income-tax. (All the while presuming that the revenues will be spent upon Social Services and not the gigantism of Defense.)

But, pray tell, what would happen if we cut the Defense budget to offer our kids a free cost of tuition at state-schools. (Which is highly simplistic reasoning, but bear with me nonetheless.)

Back of Envelope Calculation (based upon Dept. of Education numbers here):
* Cost of free post secondary education (total, all students graduating with a high-school degree)
* Assume :
** Total number of high-school graduates who enroll in 2-year Associates Degree) = 1M
** Total number of high-school graduates who enroll in 4-year Bachelors Degree) = 1.9M
** "Average cost" of an Associates Degree at a state-school = $17K per year (over 2 years)
** "Average cost" of a Bachelor's Degree at a state-school = $24K per year (over 4 years)
* Do the maths. The total cost is $226B
* Conclusion: The total cost of a state-school level education is 42% of the DoD-budget.

My point: Cut the DoD budget (of $534B per year) in half and spend the money on educating our youth with a post-secondary degree, thus preparing them for lifetime wages of a decent level.

PS: Yes, yes, I know - some will say the quality of education is not the same (Hah-vahd vs University of Kentucky). But neither is it all that different - given that both a Chevy and a Cadillac run on four-wheels.

 

The word liberalism is not related uniquely to market-economies. The word has existed for more than two centuries in our (English) vocabulary - and it means:

Saddam Hussein implemented a liberal market-economy in Iraq - off which he glommed close to a billion dollars in personal "remuneration". The Nazi's implemented also a "liberal economy" - and continued to slaughter the Jews.

My Point: Diminishing political notions to infantile two-word simplicities is Damn Stoopid!

Social Democracies can be "liberal", because the more modern definition is in contrast with "communism" that is totalitarian. But Social Democracy also divorces itself from the word "socialism" - which it is not because the political belief of any Social Democracy includes capitalism (private ownership) as a central factor of its "mixed-economy".

Can we therefore have Liberal Social Democracies? Yes, we can ...

 

Ok, and you're wrong. Period!

Are you interested in clinging to your own ideas or are you more interested in examining this idea? Let me know and maybe we can reason together.

 

Well, I'm not what you would call a "communist" but I prefer fact and accuracy. Factually and accurately we cannot say communism does this or does that because communism has never existed and so we cannot know anything about it. I keep saying this and yet it seems to keep needing to be said. All you need to do is to quote what Marx said communism is, and then consider whether it has ever existed.

 

I can't make sense out of that sentence. Sorry.

Worker-owned, worker-controlled cooperatives do have profits or "retained earnings".

So you say that typically incomes are taxed at rates that are either the same or larger than "ordinary income tax rates"? Really? Let's do that again: incomes are typically taxed and the same or higher rates than incomes. Huh? Try that again.

Well, I'm glad you stated your "point". That, I agree with.

 

That is true. But what does it say about communism and human nature, that every time its tried on any measurable scale, it immediately breaks down in corruption and tyranny and democide?

Communism and humanity are not compatible. Not yet anyway. We have a long way to go before humanity is ready to base mass economics and government on selflessness, harmony and perfect cooperation- all required for successful, TRUE communism.

 

Extermination of democrats? Hmmm.
But that's my point: it has never been "tried". All that has ever been tried is to establish socialism. And so far that has not happened. It took many years for capitalism to work out the kinks too.

 

Democide = murder by government.

 

From your definition for dummies "Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality."

Key points here are liberty, and equality neither of which is present in a totalitarian, dictatorial, or monarchial, forms of government. In fact, Nazism, Communism, Dictatorial, etc., governments are not Democracies thus even your final question is based on a fallacy.

 

Not democracies? Dictatorial? You don't know what communism would be if it were to ever occur.

 

You are surely not arguing that China, No. Korea, Cuba, Russia, Iraq under Hussein, etc., are democracies, seriously?

 

Both chambers of Congress, plus the presidency plus the Supreme Court in the hands of the Replicants - that's not "totalitarian government"?

Oh ....

 

Workers' self-management was popular in Yugoslavia when it had a socialist government.

A company was run by itself. Top-Managment plus the Board of Directors were elected by all who worked in the company. And they could be fired as well by a majority vote of the workers.

This worked very well at a local level and for smaller collectives of workers. As in dairy-farming, or businesses that were heavily localized. It worked less well the larger the company became.

 

It could work if instituted on a foreign planet that had no history as ours does.

Our planet is to old and entrenched in its ways for people to accept communism - due largely to the fact that (for it to work) communism necessitated a dictatorship - and even a corrupt one ...

 

Do you feel better know, having emoted?

Oh, so nice. Moving right along ...

 

OP: Why can't capitalism stop its excesses, greed, and other damaging characteristics?

Because these are its virtues, not its vices;

Ayn Rand: "The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html

 

Almost all capitalist states have governments that are the central committees of the capitalist class, so only under crisis conditions are they ever going to modify capitalism - after which they'll need a McCarthy to put it back as it was.

 

What Ayn Rand knew about economic systems would fit a thimble. And she had little understanding of the dark-side of mankind, which led it (for the best of reasons) to want and obtain the power to dominate and thus exploit others for their own personal advantage. The result is that she magically made selfishness a virtue - Abra-Cadabra!

It is only in the past two-and-a-half centuries that we have made "post-cards" of monarchies because they are useful for little else. Meanwhile, we have made in the US - by manipulation of the Upper-income Tax Code - our own species of "Democratic Monarchists". The accumulation of so much Wealth by so few of the nation's population is a mockery of societal fairness and justice. (See here.)

Societal Freedom is NOT the despoliation of one part by another of the market-economy of which both are central parts. We have yet to learn as a nation that "freedom" gives no one the intrinsic right to collect an inordinate share of the Income communally generated for whatever the reason (and especially not for a perverse system of income taxation).

We live today in a dichotomy, having seen brutally how very wrong mankind on the Left can be in defense of its prejudices as much as those of the Right. It's kinda stoopid - because "truth and fairness" (of the human nature) is somewhere in the middle between both Left and Right extremes of the political spectrum.

Aka, "centrism" ...

PS: A definition of centrism:

 

Ahhh geee, now I have to explain to you what a representative form of government that is elected by the people........

 

To LafayetteBis: You do know your insane, right?
Best of luck.

 

According to the founding father's "A republic, if you can keep it." Additionally, a representative government not founded on the principle of individual rights is not a government, but a lynch mob looking for a scapegoat to murder. See Nazi Germany, or read the Ominous Parallels by Dr. Leonard Peikoff. Or stay unenlightened-- your life your choices, as along as the majority okays it, and you don't get too rich, or become too smart, or become to productive, you know,, "become too good". Have to keep those tall poppies under control lest they rise too high.