Capitalism: Do you believe in it? (1 Viewer)

[Orwell]

Re: Taxpayers fund private school orchestra pits and swimming pools

Capitalism promotes innovation which in turn advocates alternative means. It's writers, such as those from the Guardian (of course!), who can't differentiate between capitalism and corporatism that gives pure laissez-faire capitalism a bad rap. It should be made aware to everyone that government intervention =/= capitalism, however, many people seem to believe that capitalism is in existence today. Thing is many people condemn capitalism for the environmental degradation that's going on today, which to me, doesn't make sense.

Capitalism - defined as production for profit for a competitive market - is an economic system in which the private profit-maximization motif lies at the core of its virtues and maladies. Its virtues are embedded in its impressive productivity and growth rates. The profit-maximization logic induces the producers to specialize in what they are best at producing and invest in the latest technologies to increase productivity and efficiency.

The profit-maximization motif also provides incentives for entrepreneurs to increase productivity on a large scale to optimize profit. The same profit-maximization motif, too, enables economic agents to allocate resources in such ways that are conducive to growth and dynamism. Compelled by the competitive force of the market, firms find it rational to invest in cost-cutting technologies, which allow them to resist the pressure that comes for their peers in the marketplace. This altogether leads to a virtuous cycle of efficiency, productivity, and optimized profit.

Examples of success in terms of growth rates are numerous in the modern history of capitalism. The massive industrial development of England in the 18th and 19th centuries, the United States as early capitalist developers prior to the two devastating World Wars, the remarkable growth of rates western Europe (i.e. Germany, France, Italy,) in the post-war era followed by Japan in the last half a century, the rise of the East Asian Tigers and, of course more recently, the Chinese leviathan are the conspicuous examples of stunning economic development in contemporary capitalism.

So what is the problem? After all, if capitalism has been very successful in projecting itself as the engine of productivity and growth, why should it be blamed for environmental disasters? It is herein that the very core dynamics of capitalism that generate its virtues, also cause its maladies. Capitalism requires endless growth of production in order to remain stable, raise the standards of living, and produce ample employment for the young and increasing world population.

 

[AmorFati]

Subsidisation of businesses/government officials using unethical means to keep businesses at the top.

Thing is, I don't believe we have a capitalist society nor a mixed economy. Currently, in America and Australia, the system we have in place is a system of corporatism.

How do you demarcate between corporatism and capitalism? Capitalism literally is an economic system predicated upon private property in terms of controlling the means of production. Surely "corporatism" (whatever this means) thus falls under capitalism then?

 

[AmorFati]

Subsidisation of businesses/government officials using unethical means to keep businesses at the top.

Thing is, I don't believe we have a capitalist society nor a mixed economy. Currently, in America and Australia, the system we have in place is a system of corporatism.

The eponymous figure of yer username would be disappointed in you

 

[Orwell]

I know. I love him for his writing, but when it comes to capitalism, Orwell butchered it.

 

[Orwell]

How do you demarcate between corporatism and capitalism? Capitalism literally is an economic system predicated upon private property in terms of controlling the means of production. Surely "corporatism" (whatever this means) thus falls under capitalism then?

Sorry, I didn't see this question originally. Many people do believe they correlate of one is a manifestation or the other, some believe the terms are synonymous, etc... This couldn't be less true, the two are different.

Capitalism - Hands free, no government intervention, laissez-faire, free market.

Corporatism - Government intervention, the employment of unethical means to keep businesses at the top.

Here's something a little more extensive,

Capitalism: Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Politically, it is the system of laissez-faire (freedom). Legally it is a system of objective laws (rule of law as opposed to rule of man). Economically, when such freedom is applied to the sphere of production its result is the free-market.

Free market: an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.

Corporatism: Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/11/explaining-difference-between.html (great article distinguishing the two)

 

[Simorgh]

No. Capitalism and its gross wastefulness, all this idle cash, should be energized to improve lives, to develop human talents, and indeed to finance all these technologies, green technologies, which are absolutely essential for saving planet Earth.

Capitalism and the economic sector has been taking control of the political sphere to such an extent that it is undermining itself, causing economic crisis. Corporate power is increasing, political goods are devaluing, inequality is rising, aggregate demand is falling and CEOs of corporations are too scared to invest the cash of their corporations.

It was not what it used to be until all this corporate money came continuosly flooding our Democracies around the world. Real power doesnt lie with these governments let alone with the people but instead with the Economic sector which has all the power. Capitalism is tearing apart our Democracies, with the various corruption and anomalies associated with it.

I might have not explained it in the best way possible, but their many out there who would agree with me. Just google the Greek Economist and former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis who btw taught for more than a decade at USYD, read his blogs which are so rational and yet also inspirational.

 

[Nailgun]

No. Capitalism and its gross wastefulness, all this idle cash, should be energized to improve lives, to develop human talents, and indeed to finance all these technologies, green technologies, which are absolutely essential for saving planet Earth.

Capitalism and the economic sector has been taking control of the political sphere to such an extent that it is undermining itself, causing economic crisis. Corporate power is increasing, political goods are devaluing, inequality is rising, aggregate demand is falling and CEOs of corporations are too scared to invest the cash of their corporations.

It was not what it used to be until all this corporate money came continuosly flooding our Democracies around the world. Real power doesnt lie with these governments let alone with the people but instead with the Economic sector which has all the power. Capitalism is tearing apart our Democracies, with the various corruption and anomalies associated with it.

I might have not explained it in the best way possible, but their many out there who would agree with me. Just google the Greek Economist and former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis who btw taught for more than a decade at USYD, read his blogs which are so rational and yet also inspirational.

stunning resume

 

[Simorgh]

stunning resume

Mate I am pretty sure he wasn't behind that crisis in Greece, the previous Greek governments were behind that. Don't judge like that, read more about him just like you wont judge a book by its cover. His quite a well spoken and intelligent person. Besides that he isn't the only person, there are surely many economists and political anlaysts out there who share the same views on capitalism.

He was only there for a short while last year only for a mere few months, the Eurogroup were really pissing him off with their own bogus, non viable and undemocratic agendas. He simply resigned because of this. I was following the events quite closely last year.

 

[Nailgun]

Mate I am pretty he wasn't behind that crisis in Greece, the previous Greek governments were behind that. Don't judge like that, read more about him just like you wont judge a book by its cover. His quite a well spoken and intelligent person. Besides that he isn't the only person, there are surely many economists and political anlaysts out there who share the same views on capitalism.

He was only there for a short while last year only for a mere few months, the Eurogroup were really pissing him off with their own bogus, non viable and undemocratic agendas. He simply resigned because of this. I was following the events quite closely last year.

i was kidding ahahah
sorry it was a bit unclear in my post lel

 

[Soulful]

Re: Taxpayers fund private school orchestra pits and swimming pools

No-one opts for an environmentally detrimental business, to assume one would is downright ludicrous. I've stated this before, if businesses desire prosperity in the free market they must show strict adherence to consumer wants and preferences.

lmao

Yes, it is downright ludicrous to believe that businesses don't damage the environment.


I sincerely hope that I have misunderstood what you have said but, while I would love to live in you laissez faire utopia, do you honestly think that consumers care more about the environment than the immediate utility value of what they are consuming. If so wouldn't the automobile industry have gone bankrupt ages ago lol.

Examples of success in terms of growth rates are numerous in the modern history of capitalism. The massive industrial development of England in the 18th and 19th centuries, the United States as early capitalist developers prior to the two devastating World Wars, the remarkable growth of rates western Europe (i.e. Germany, France, Italy,) in the post-war era followed by Japan in the last half a century, the rise of the East Asian Tigers and, of course more recently, the Chinese leviathan are the conspicuous examples of stunning economic development in contemporary capitalism.

Except that none of them were achieved through laissez faire capitalism lol

After all, if capitalism has been very successful in projecting itself as the engine of productivity and growth, why should it be blamed for environmental disasters?

umm, because it caused them

 

[Orwell]

Re: Taxpayers fund private school orchestra pits and swimming pools

Oh my god, I should've known what I was dealing with as soon as The Guardian article popped up. Never trust the Guardian for your daily dose of capitalism, they have retards like Paul Mason writing for them, ignoramus' that give capitalism a bad name. Capitalism doesn't exist as of current, how hard is that to understand? You look everywhere and there's government intervention: leases, taxation, minimum wage, all examples of government intervention thereby rendering our current economic state not one of laissez-faire.

Actually, numerous economists, including Bruno Leone, confirm that the event in question, England's industrial success in the 18th and 19th century was the establishing point of capitalism in the modern times, albeit, Adam Smith did convey its benefits before it's occurrence.

 

[Soulful]

Re: Taxpayers fund private school orchestra pits and swimming pools

Oh my god, I should've known what I was dealing with as soon as The Guardian article popped up. Never trust the Guardian for your daily dose of capitalism, they have retards like Paul Mason writing for them, ignoramus' that give capitalism a bad name. Capitalism doesn't exist as of current, how hard is that to understand? You look everywhere and there's government intervention: leases, taxation, minimum wage, all examples of government intervention thereby rendering our current economic state not one of laissez-faire.

Actually, numerous economists, including Bruno Leone, confirm that the event in question, England's industrial success in the 18th and 19th century was the establishing point of capitalism in the modern times, albeit, Adam Smith did convey its benefits before it's occurrence.

I don't doubt that. Capitalism the way I see it (I suspect we have different definitions for it) is great.

However, the 19th century British economy was no where near what you describe as "laissez faire". Neither was pre-war America, neither were the Asian Tigers and neither is China.

I'm starting to see your point though. Yea sure, hypothetically, a complete "laissez faire" system would be awesome - as would a communist utopia.

But reality sucks.

 

[enoilgam]

As someone who has worked in both the public and private sector, Im in favour of a mixed approach. The private sector exists solely to make profit whereas the public sector exists for social benefit. Both are needed to ensure a healthy society and economy. From what Ive seen, the private sector can and will be irresponsible in it's pursuit for profits, hence why I think their role in important social functions (healthcare, law enforcement, military, education etc) should be limited. However, as the public service does not aim for efficiency/profit, it should minimise it's involvement to mere oversight for other, more profitable areas (telecommunications, transportation etc).

 

[Orwell]

Re: Taxpayers fund private school orchestra pits and swimming pools

I don't doubt that. Capitalism the way I see it (I suspect we have different definitions for it) is great.

However, the 19th century British economy was no where near what you describe as "laissez faire". Neither was pre-war America, neither were the Asian Tigers and neither is China.

I'm starting to see your point though. Yea sure, hypothetically, a complete "laissez faire" system would be awesome - as would a communist utopia.

But reality sucks.

Yeah, thing is, it isn't too late. Rockwell's thirty day theory suggests a smooth transition from our current state into one of capitalism, quiet an amazing read from someone who is an absolute genius when it comes to anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism.

Here it is for everyone to enjoy: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html

I'm still in the middle of Leone's book, 'Capitalism: Opposing viewpoints', I'll get back to you once I'm done with the read.

Edit: Posing this question to saltedwound, what do you consider yourself politically?

 

[AmorFati]

I know. I love him for his writing, but when it comes to capitalism, Orwell butchered it.

Not wanting to digress from the topic at hand too much, but what other literary figures do you like?

 

[Orwell]

Hemingway, T.S Eliot, Faulkner, Joyce, Nabokov (anyone calling him a pedophile, it's just writing, piss off), Salinger, Dahl, Bradbury, Asimov, Dickens, Camus, Steinbeck, Kafka, Ezra Pound, Flannery O'Connor, Oscar Wilde (kind of hate him, Pictures of Dorian Gray was such an arduous read), Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Aldous Huxley, Anthony Burgess, William Golding.

Probably more that I'm forgetting, bear in mind that for some of these people it's only bits and pieces of their literary contributions that I hold dear. Also, this list is not inclusive of writers of capitalism and stuff.

 

[AmorFati]

Hemingway, T.S Eliot, Faulkner, Joyce, Nabokov (anyone calling him a pedophile, it's just writing, piss off), Salinger, Dahl, Bradbury, Asimov, Dickens, Camus, Steinbeck, Kafka, Ezra Pound, Flannery O'Connor, Oscar Wilde (kind of hate him, Pictures of Dorian Gray was such an arduous read), Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Aldous Huxley, Anthony Burgess, William Golding.

Probably more that I'm forgetting, bear in mind that for some of these people it's only bits and pieces of their literary contributions that I hold dear. Also, this list is not inclusive of writers of capitalism and stuff.

Coolios. Some nice taste in here. Quite like several of these literary figures myself.

 

[BandSixFix]

Marxism > Capitalism

 

[Orwell]

Marx had the right idea, but he lost it when it came to actual execution. Capitalism stumps Marxism in terms of both efficiency and productivity subsequently resulting in a better quality of life.

Entfremdung was one of Marx's refutations of capitalism claiming that modernised working resulted in a disconnection between worker and his/her work.

Marx also claimed that capitalists exploited the worker resulting in less pay for the worker, he claimed that capitalism systematically exploits the workers, a theory of value that has been rejected by most economists and economic scholars. However, there is of course, competitive pressure meaning that there needs to be a satisfactory payment in order to maintain the workforce a particular firm has manufactured and to ensure that it retains labor to propel its place within the market, this of course is something I've referenced informally, 'outbidding'. This is why for the most part we should dispel of the minimum wage. Also, if you think capitalism is exploitative, what's the alternative, government and political intervention? The government is responsible for: Subsidisation of businesses, the bailing out of companies, the advantages banks are awarded via the Federal Reserve system etc... all at the expense of ordinary citizens.

Exchanges within an economic system of corporatism are also involuntary meaning that the government holds utmost power and ability. Major businesses are kept at the top via favours made to them by the government at an expense, meaning that those who can afford political influence flourish whereas the ordinary Joe is victimised.

 

[Orwell]

No. Capitalism and its gross wastefulness, all this idle cash, should be energized to improve lives, to develop human talents, and indeed to finance all these technologies, green technologies, which are absolutely essential for saving planet Earth.

Capitalism and the economic sector has been taking control of the political sphere to such an extent that it is undermining itself, causing economic crisis. Corporate power is increasing, political goods are devaluing, inequality is rising, aggregate demand is falling and CEOs of corporations are too scared to invest the cash of their corporations.

It was not what it used to be until all this corporate money came continuosly flooding our Democracies around the world. Real power doesnt lie with these governments let alone with the people but instead with the Economic sector which has all the power. Capitalism is tearing apart our Democracies, with the various corruption and anomalies associated with it.

I might have not explained it in the best way possible, but their many out there who would agree with me. Just google the Greek Economist and former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis who btw taught for more than a decade at USYD, read his blogs which are so rational and yet also inspirational.

Supplant the word capitalism with corporatism. Laissez-faire capitalism is non-existent therefore pure capitalism can't be blamed for today's issues.