Why Capitalism is Doomed

[Dragon]

I took the definition from dictionary.com, and it says the same thing in different words as the one you just posted, which is also correct, and which also disagrees with what you have been saying "capitalism" means up to now.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, it does not disagree with what I'm saying. Without a free market, we have no capitalism. What we have is corporatism, as per the definition.

http://http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporatism

Corporatism

: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction.


We see this in banking, energy, agriculture, labor and a host of other commerce.

there is nothing free in our markets. They are controlled through the collusion of government and corporate/industry interests that has formed the largest monopolies in industry of the 20th and 21st century. You can argue that corporatism is a form of capitalism, but it isn't. the distinction comes directly from the idea of free markets and open competition. Which in most industries, we do not have.

So the false premise draws to false conclusions. Capitalism isn't doomed, it is the correct answer to corporatism. There are other options, such as command economies of several kinds, which leads to despotism and the loss of individual freedom of exchange associated with a free market.

 

[Dragon]

"determined mainly by competition in a free market"

(Emphasis added.) That's what we have. We don't have a COMPLETELY free market, but that is how the prices, production, and distribution are MAINLY determined. If you say that because the government is involved in regulation we don't have a market that is free AT ALL, then you are using an idiosyncratic definition of "free market" just as you are of "capitalism." Likely one follows from the other.

 

[Dragon]

One idea I'm kind of playing with right now is a "right to capital." The underlying notion being that, contrary to what I said earlier, maybe all or most people CAN self-support as entrepreneurs. Maybe a mostly labor-free economy can be one in which everyone is an owner. But of course that would require that everyone have access to capital, and also to education to achieve the skills necessary.

This is still kind of vague and in early stages of thinking.

 

[AquaAthena]

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.

If for any reason, capitalism is ever doomed, it WILL make a comeback.

 

[Douger]

Capitalism isn't doomed. Corporatism(fascism) is.....we can only hope.
Of course murkins are more concerned with the death of idiots like Bratfart and Jitney....and Monkee boy to concern themselves with REAL issues.
Organic farmers' case against Monsanto dismissed - 2/29/2012 - Farmers Weekly

 

[TakeAStepBack]

"determined mainly by competition in a free market"

(Emphasis added.) That's what we have. We don't have a COMPLETELY free market, but that is how the prices, production, and distribution are MAINLY determined. If you say that because the government is involved in regulation we don't have a market that is free AT ALL, then you are using an idiosyncratic definition of "free market" just as you are of "capitalism." Likely one follows from the other.

it is either free, or it is not.

From the very get go, it is not free, because central economic planning determines price of all instances in commerce by controlling the money supply.

the division of labor worry you seem to be holding onto doesn't really apply under capitalism, as I see it has been explained abundantly in this thread.. Technological advancement does not hinder labor, it reshapes the needs and the skills necessary to production.

Anyway, I'm bored of this. Has fun in the hampster wheel.

 

[editec]

dragon do you think capitalism and corporatism are the SAME thing?

I think that corporatism is a form of capitalism but not the only form, so -- no.

Corporatism (business having influence in government) = problem
Capitalism (business completely separate from government) = solution

You just redefined the word "capitalism." Laissez-faire capitalism is not a redundancy, though. Here, let me help you out:

"cap·i·tal·ism
   [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

That's the usual definition and it's the one I'm using. You are choosing to use the word in a way that makes "capitalism" a utopian word, equivalent to what free-market libertarians want. But that's not what it means.

Where are you getting that definition from?

Here is what the dictionary says about capitalism.

Capitalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Capitalism

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

it looks like you're taking yours out of Das Kapital, comrade.

What?!

Reread both definitions.

They're saying the same damned thing.

Please grow up and stop insulting your fellow posters.

It doesn't serve any of us to insult people ESPECIALLY when there is abosutely no reason to do so as in THIS CASE.

 

[editec]

Jusging from the discussion between Dragon and Take a Step, I have to tell you Drag, Take appears to not want to discuss the issue.

His quibbling nonsense in this thread is pretty obviously TROLL BAITING.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yeah, of course I don't want to address the issue.

Pointing out the obvious mistakes in terms of what is and what is being presented determines the basis for which conclusions can be drawn. If you want to believe "capitalism is doomed", go right ahead and by all means, make it a long winded one.

the point is, we don't have capitalism here. We haven't had it in a long time and that alone, makes it rather difficult for it to be "doomed".

I'm not trolling. Or else everyone else in the thread that concurs albeit, verbatum, with what Im saying, is also trolling.

 

[dblack]

I'm not really very interested in quibbling over definitions, or speculative prediction. Underlying all this is the question of whether capital should be controlled by individuals, or by the state. Allowing government to co-opt economic power sounds like a very bad idea to me.

 

[American Horse]

One idea I'm kind of playing with right now is a "right to capital." The underlying notion being that, contrary to what I said earlier, maybe all or most people CAN self-support as entrepreneurs. Maybe a mostly labor-free economy can be one in which everyone is an owner. But of course that would require that everyone have access to capital, and also to education to achieve the skills necessary.

This is still kind of vague and in early stages of thinking.

This is an idea that came to me a long time ago. During the "great depression" people with a very nominal education (eighth grade) found ways to survive economically by creating their own businesses. No one was "entitled" to captital, but these people, because they showed responsibility in borrowing money (capital) and repaying loans, were awarded greater levels of credit to grow in a capitalist economy.

People with little imagination or who elected to channel their talents into safe venues did find some level of security by taking jobs when they could find them, in factories, on farms, or or other secure hourly work. Here I'm talking about people outside the professions, or the academe, who for the most part could always find useful ways to earn a living.

These people who succeeded in that way during the depression were the same kind of people which you'll very likely not find at Occupy Wall Street venues, but at at Tea Party events. But the "new capitalism" to which you are alluding applies to all, including the high-school drop out, or the college graduate with a useful degree.

The Next American Frontier - WSJ - OPINION May 19, 2008

 

[zonly1]

Your argument seems to be that because of the rise of the machines, there will be fewer jobs, and that capitalist systems wont' be able to handle the social pressures.

The first proposition is idiotic and contrary to experience.

Why?

An insult is not an argument.

No, I don't wonder why SOME people here don't treat my ideas with respect. It's because they are ideologues who don't treat anyone's ideas with respect, except insofar as they agree with their own.. As I don't have any use for the respect of people like that, and would wonder what mistake I'd made if I had it, I frankly don't care.

Now -- do you have anything in the way of LOGIC or EVIDENCE to present? Any, you know, THINKING? That would be novel.

your ego can't handle the truth...you don't listen but preacch

 

[editec]

Capitalism will continue to change the way it works as the society changes.

Clearly our economic system has changed since 1789.

Obviously it changed dramatically in 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Captialism changes to work in conjunction with the society it exists in.

Capitalism has absolutely no problem working with communists in China.

Did that mean capitalism died?

No, if anything, capitalism is more alive than ever.

Now it gets to exploint the slave workers in China.

Cpitalism is happier than a pig in shit right now.

It hasn't been this happy since the USA outlawed slavery, for goodness sakes.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now it gets to exploint the slave workers in China.

if they are now slaves they are slaves who are getting rich compared to what they were under liberal socialist communist regulation when 50 million slowly starved to death.

This is a simply point that a child can understand, just not a liberal

 

[ShackledNation]

We do not have capitalism in America. Say it with me everybody: "We do NOT have capitalism in America."

We have CORPORATISM. I am tired of seeing all of these posts talking about "the failure of free markets" when the current economy is not even close to a free market.

What we are seeing is a failure of the corporatist economic model, especially a failure of central banking and fiat money.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What we are seeing is a failure of the corporatist economic model,

well the failure is do more to liberalism or socialism than corporatism

especially a failure of central banking and fiat money.

central banking with or without a gold standard is likely to be a problem no matter what, although this recession, Japan's lost 2 decades, and China's long, meteoric rise seem to indicate that we can now at least avoid Depressions and maybe even recessions.

 

[zonly1]

ps could careless about grammar

Couldn't care less. If you could care less, that means you care about grammar.


Just goofing.

i honestly don't know you from eve and you busting my balls

but goat head explain...we are all ears smart azz

 

[zonly1]

dragon do you think capitalism and corporatism are the SAME thing?

I think that corporatism is a form of capitalism but not the only form, so -- no.

Corporatism (business having influence in government) = problem
Capitalism (business completely separate from government) = solution

You just redefined the word "capitalism." Laissez-faire capitalism is not a redundancy, though. Here, let me help you out:

"cap·i·tal·ism
   [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

That's the usual definition and it's the one I'm using. You are choosing to use the word in a way that makes "capitalism" a utopian word, equivalent to what free-market libertarians want. But that's not what it means.

you are all over the map and why do you hate capitalism..if thats the case then disconnect all com devices requiring pertro power.
capitalism is what created a live for you based on competition. competition promotes lowcost producers and better product...with me,,,,at least al ol school Americans can tell stories not the new wave of immigration and funny how obumer's numbers are dropping of the cliff he has to save face and himself; more importantly his election of grander scale.
Obama ignore his false reports of the econ is recovering. Bernuckle shot a warning of more taxpayer bailout....he is advocating by this very statement the dollar is loosing global presence and we know this iran, russia , and china nolonger deal with the greenback ...bad news for Americans. Bernuckle stated in 2014 rates will go up and it was confirmed this week by his statement.

Dollar is to going crash..obama administration unemployment are bad and Brietbart info and the death confirms this year is a 5, meaning observation wil happen fast, stock market world event , etc. how much kaos can u fit in a 5gallon bucket?

 

[sparky]

What we are seeing is a failure of the corporatist economic model,

well the failure is do more to liberalism or socialism than corporatism

what a tool....

~S~