Why Capitalism is Doomed

[Peach]

Dragon, another economic illiterate retard still can't decipher between corporatism and capitalism. Typical moron.

Don't see it happening. Arguments over restrictions, liberties & methods will continue.
_____________________________________________________________________
Did I mention Red China "experimenting" with free markets on a small scale?

 

[Dragon]

Well, let's see. The responses and criticism so far seem to fall into just a few categories:

1) Quibbling over definitions.
2) Observing that capitalism has worked in the past.
3) Confusing the statement "capitalism is doomed" with the completely different statement "we need Soviet-style socialism."

If you feel a need to substitute a different word for "capitalism" in your own mind, do so; it won't change anything substantial. I also observe that capitalism has worked in the past but under conditions that no longer obtain. And Soviet-style socialism is also a bust and only a nincompoop would recommend it.

Actually, I haven't recommended anything here as a replacement for capitalism, only pointed out that if it can't provide good jobs, it's doomed. That's not even saying it OUGHT to be doomed, only that it is. This is a prediction, not a prescription. The only way that I can see for the prediction not to come true is if there is some way that good jobs capable of providing a middle class that constitutes the majority of the people can be brought back. An economy that "works at ever higher levels of specialization" is one that increasingly provides good jobs for fewer and fewer people.

The point here is that this will not be allowed. Capitalism (or any other economic system) exists on popular sufferance. If it fails to deliver as advertised, that sufferance will be withdrawn (it's already happening), and the system will be brought down.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Quibbling over definitions?? Holy good grace.


Here, decipher this statement for me.

Our current anarchy is in danger because there isn't enough wild fires to wipe out the capital of Texas.


Does it make any sense? Fuck no, it doesn't. We have definitions of terminology in order to clarify what we mean when we say something. Are you going to start re-writing the dictionary for us here and then telling us to just accept what you say and not worry about your terminology, just try and grasp the main point when the terminology used creates a fatal flaw in coherent argument?

I've seen it all now.

Just make up some words.

Here is one. I'm going to invest in some gooble dee bop next time I have some free shnoz berries to gurple durple.

 

[Wiseacre]

Is there a better economic model? What do we transition to? Can anyone seriously doubt the improved standard of living in almost all places around the world that have capitalistic systems AND the abject failures of those places that have not?

Look, ANY economic system is still ultimately run by humans, greed and avarice will still exist. Mankind has ALWAYS had inequality, sometimes it's been a lot worse than it is now. Working and living conditions for many in the inner cities after the Civil War were a lot worse than what people have today, and the disparity between them and the top 1% was more extreme. Dunno if there's any data to support or refute this, but geez, we had kids working 12 hour days for God's sake. For a pittance.


The problem is not and has never been about capitalism, instead it's about the governance and control so that the human component does not allow corruption and abuse. Switrch to another sysem, it won't matter, you're still going to have the same inequality problems if governance is still bad.

 

[Dragon]

Is there a better economic model? What do we transition to?

That is indeed the question. I can't pretend to have an answer right to hand, either. The truth is, all industrial economic systems have relied on wages for work for distribution of income; all of them, not just capitalism, have been dependent on full employment. So this criticism doesn't just apply to capitalism, it also applies to centrally-planned socialism and, well, anything else that's ever been tried in the industrial age.

So you're right, the problem isn't about capitalism per se. It's about how to distribute wealth when labor isn't required to produce wealth. If we had a socialist system, we'd be up the same creek.

 

[sealybobo]

Free Unregulated Capitalistic Markets are doomed. Because they operate under the premise that it will benefit everyone. So basically Ron Paul is the biggest trickle down advocate there is. One problem, it doesn't work. The rich get richer and the middle class get poorer.

Some things are better for our government to run. If/When we debate this, you will learn that some things shouldn't be privatized. So a nice blend of socialism and capitalism is the best answer. Social Security and Medicare for all? Hell yes! Regulate industry? Of course our government should be doing that. Republicans act like they want to play without a referee. NOT!

Google what the Commons are. Ron Paul doesn't believe in the Commons. So, he's a nutjob.

 

[Amelia]

Quibbling over definitions?? Holy good grace.


Here, decipher this statement for me.

Our current anarchy is in danger because there isn't enough wild fires to wipe out the capital of Texas.


Does it make any sense? Fuck no, it doesn't. We have definitions of terminology in order to clarify what we mean when we say something. Are you going to start re-writing the dictionary for us here and then telling us to just accept what you say and not worry about your terminology, just try and grasp the main point when the terminology used creates a fatal flaw in coherent argument?

I've seen it all now.

Just make up some words.

Here is one. I'm going to invest in some gooble dee bop next time I have some free shnoz berries to gurple durple.

You are indeed quibbling over definitions.

Dragon provides enough context for the phenomenon he is describing even if you disagree with the terms he uses.

You're just mocking without trying to understand.

 

[Dragon]

Quibbling over definitions?? Holy good grace.

Words are just tags. They're not the thing tagged. And as I said, your own definition of capitalism is the ideosyncratic one here, not mine. I'm using the word the way most economists use it today, to describe any economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated on a for-profit basis. The word really doesn't refer to some kind of libertarian free-market utopia except in your own mind.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

First of all, we don't have capitalism. So the entire premise that it could be doomed, is WAY off the mark.

Second, what we do have IS doomed. Corporatism is bound to either cause a revolt in which power is once again decentralized from the few and people are again in control of the market, or where the people react and we fall right into the old despot trap of full command economics.

There is no shortage of "good" jobs under capitalism, as it provides the best innovation and competition levels of any other system. This, in part, means wealth is created across the board and the standard of living goes along for the rise.


Lastly, this is fucking really moronic. Words are not "tags" when you're in a discussion such as this. If this is all just a big joke, then fine. Make up your own words and have a laugh. if you want to actually discuss and debate the current system that is "doomed", why it is doomed and the best replacements for it, then the terminology you use is of utmost importance.

 

[Dragon]

Gawd, you just totally don't get it, do you?

All right, lets pretend for the moment that we have "power once again decentralized from the few and people are again in control of the market." We're still going to be in a situation in which wealth can be produced without labor. I don't just mean without muscle labor, either, I mean without brain labor.

It will remain a fact that, under those circumstances, only two types of jobs will remain in existence:

1) Jobs so complex and difficult to automate that it's more cost-effective to hire the very few people capable of doing them than to use computer programs; and

2) Jobs so poorly-paid that even though they could easily be automated it's still more cost-effective to hire people and pay them shit than to buy the software and machines.

Think of it as a "doctor and burger flipper economy." That's oversimplified but you get the picture.

Now, you're an entrepreneur, taking advantage of this great free market that's reappeared somehow. (Or appeared for the first time; it's a myth that it ever really existed.) How do you change the above fact of economics? And if you can't, how would your free-market economy be any less doomed than whatever you call the economy we have?

 

[Toro]

This is for discussion of something I wrote for my blog recently. You can find it here: The Dragon Talking: Why Capitalism is Doomed

The basic reasoning goes like this. Economic systems, like governments, exist on popular sufferance -- by the consent of the governed, to use Jefferson's phrase. Each can be described, therefore, in terms of a social compact: the people allow the system to go on, in return for promised gains.

With capitalism, the unwritten agreement was that the people would allow an economic system in which a few privileged and powerful individuals controlled most of the wealth, in return for their managing it so as to create rising standards of living for most people. But in order for that to work, there has to be a high demand for labor, which can be leveraged by one of several means into high wages.

Today, we are increasingly in a situation where labor is not needed to produce wealth. That means that even as the economy grows, demand for labor doesn't grow with it, and capitalism can no longer provide rising standards of living for most people. Unemployment is too intractably high, demand for labor too low, and downward pressure on wages accordingly great.

Since capitalism can't fulfill its side of the tacit bargain, it is losing popular support. When that loss reaches a critical point, the system will be replaced by -- something else. Exactly what else is a good question. But unless high demand for labor can be restored, capitalism is doomed, and I see no way to do that.

Nah. If true, and I do not think it is, all it would mean are high taxes on the wealthy and more redistribution, which is what the Dems are trying now.

 

[sealybobo]

First of all, we don't have capitalism. So the entire premise that it could be doomed, is WAY off the mark.

Second, what we do have IS doomed. Corporatism is bound to either cause a revolt in which power is once again decentralized from the few and people are again in control of the market, or where the people react and we fall right into the old despot trap of full command economics.

There is no shortage of "good" jobs under capitalism, as it provides the best innovation and competition levels of any other system. This, in part, means wealth is created across the board and the standard of living goes along for the rise.


Lastly, this is fucking really moronic. Words are not "tags" when you're in a discussion such as this. If this is all just a big joke, then fine. Make up your own words and have a laugh. if you want to actually discuss and debate the current system that is "doomed", why it is doomed and the best replacements for it, then the terminology you use is of utmost importance.

We will never be a 100% unregulated free market run by the laws of supply and demand knowing that the rich cheat and the game is rigged. The GOP got middle class people thinking they would benefit from this system. HA! Suckers.

And there is no such thing as a free market. Government makes the rules. In every country, government sets the rules. Not Corporations. The GOP got us thinking that's wrong? Our government for We the People is wrong but their government for the top 1% is ok?

Class warfare has never stopped. Sometimes labor/middle class wins and sometimes the corporations win. But for the last 30 years the corporations have done all the winning. One only needs to look at the recent growing gap between the top 1% and the rest of us to know that the problem is getting out of control. The middle class is disappearing.

Some things need to be run by the government and not for profit. Republicans are pushing to do away with the Commons? Do people understand this?

 

[Dragon]

Nah. If true, and I do not think it is, all it would mean are high taxes on the wealthy and more redistribution, which is what the Dems are trying now.

Well, that's certainly one approach: most people have junk jobs and receive government benefits to compensate for their low wages. But if we rely on that, we would automatically abandon the prevailing attitude towards government assistance that it's an emergency stopgap and not something to be relied on long-term. It would require a complete shift in our thinking on that subject to the point where it becomes normal for most people to be on the dole.

Honestly, I'm not altogether comfortable with the idea.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

your ideas about labor, wealth and understanding of market economics is severely lacking.

 

[Oddball]

Quibbling over definitions?? Holy good grace.


Here, decipher this statement for me.

Our current anarchy is in danger because there isn't enough wild fires to wipe out the capital of Texas.


Does it make any sense? Fuck no, it doesn't. We have definitions of terminology in order to clarify what we mean when we say something. Are you going to start re-writing the dictionary for us here and then telling us to just accept what you say and not worry about your terminology, just try and grasp the main point when the terminology used creates a fatal flaw in coherent argument?

I've seen it all now.

Just make up some words.

Here is one. I'm going to invest in some gooble dee bop next time I have some free shnoz berries to gurple durple.

I've herp-a-derp-ed this deedly-derp and dirka-dirka 100% with it's bakka-lakka-dakkaness.

 

[Wiseacre]

Is there a better economic model? What do we transition to?

That is indeed the question. I can't pretend to have an answer right to hand, either. The truth is, all industrial economic systems have relied on wages for work for distribution of income; all of them, not just capitalism, have been dependent on full employment. So this criticism doesn't just apply to capitalism, it also applies to centrally-planned socialism and, well, anything else that's ever been tried in the industrial age.

So you're right, the problem isn't about capitalism per se. It's about how to distribute wealth when labor isn't required to produce wealth. If we had a socialist system, we'd be up the same creek.

You think labor isn't required? Why is that, when a machine replaces a human worker somebody had to build it and somebody has to maintain it. I can't think of ANY means of producing wealth that does not require labor on somebody's part in some way, however minor. We're definitely not as manual labor intensive as we used to be, and our birth rate exceeds the job creation rate, too much sex going on if you ask me. LOL, that ain't something you can blame on capitalism.

But the real issue you're trying to get at is distribution of wealth. You've heard the expression "a rising tide lifts all boats", and it's true; when capitalism is going great guns and a lot of wealth is created, we get more jobs and greater prosperity. Seriously, do you think the standard of living hasn't vastly improved over the past 30 years? 100 years? 200 years? Why is that? Capitalism. NO OTHER REASON.

The issue is that the rich guys who had the money to invest got most of the benefits. Well, hell, what did you expect? There are a some people born rich, to rich families, and maybe some got rich by luck or by accident. But I'd venture to say that most of 'em got rich the old fashioned way - they earned it. [Smith Barney, great commercial in it's day.] Like Steve Jobs, they made something, invented something, came up with some kind of improvement in a process or something, and got rich. Some built up a business, some went to medical or law school, whatever.

Capitalism is supposed to offer the opportunity for everybody to do that. The fact that it doesn't (okay, it's really an opinion) is not the fault of capitalism, it's the fault of a gov't that isn't doing it's job properly. We don't provide enough opportunities, we don't ensure a fair marketplace, we don't champion open competition like we should. And that's on us, not the economic model that is in place.

 

[Dragon]

You think labor isn't required? Why is that, when a machine replaces a human worker somebody had to build it and somebody has to maintain it.

That's increasingly untrue, though. Machines making other machines: new twist on self-replication

I can't think of ANY means of producing wealth that does not require labor on somebody's part in some way, however minor.

Let's just say that the production of wealth requires less and less labor, and that labor is as a consequence less and less in demand. I worked for a while as a word processor. I would use word processing software to format documents, and also sometimes type dictation. No such jobs exist today. Software replaces a lot of customer-service work -- that's what's happening when you call a company and get a robot voice, which you always do nowadays. Software can do legal research, diagnose illnesses, even conduct scientific research.

All of these used to be well-paying jobs. Now they're not. It's not just manufacturing jobs that are disappearing anymore, it's also the higher-paying service jobs below the professional level.

But the real issue you're trying to get at is distribution of wealth. You've heard the expression "a rising tide lifts all boats", and it's true; when capitalism is going great guns and a lot of wealth is created, we get more jobs and greater prosperity.

I know that's how it's worked in the past. (Incidentally, it worked a lot better when we had more nearly equal distribution of wealth, so the influence goes both ways, not one.) What I'm suggesting here, though, is that high demand for labor to produce wealth is a prerequisite for this to happen. It's happened in the past because that high demand existed, so that only when the economy slumped did demand for labor drop. I'm suggesting that this isn't true anymore.

We explored the industrialization of the country on your thread in the History forum. A key part of that was the automation of agriculture, reducing the need for farm workers. Now from labor's point of view that wasn't a problem because it was part and parcel of the explosion of manufacturing, so people displaced from farming went into the factories. Later, when automation reduced the need for factory work, people went into service jobs. But what happens when services are automated, too? And that's exactly what's happening today.

The issue is that the rich guys who had the money to invest got most of the benefits. Well, hell, what did you expect?

If that were the issue, I'd be talking about return to New Deal capitalism, with steeply graduated taxes, strong unions, and a regulated economy. What I'm seeing, though, is that that won't work today like it did when I was born. If demand for labor remains slack, if there's persistent, intractable high unemployment, what good does it do to have strong unions? Collective bargaining has to have something to work with; it increases workers' bargaining strength but only as a multiplier of the bargaining strength that comes from the supply-demand equation for labor, and when that's way low, you're not gaining much. Plus, a slack labor market gives employers better leverage to prevent unionizing in the first place.

Capitalism is supposed to offer the opportunity for everybody to do that. The fact that it doesn't (okay, it's really an opinion) is not the fault of capitalism, it's the fault of a gov't that isn't doing it's job properly. We don't provide enough opportunities, we don't ensure a fair marketplace, we don't champion open competition like we should. And that's on us, not the economic model that is in place.

Although I can't defend what the government has been doing over the past few decades, so that to an extent you're right, it's never going to be possible for all or most people to make it as entrepreneurs.

Wait -- I just thought of something. Hmmm . . . I'll have more on this later. I think I just saw a way out.

THANKS!

 

[pinqy]

I'm using the word the way most economists use it today, to describe any economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated on a for-profit basis.

Not when you're claiming that a requirement or defining factor of Capitalism is concentration of Capital in the hands of a few, you're not. That's my "quibble," that you're adding on ideas that are not and never have been part of any capitalist ideas.

 

[Dragon]

I'm using the word the way most economists use it today, to describe any economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated on a for-profit basis.

Not when you're claiming that a requirement or defining factor of Capitalism is concentration of Capital in the hands of a few, you're not. That's my "quibble," that you're adding on ideas that are not and never have been part of any capitalist ideas.

I'm just observing that that's the way it normally works. A system with non-concentrated capital would still be capitalist by definition. The fact that no such decentralized capitalist economy has ever existed doesn't change that, but it does mean that in describing the social compact permitting capitalism this theoretical possibility isn't very important.

 

[Spectre13]

What capitalism are YOU talking about?

Did you read the linked article?

"Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of the means of production and the defining of ownership of goods by who owns the capital that is used to produce the goods."

Less technically, it's a system in which most people make a living through wages paid for work done on behalf of private for-profit companies.

I'm not just referring to laissez-faire capitalism or to Reaganomics. The death knell is sounding for New Deal capitalism or social democracy as well, since that, too, is dependent on high demand for labor.

Well, we don't have capitalism here.

So, your point? Rather, your foundation for saying something not tested will fail?

Contempt prior to investigation is a fail.

Well, I think the worth of capitalism is directly related to the nation's governmental system. Right now, our capitalism has not worked properly for a very long time. The pseudo-democracy we have precludes that. We are not represented and we have virtually no say in government affairs, really. This is a rich man's game and so, capitalism is a failed system, as long as the people who allowed capitalism, got left out. This is more like an economic oligarchy run by the very people who we made the tacit agreement with.