Quote Originally Posted by Howard Newell View Post
Well of course it is more sustainable. Feudalism was a very rigid and a significant way of life. It didn't depend on capital the way a mercantile system would, so there's literally nothing that would cause it's collapse unless the kings stopped providing protection for serfs (which would result in the king no longer having a kingdom) or the serfs overthrowing their rule (which would be put down by force by the king).

There's no trading of goods, no development of technology to improve trade or dominate the market. As a result, most of Europe didn't economically change all that much in the Medieval Ages. Just because it's more sustainable doesn't equate with it being a better economy.
I think we're in agreement here. Sustainability is only one aspect of a good economy. Progress in the standard of living and in productivity are two others. I would argue that at least meeting every individual's basic human needs is a fourth. Feudalism rocks at the first one, but sucks on the latter three, and capitalism rocks on the middle two, sucks at the first one, and is only marginally better than feudalism on the last. I think a modest "fix" to a system of free exchange can make capitalism better at sustainability without significantly effecting it's ability to be progressive and productive, and at the same time improving its ability to meet basic human needs. I think this "fix" is simply modest and periodic wealth redistribution.