In a sense. I think that capitalism is important because it incentivizes profitability, but I also think that we're better off if everyone is financially capable of significant spending. Government should take care of its citizens, in part by ensuring that the market place incentivizes competition while taking care of the people who fall through the cracks. I'd be supportive of something like universal basic income, but I also think it's important to let the market do its thing.
I think capitalism is great at meeting goals but wretched at setting them. Efficiently guidelines are a very obvious examples. Almost overnight premium efficiency features that used to come with a steep price tag for years, if not decades, become mass market with little or no price increase. I consider capitalism a tool, it's not evil but it's not the only tool and certainly not an autonomous one.
I'd have to say I disagree with capitalism not being mostly autonomous. As long as you're remedying situations where excessive power protects certain businesses from market forces, such as locally monopolized internet service providers, while instituting measures to ensure that individuals who fall through the cracks are provided for, I'd say capitalism doors an excellent job of allocating resources. It's not perfect, but it ensures that businesses that can't compete fail.
What happens if we let the government start competing, though? Well, their primary motive doesn't have to be profit. They can incentivize creating the best product for the best price and outcompete those who stray from product quality and reasonable price in favor of physically cheap products or exorbitant prices. This puts pressure on businesses to somehow make themselves more appealing to consumers while preventing government from propping up a failed business to provide a necessary service. Capitalism is definitely a tool, but I'd argue it's one that mostly does it's job itself. Occasionally it may need a nudge and you're left with some issues that you have to solve elsewhere, but it mostly does the job fantastically. As far as setting goals, I'd say consumers mostly do that.
You have to make sure that businesses are capable of failure. You don't want government mandated factory production with poor oversight churning out products that are worth less than the cost to make them.
That said, I'm all for government participation in capitalism. I think it'd provide a good incentive to accommodate consumers. Businesses as they exist now, unless they're nonprofits, are focused on maximizing profits. Any technological or social innovation they provide us with is secondary to their own profitability. If this weren't the case they'd be doing their investors a disservice. So business in that regard gives us an approximation of what we want with an eye toward profit.
It's a matter of perspective I suppose, albeit an important on. If capitalism is autonomous then every single government action that affects the market place becomes an intervention with the proponents needing to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that it is justified and provides overwhelming benefits no matter how small the impact on the market. A lot like what some people are trying to achieve in the US now. On the other hand if capitalism is a tool, even if the default one applied to the marketplace, then minor retoolings just need to be "likely better". I strongly disagree based on simple observation. Consumers have no power but to choose between the options offered (including the default of "neither"). If no business is willing to make efficiency a non-premium feature then the only choice is between affordable and efficient. There are feedback loops of course but businesses are free to ignore them, up to and including stopping production of the relecabt product if they believe that it can't be profitable and satisfy consumer demands. Consumers are a selective force. Furthermore sometimes consumers are a blindingly stipid selective force with regards to long term issues and will not select the option that is better for all of us in the long run. Hence setting goals. I'd have to say I disagree with capitalism not being mostly autonomous. As long as you're remedying situations where excessive power protects certain businesses from market forces
As far as setting goals, I'd say consumers mostly do that.
Two points I'd like to bring up in response here: 1. Why? Why does autonomous capitalism mean all these things you just said? 2. Even if all these other superfluous requirements you've stated are legitimate, that's not an argument against capitalism being autonomous. It's an argument saying that you don't like the social implications of capitalism being autonomous. That's like me saying I don't think deer ticks are real because if they were people would get lime disease. Absolutely untrue. There's no impenetrable barrier between consumers and producers. If consumers notice that there is something missing from the market, they have the opportunity to profit by bringing that thing into being. Well sure, but that's why you do things like create carbon credits or other incentivizing programs when issues like that come up. We don't have those problems, though, when it comes to figuring out how many paperclips need to be made and where to sell them from, or the logistics of how to get strawberries to colder climates during the winter. Lamb raised in New Zealand is cheaper to buy in the United Kingdom than lamb raised in the UK, because the actual cost of raising lamb in NZ and shipping it to the UK is less than raising lamb in the UK itself. I know a glass blower, but because of international trade I can go down to the local convenience store and buy whatever sort of pipe he could make for cheaper than he could make it. This is what I mean when I say that capitalism is both good and mostly automated. This does not mean, as you seem to suspect, that we can't ever intervene or that we suddenly need some huge standard of evidence before we can meddle with capitalism. It's just a better way of getting bread to everybody's house.If capitalism is autonomous then every single government action that affects the market place becomes an intervention with the proponents needing to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that it is justified and provides overwhelming benefits no matter how small the impact on the market. A lot like what some people are trying to achieve in the US now.
I strongly disagree based on simple observation. Consumers have no power but to choose between the options offered (including the default of "neither").
Consumers are a selective force. Furthermore sometimes consumers are a blindingly stipid selective force with regards to long term issues and will not select the option that is better for all of us in the long run.
Except said consumers would first need the means of production, which can be denied or unrealistic to acquire in any remotely competetive way once you have even a mildly developed capitalistic system, let alone the massive concentration of wealth and market power we are looking at today. You'd also need to find a way to make a relevant number of other customers aware of the advantages of your product. That can prove impossible in a system where media content also is dictated by profit motives. That certainly couldn't be considered autonomous capitalism, though? In fact, protection of the environment would seem like exactly the kind of "externality" which a well developed capitalism is pretty much blind to. We're not talking local businessmen having a self-interest in the well-being of their community, here. The owners of "WeAreEvil Inc" are not going to be fracking in their own backyard, but they certainly don't appear to see a problem with doing it to backyards a thousand miles away. From the perspective of preserving our planet's ressources, including its ability to sustain a decent population of human beings a few decades from now, wouldn't it maybe be better to accept that strawberries are a fruit which we don't expect to find / eat in colder climates or times of the year? Wouldn't it make more sense to accept that those sheep will be more expensive to raise in the UK than in NZ instead of accepting the enviromental cost of shipping them? If the UK workers are not forced to compete with those half a planet away, chances are that their wages will buy that more expensive wool. It doesn't get bread to everybody's house, though, does it? In fact, nothing in capitalism dictates that you can't deny bread (or, say, medication) to a population if it is profitable to do so. There's also no real reason that you shouldn't sell a pretty convincing approximation of bread which usually doesn't hurt anyone's health too badly to everyone except for those who can afford your premium deluxe variant. I think that capitalism only tends to make sense as long as you accept the framework it postulates. It seems to run into problems the second that the most profitable / "efficient" way of doing things is not the actual best way of doing them as far as the well-being of most people over time is concerned. I don't know how academic your background is, but economists postulate many prerequisites for their theories without really caring about their emprical merrit. They also declare an awful lot of factors (say, human misery for those unable to compete / the environment a hundred years from now) externalities. I also still have to find a capitalist who can really explain to me how the unlimited growth needed to sustain a system which includes interest and compound interest is supposed to work in a limited ressource environment. I don't really buy "technology is going to save us". The technologies we keep comming up with to work around our "limited ressources" problems seem to tend towards the environmentally destructive. In a capitalist world, when it comes down to it, there is one code which matters. "Pay / not pay". Capital doesn't care if it is accumulated by selling drugs, by profiteering from war (which may or may not be helped into existence so said profiteering can take place), by exploiting people who are not in an economic position to argue or simply by being born into the right family, golden spoon in hand. Yet in capitalism, capital is power over people. I strongly disagree with the notion that the successful aquisition of capital justifies that power. If consumers notice that there is something missing from the market, they have the opportunity to profit by bringing that thing into being.
Well sure, but that's why you do things like create carbon credits or other incentivizing programs when issues like that come up.
We don't have those problems, though, when it comes to figuring out how many paperclips need to be made and where to sell them from, or the logistics of how to get strawberries to colder climates during the winter.
Lamb raised in New Zealand is cheaper to buy in the United Kingdom than lamb raised in the UK, because the actual cost of raising lamb in NZ and shipping it to the UK is less than raising lamb in the UK itself.
It's just a better way of getting bread to everybody's house.
Well I never said it was easy. It still happens, though. Every day. What other system would you propose we replace it with? Government intervention? Will we have more input if all the factories are owned by the government? Yeah, I'm not sure where you or artis are getting the idea that I'm saying you can't interfere with capitalism. What I'm saying is that it mostly operates on its own. You don't need some government official to decide how many staples need to be made or what they need to be made of. This is good, because when production becomes mandated by government action rather than incentivized by profit motives that production is no longer under the influence of the pressures of capitalism. I don't, anywhere, argue that capitalism can't be interfered with. My argument is that it mostly does its job on its own. Do we have to clean up after it and step in where it falls short? Absolutely. But it's still more efficient than government-controlled resource production and distribution. What makes you think we can't safely ship out of season fruit? We're not deciding between strawberries in the winter and a ruined environment. That's absolutely 100% not the case. Nope. It's not just an economic expense, it's also an environmental expense. England doesn't have the sort of grazing land that NZ does. It takes more actual resources, not just dollars, to raise lamb in England. Right, and this is why said I support things like universal basic income and regulatory bodies like the FDA. You don't just take vanilla capitalism and leave it on its own, you use it as a base to build other services around. Your fears of over population and resource scarcity have been debunked. Please see the Simon-Ehrlich wager. Technology already has saved us, in terms of limited resources. Not only did the price of that basket of goods not go up, it went down. Now we just have to make sure we don't destroy the environment. What country do you think operates on unfettered capitalism? Certainly not the United States or any of the EU nations. Developed nations tend to have some forms of social services, even if they're not as extensive as we might like. Even in the US, there isn't a single state where you can't apply for food stamps. Furthermore, what would you suggest as an alternative? Once again, let's make sure, before going forward, though, that you realize I'm not talking about unfettered capitalism.Except said consumers would first need the means of production, which can be denied or unrealistic to acquire in any remotely competetive way once you have even a mildly developed capitalistic system, let alone the massive concentration of wealth and market power we are looking at today. You'd also need to find a way to make a relevant number of other customers aware of the advantages of your product. That can prove impossible in a system where media content also is dictated by profit motives.
That certainly couldn't be considered autonomous capitalism, though?
From the perspective of preserving our planet's ressources, including its ability to sustain a decent population of human beings a few decades from now, wouldn't it maybe be better to accept that strawberries are a fruit which we don't expect to find / eat in colder climates or times of the year?
Wouldn't it make more sense to accept that those sheep will be more expensive to raise in the UK than in NZ instead of accepting the enviromental cost of shipping them? If the UK workers are not forced to compete with those half a planet away, chances are that their wages will buy that more expensive wool.
It doesn't get bread to everybody's house, though, does it?
I don't really buy "technology is going to save us". The technologies we keep comming up with to work around our "limited ressources" problems seem to tend towards the environmentally destructive.
In a capitalist world, when it comes down to it, there is one code which matters. "Pay / not pay". Capital doesn't care if it is accumulated by selling drugs, by profiteering from war (which may or may not be helped into existence so said profiteering can take place), by exploiting people who are not in an economic position to argue or simply by being born into the right family, golden spoon in hand. Yet in capitalism, capital is power over people. I strongly disagree with the notion that the successful aquisition of capital justifies that power.
So, Simon-Ehrlich. Are you sure that you didn't read about that one a bit selectively? Simon was saved by a recession happening at just the right time. It's not about "just have to make sure we don't destroy the environment". That's the central problem here, apart from questions of fair distribution, not some kind of secondary concern. Have a look at the second proposed bet: The remaining area of virgin tropical moist forests will be significantly smaller in 2004 than in 1994.
The gap in wealth between the richest 10% of humanity and the poorest 10% will be greater in 2004 than in 1994. Which Simon refused, saying:
Like most capitalist economists, he treats the environment as an externality. He's concerned about the athletes economic actors, not the track environment and silly stuff like that. I understand and respect that you aren't arguing the case for "pure capitalism". I agree that a universal basic income is highly desirable. I just don't get why exactly you believe that we have to have capitalism at all. Are you maybe referring to markets, really? Because I'm convinced that you can have markets consisting of competing worker-owned factories, co-ops and so on without any need for capitalist owners accumulating further wealth by denying the actual producers the full fruits of their labor. If you work at / live close to the factory you (among others) own, you're going to make damn sure that the thing keeps the local environment as clean as technologically possible. I don't think any country operates on unfettered capitalism, at least not voluntarily. I believe our modern societies are socialistic for the rich/banks/corporations (privatized profits, socialized losses, policy systematically favouring the 1-10%), offer some (shrinking) degree of social-democratic safety for the middle class and impose the full uncompromising rules of capitalism on their poor and economic colonies (Countries hit by IMF-style privatization of common goods after the economic hitmen do their job.) A first step towards a solution would include extensive redistribution of wealth which would be invested into infrastructure, education, healthcare and new energy. Also, legislation which limits or eliminates the influence of capital on the political decision making process. Ultimately, I'd envision political as well as economic activity being carried out on a more local level again. I believe that direct accountability can do wonders for politicians staying honest and businessmen keeping the good of the community in mind.Ehrlich would likely have won if the bet had been for a different ten-year period.[2][7] Asset manager Jeremy Grantham wrote that if the Simon–Ehrlich wager had been for a longer period (from 1980 to 2011), then Simon would have lost on four of the five metals. He also noted that if the wager had been expanded to "all of the most important commodities," instead of just five metals, over that longer period of 1980 to 2011, then Simon would have lost "by a lot." [3]
The price of raw and other natural commodities such as oil, gold, and uranium have risen substantially in recent years, due to increased demand from China, India, and other industrializing countries. However, Simon has argued that this price increase is not necessarily contrary to his cornucopian theory.[8] Ehrlich has dismissed the bet as a side issue and stated that the main worry is environmental problems like the ozone hole, acid rain, and global warming.[9]
The three years 2002–2004 will on average be warmer than 1992–1994.
There will be more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2004 than in 1994.
There will be more nitrous oxide in the atmosphere in 2004 than 1994.
The concentration of ozone in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) will be greater than in 1994.
Emissions of the air pollutant sulfur dioxide in Asia will be significantly greater in 2004 than in 1994.
[...]
The oceanic fishery harvest per person will continue its downward trend and thus in 2004 will be smaller than in 1994.
There will be fewer plant and animal species still extant in 2004 than in 1994.
[...] Let me characterize their offer as follows. I predict, and this is for real, that the average performances in the next Olympics will be better than those in the last Olympics. On average, the performances have gotten better, Olympics to Olympics, for a variety of reasons. What Ehrlich and others says is that they don't want to bet on athletic performances, they want to bet on the conditions of the track, or the weather, or the officials, or any other such indirect measure.
Capitalism creates investment opportunities, though. I think it'd be lovely to have co-ops where the means of production are owned by the workers and they actually get the full value of their labor back. That'd be a great scenario for me and for most of the people I know. Where do we get our investment capital to create new businesses, though? Can we really fund everything with kickstarter? Economically it pays to have some very rich individuals around because they reinvest their capital. If you have a lot of money and you keep most of it in a bank over a long period of time, you're a moron. Your interest rates will barely beat inflation if that. They certainly won't beat inflation right now. So in the US you can buy I-Bonds or TIPS, both of which are set to match the rate of inflation, or you can invest in commodities, or you can invest in stocks and mutual funds. All of those things provide funding for more economic activity, or in the case of government bonds, government services. Even what you do keep in a bank allows that bank to loan out more money. So let's talk about redistributing wealth. Are we getting that wealth from taxes? I'd say that's a reasonable source, but you also have to be careful that you don't tax people so heavily that you deincentivize domestic economic activity. We don't want to go to such an extreme that people simply take their business elsewhere. If we're looking at actually confiscating money, we run into all sorts of complications. Not just involving individual liberty and the extent of government influence over private property, which could cause a revolution on its own, but because most of these funds are in use by people who don't necessarily 'own' them. Again, you don't just keep a bunch of money stuffed under your mattress, you invest it. So all that money that any given filthy rich person 'owns' is mostly being used by other people to grow their businesses. Until Mr Moneybags actually uses that money, which he may never do with most of it as he can cover even the most extravagant of his own needs with relatively little, it's actually in somebody else's pocket. Capitalism is already encouraging him to take that money he's got and let other people use it to make him more money. That doesn't happen without capital. While I certainly agree with you that money (among other things) has too much influence on politics at the moment, I've recently seen an argument made, and I must say I have to agree with it, that the problem is congressional transparency, rather than the solution. I saw it on Hubski, actually! He makes quite a convincing argument. Give it a gander and let me know what you think!
Do we really need private wealthy investors, though? Wouldn't a publically owned founder's fund work just as well? Besides, without a guy at the top pocketing the profits of the place you work at, actually saving up to your own small business becomes a real option. Thanks for linking that article. I had already read it before. I suppose that there is something to his argument about how transparency has been a big factor in corrupting the political system. Which is a pretty strange and unusual thought, really. But much like you rightly point out that it's difficult getting away from the massive misdistribution of wealth once you've gone down that road as far as we are, I fear that the intransparency train has left the station a long time ago. We already have the revolving door spinning CEOs into politics and politicians into business. These people know each other and they're organized in all their little private clubs. Removing transparency now would, I fear, leave us will all the corruption already in the system but without the last public control mechanisms, limited and disfuncional as they may be.
How do you feel about worker ownership then?In a sense. I think that capitalism is important because it incentivizes profitability, but I also think that we're better off if everyone is financially capable of significant spending. Government should take care of its citizens, in part by ensuring that the market place incentivizes competition while taking care of the people who fall through the cracks. I'd be supportive of something like universal basic income, but I also think it's important to let the market do its thing.
In a sense. I think that capitalism is important because it incentivizes profitability, but I also think that we're better off if everyone is financially capable of significant spending. Government should take care of its citizens, in part by ensuring that the market place incentivizes competition while taking care of the people who fall through the cracks. I'd be supportive of something like universal basic income, but I also think it's important to let the market do its thing.
In a sense. I think that capitalism is important because it incentivizes profitability, but I also think that we're better off if everyone is financially capable of significant spending. Government should take care of its citizens, in part by ensuring that the market place incentivizes competition while taking care of the people who fall through the cracks. I'd be supportive of something like universal basic income, but I also think it's important to let the market do its thing.
In a sense. I think that capitalism is important because it incentivizes profitability, but I also think that we're better off if everyone is financially capable of significant spending. Government should take care of its citizens, in part by ensuring that the market place incentivizes competition while taking care of the people who fall through the cracks. I'd be supportive of something like universal basic income, but I also think it's important to let the market do its thing.
In a sense. I think that capitalism is important because it incentivizes profitability, but I also think that we're better off if everyone is financially capable of significant spending. Government should take care of its citizens, in part by ensuring that the market place incentivizes competition while taking care of the people who fall through the cracks. I'd be supportive of something like universal basic income, but I also think it's important to let the market do its thing.
In a sense. I think that capitalism is important because it incentivizes profitability, but I also think that we're better off if everyone is financially capable of significant spending. Government should take care of its citizens, in part by ensuring that the market place incentivizes competition while taking care of the people who fall through the cracks. I'd be supportive of something like universal basic income, but I also think it's important to let the market do its thing.
Dear god that's some quote. Worker ownership? Like in the sense of co-ops? I think it's a perfectly fine way to run a business, but I don't think, as per Marxism, that workers should universally own the means of production. My primary concern in that arena is that capitalism still be able to necessitate competition.
I worked for a COOP grocery store in Arizona for two years best job ever. The Mars series by Kim Stanley Robinson has some great structures for COOPs. One of my favorite structures was an internship. You worked for a few years to earn a stake in the company. After a few years you owned that part and you could use it to buy into the next company you work at, then eventually retire with it. This is in a society built on a science outpost economy, where not even air is easily accessible, so most basic things tend to be already provided for. If you are interested there, I have an epub I got for free somewhere, there are also places called libraries. Robinson is always heavy on the sci in his fiction, any science he has a great viewpoint on it. I even really like his spiritual views, a living master.
It seems like a fine model, I just think we should make sure people are also free to try other models in case they work better. The great thing about capitalism is that the proof is in the pudding. If something doesn't work it'll fall apart unless something that works really well is propping it up.
Well of course it is fiction. It is a bit complicated, but the economy was mostly trading in the more rare useful minerals, plants, and soil. It was propped up by self replicating AI factories, that do not yet exist. Not that we can't look toward models in art to shape the future. What is propping up our current economy, oil subsidies, child labor in the third world, the government making a profit in young peoples student loans.... I might be the wrong person to play the it will never work game with, you might learn things. I'm happy either way.