Thread: An explanation for the failure of capitalism

Thank you for the compliment.

R

Originally Posted by Wildtim

How can any intervention not effect personal liberty? That is the essence of eliminating freedom.

Police forces and fire protection are not by nature interventionist, they like road services are the services we pay the government for. All of your ideas require direct intervention in every citizens life, thereby proving you are not a fan of liberty. How can you fail to recognize that you contradict yourself within the span of two lines? We don't pay the government for these things, they tax us to provide these things. By your own admission, such taxation is intervention and limits freedom. Moreover, the exercise of these entities is interventionist by their very nature. Police intervene in the natural interaction between people, limiting some actions that are objectively available, and forcing other interactions that at least one party many not desire to engage in. Fire departments intervene in the natural occurrence of fires. Roads intervene in the natural lay of the land, curtailing some interaction between people and expanding others. Would you prefer that we return to some Hobbesian state of nature that never really existed in the first place anyway? I suppose some men prefer things red in tooth and claw.

Consequences of action must be allowed for freedom to exist. the ability to fail is the only motivator to succeed. Without the desire for success why be free.
Are you kidding me? Success is its own motivator, that's why it's called success. When you succeed, then you are better off than if you haven't tried. When you fail, you are worse off than if you haven't tried.


What problem were we talking about again?

Oh yea the lack of a safety net to catch the stupid or unlucky. See the only reason to have a safety net is to allow the lowest common denominator to propagate. Doing this weakens our system creating the very instability you fear so much. Why do you presume that there is such a thing as a lowest common denominator among people? People are not inherently stupid or unlucky. They can, and ought to be taught and corrected.

I still fail to understand why you think a system based upon free exchange will fail. It is the most basic system possible. You have what I want, I can't take it so I must earn it. How can that fail?

Re-read the games. Try to grasp how it represents a system of free exchange where the benefit of exchange is consistently differential in the same direction. I'm not talking here about individual trades, but the effects of all trading taken together. An individual trade, so long as its free, will always benefit both parties to the trade. That is the truth with which we begin. But the accumulation of many such trades can result in a situation which is not beneficial.

Originally Posted by riooso

Let's see capitalism bad, pure socialism bad, communism bad, dictator bad, gathering berries to stay alive bad, anarchy bad! Did I miss any? Which of the forgoing is the one that most want to live under? All these systems are made by man and, as we all know, they are not perfect.


My 2 cents

Richard

I prefer capitalism, or capitalism mixed with a bit of socialism, because I believe that capitalism best protects and maximizes individual freedom. I also think the bad parts of capitalism can be corrected and mitigated with a little bit of tweaking. The point of my post is not simply that capitalism is bad, because I think that it's better than any alternative, but to point out where and why it goes bad, and what can be done about it.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

It's important to keep in mind that none of these fixes will ever bring us back to equality, where you get the same number of pieces of candy as I get, but at least they will insure that you get some pieces of candy, that you won't get shut out.

I'm sure you mean 'ensure', but otherwise your initial post seems flawless.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

In fact, one could argue that the more primitive feudalism is more sustainable than capitalism, as it sustained itself without serious economic collapse far longer than laissez-faire capitalism managed to.

You speak as those it has already completely failed. Has it?

Originally Posted by Wildtim

... if you add in a cultural propensity that encourages charity to members of the same society as all religions do you add in a stabilizing element that also helps the bottom tier with their basic human needs.

The burden of that cultural propensity is placed upon the lower rungs themselves which is hardly a mitigating factor. That charitable nature is actual part of human nature and not the sole property of any one religion or religions at large. Please see the principles outlined in my signature link to the BCHA.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

No control at all is needed and as usual is contraindicated. Those who don't chose to be a part of the religious structure simply lose the benefit of the safety net it provides, unless the structure of some religion allows them that protection due to its own tenets. That way you will over time see the growth and wider distribution of the most altruistic religion especially in times of greatest weakness in the economic structure, and a general waning of religion in the times of greatest prosperity, and the stingiest most restrictive religions will die out over time. It is a self regulating structure, as most parts of a truly free society are. In conclusion as you might expect those who chose to completely remain apart of the religious safety structure and then fall afoul of the economy will be left to their own devices by their own choices.

I don't mean to upset anyone, especially not you, Tim and I'm sorry if it is perceived that way, but this sounds a lot like tyranny to me. I have to pray to the most popular god in order to survive? Time for the revolution. Again, not trying to cause a fight, just pointing out that this argument seems culturally and socially destructive.

Originally Posted by jscott

many people will never take this risk as they are happy to glide thru life on cruise control, making their salary, spending X, saving X and budget it all out.

Stop talking about me.

X

Originally Posted by xman

I'm sure you mean 'ensure', but otherwise your initial post seems flawless.

You're right, I did. I hate it when I commit those sorts of errors.

You speak as those it has already completely failed. Has it?

In fact, it has. The Great Depression was its first failure. WWII acted as sort of a reset button on the game, it destroyed wealth, which has the same effect as confiscating it proportionally, and redistributing it equally. It began to fail again in the 70's, but that failure was halted by Volker, who severely restricted the money supply in an attempt to spark deflation, which is just another way of achieving proportional destruction of wealth. Post-Volker, it's effects have been mitigated in the short term by substantially easing the money supply, which can solve the inequality part of the problem in the short term, but only in the short term. Eventually, printing more money looses it's effectiveness in this regard because the inequality has become too great.

The burden of that cultural propensity is placed upon the lower rungs themselves which is hardly a mitigating factor. That charitable nature is actual part of human nature and not the sole property of any one religion or religions at large. Please see the principles outlined in my signature link to the BCHA.


I don't mean to upset anyone, especially not you, Tim and I'm sorry if it is perceived that way, but this sounds a lot like tyranny to me. I have to pray to the most popular god in order to survive? Time for the revolution. Again, not trying to cause a fight, just pointing out that this argument seems culturally and socially destructive.

X

Thank you for making that point more eloquently than I could.

Originally Posted by xman

I don't mean to upset anyone, especially not you, Tim and I'm sorry if it is perceived that way, but this sounds a lot like tyranny to me. I have to pray to the most popular god in order to survive? Time for the revolution. Again, not trying to cause a fight, just pointing out that this argument seems culturally and socially destructive.

I'm not upset, and I can see why you might see it this way given your perspective.


IT is and it isn't. There is a choice there, not a good one but a choice. What I was drawing from in mentioning the religious safety net is my own personal experience.

If you go to any of the large poverty stricken cities, there are two groups who provide shelter for the homeless, The bottom rung of society as it were. Those two groups are the government and the church (there are some run by secular groups but they tend to fall into the government category in the way they are viewed).

Then talk to the homeless, those who need these shelters, and the things they provide. You find a strong preference for the ones from the churches. They are known to be safer, cleaner, and give away more stuff. This makes them naturally more desirable places to go for those who need them.

Then enters the catch (or tyranny if you prefer) many require you to attend a religious service if you want their services. and all are very strict in the enforcement of their rules, over time this can bring converts causing the religion to grow. It also creates a propensity for later success to be attributed to the religious observance creating more converts.

This all happens because those in need are willing to pay the price of listening to an evangelist (or propagandist if you prefer) for the higher quality of goods received (why this is relevant to a capitalism thread). There is no coercion involved. With out coercion I don't really think it is tyranny. Do you?



I'd love to have a frank discussion about the true tenets and beliefs underlying Christianity sometime. I don't mean the artificial rules imposed by some sects, but the core beliefs all the sects share. Having listened to many people talk about Christianity, even many who practice one form of it or another I think it has become one of the most misunderstood religions of all time. Those who are actually well educated in this field all share some pretty interesting commonalities despite their technical differences, and these surprise many people.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

How can you fail to recognize that you contradict yourself within the span of two lines? We don't pay the government for these things, they tax us to provide these things. By your own admission, such taxation is intervention and limits freedom. Moreover, the exercise of these entities is interventionist by their very nature. Police intervene in the natural interaction between people, limiting some actions that are objectively available, and forcing other interactions that at least one party many not desire to engage in. Fire departments intervene in the natural occurrence of fires. Roads intervene in the natural lay of the land, curtailing some interaction between people and expanding others. Would you prefer that we return to some Hobbesian state of nature that never really existed in the first place anyway? I suppose some men prefer things red in tooth and claw.

All I can say is you are really stretching here.

The things you mentioned are all services we chose to pay the government to provide, in the past there were private organizations or cultural rules that provided the services, they don't require a government. We have put the government in charge of these area for efficiency's sake no more. A tax is supposed to be a simple price paid for services to be rendered, like a retainer. You idea of removing a portion of each persons wealth and giving it to others IS intervention, there is no service provided for the price paid.

If we returned to the world of tooth and claw the first steps out from that darkness would be two hunters coming together, realizing each had something the other wanted, and that it would be to dangerous to try to take it be force. They would by grunts and dumb sign negotiate a peaceful trade thus birthing capitalism once again.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Are you kidding me? Success is its own motivator, that's why it's called success. When you succeed, then you are better off than if you haven't tried. When you fail, you are worse off than if you haven't tried.

Wrong!!!! The more controls you place on a system the less of a jump success gets you and the less reason you have to reach for it. In the most controlled systems both success and failure actually have the same outcome so why try. In the least controlled systems success is a huge up and failure can be very costly but by simply standing still you slowly fail, thus the motivation to move.

Success doesn't motivate it is the result allowing you to achieve a reward for for correct action. The hope of that reward is the motivator. I won't climb a mountain for a penny, but offer enough money and I will do it, success isn't worth striving for without a reward given in consequence. You are arguing that success is its own reward, I counter that by saying that this is about economics not personal growth, only the wealthy can afford to strive without hope of personal gain.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Why do you presume that there is such a thing as a lowest common denominator among people? People are not inherently stupid or unlucky. They can, and ought to be taught and corrected.

There is a lowest common denominator, those who chose not to seek out knowledge or put in effort. They can not be "taught".

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Re-read the games. Try to grasp how it represents a system of free exchange where the benefit of exchange is consistently differential in the same direction. I'm not talking here about individual trades, but the effects of all trading taken together. An individual trade, so long as its free, will always benefit both parties to the trade. That is the truth with which we begin. But the accumulation of many such trades can result in a situation which is not beneficial.

Sorry the game you outlines is an extremely weak model designed specifically to illustrate only your points. The thing about free markets is they are free, they tend to adapt to the conditions and resist being boxed in by regulation. The only danger to capitalism is the weight of the controls the foolishly well meaning place on the system. When this weight gets great enough the capitalism is crushed.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

There is a lowest common denominator, those who chose not to seek out knowledge or put in effort. They can not be "taught".

Arent those people called `school children`?

Originally Posted by sidneykidney

Arent those people called `school children`?

I know this is a joke but.... I wasn't thinking of the fact that I was kind of defining children. I am strictly referring to people who have reached their majority. There are enough people out there who have and still act like school children it is amazing.

Though even school children learn very quickly the only effort brings success and lack of effort causes you to fall behind. You don't have to "fail" when trying, to fail you only have to stand still and life passes you by.

I was just trying to lighten the mood of the thread....