Crunch

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Deckard

For my part, it's not about being for or against capitalism - but how much fairness and equality we want to cede to it, which I think is what you're saying anyway.

You fucking nailed it, decks. you can have the super fantastic economic model #1 implemented, where on paper rainbows and daisy chains are meant to spontaneously occur across the land and it could still turn into a jack boot in the face without a strong foundation of ethics.

My favorite flavor is the free market. But I'd rather live in a strongly ethical communist regime over a dehumanizing and corrupt capitalist system anyday.

Nobody fucking talks about this. But I swear to god there's some nobel prizes in economics to be awarded if someone can scientifically quantify the importance of ethics to the success and wellbeing of an economic model.

[BeautifulBurnout]

I have a problem with the presumptions that:

a) "the market" and "supply and demand" exist almost as if they were natural laws, like the law of gravity. They are not. There is no such thing as a free market in real terms, in the same way as there has never been any such thing as communism in real terms. Neither have been practised - only bastardised substitute systems loosely based on the concepts; and

b) the capitalist system is the only system that would afford us a decent standard of living. It affords a decent standard of living to a relatively small minority of the earth's population, and does this by the exploitation of the larger majority - with so much wealth around, how come so many people are still living in poverty. I am fortunate that I fall into the relatively wealthy minority, but that doesn't mean that I have to accept that it is the only way to do things.

Bas_I_Am has a point, and he is entitled to put his point across. But, firstly, he seems not to be able to envisage a system where he wouldn't need to pay for his kids' college or healthcare and meds as it could be provided for by, for example a state-funded system.

Secondly I am disappointed that he chooses to revert to flame and insult to make his statement. That is the sort of ranting we see on political blogs, but it does nothing here except alienate people, imo.

That stance, for me, is the personification of Western Capitalism - arrogance, cock-suredness and an inability to entertain the notion of any other workable economic structure, perhaps for fear that somebody else might have a good point too, which undermines their belief system.

So let's rant and insult and belittle instead of engaging, cos that way we don't need to even consider what the other person is saying, much less question our own views...

[King of Snake]

blaming all of western culture's failings on capitalism is a bit of stretch imo. Excess is part of human nature. It becomes a problem when people are no longer held accountable for their actions. That's more of a cultural problem than a purely capitalistic one I think.

[Strangelet]

I have problems with presumptions that

1) the free market is inherently and exploitative system, more so than socialism. A free market is a negative system in the sense that, while socialism relies on a government maintained apparatus, free market strives for the removal of it. That is not to say the free market == anarchy. It simply reduces the role of government to an objective referee, enforcing rules that aren't meant to favor any particular lobby.

2) the free market == laissez-faire capitalism. The free market is meant to be the freedom of minds to develop whatever system they choose from the grass roots level. Several instances of strong micro-socialistic organizations have existed in the most lawless sections of the U.S. in the 19th century. See law of consecration.

3) capitalism, not colonialism or mercantilism (strong government/business partnership. See east india company) is what has kept the 3rd world in such a shit mess. Seriously people. lets look at this a little closer. You got coke and paris hilton on one hand, British Petroleum on the other. who's getting the prize here?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by King of Snake

blaming all of western culture's failings on capitalism is a bit of stretch imo. Excess is part of human nature. It becomes a problem when people are no longer held accountable for their actions. That's more of a cultural problem than a purely capitalistic one I think.

Well said.

[bas_I_am]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

Nobody fucking talks about this. But I swear to god there's some nobel prizes in economics to be awarded if someone can scientifically quantify the importance of ethics to the success and well being of an economic model.

1994 John Nash (A Beautiful Mind) and John Harsanyi

[King of Snake]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

I have a problem with the presumptions that:
Bas_I_Am has a point, and he is entitled to put his point across. But, firstly, he seems not to be able to envisage a system where he wouldn't need to pay for his kids' college or healthcare and meds as it could be provided for by, for example a state-funded system.

The idea that it's "provided by the state" and therefore you don't have to pay for it is misleading. There's no such thing as a free lunch, you're still paying for all that stuff through more taxation.
(though I'm sure you realise this )

btw about the free market and why are there still so many people living in poverty: well for one thing if european governments wouldn't be working against the free market by subsidising their own agricultural industries, there would be a lot more opportunity to make money in the third world by exporting food to europe. If there was a true free market the situation would probably stabalise at some point. Of course that would mean less wealth for us so we're not actually prepared to take that step.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

1994 John Nash (A Beautiful Mind) and John Harsanyi

game theory is not exactly what I had in mind but yeah that's definitely on the subject.

[bas_I_am]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

I have problems with presumptions that
1) the free market is inherently and exploitative system

Actually, the problem is that its shortcomings are NOT inherent. You and I could participate in a closed capitalistic economy, operate in a completely ethical manner and still make independent decisions that are detrimental to the economy. Or we could make other decisions, still ethical, that are good for our economy. There is no causal relationship between our decisions, our economy and the utlimate outcome.

Originally Posted by Strangelet

2) the free market == laissez-faire capitalism. The free market is meant to be the freedom of minds to develop whatever system they choose from the grass roots level.

Actually, free-market means that I am free to sell my/buy you property for what ever price I can get. Nothing more nothing less.

Originally Posted by Strangelet

3) capitalism, not colonialism or mercantilism (strong government/business partnership. See east india company)

No, capitalism + avarice

Laissez-faire capitalism can but not always lead to a suboptimal use of resources. But this does not mean capitalism is inherently bad.

Again I refer you to the work of Nash, Selten, Harsanyi

[Rog]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

I have a problem with the presumptions that:

a) "the market" and "supply and demand" exist almost as if they were natural laws, like the law of gravity. They are not. There is no such thing as a free market in real terms, in the same way as there has never been any such thing as communism in real terms. Neither have been practised - only bastardised substitute systems loosely based on the concepts; and

b) the capitalist system is the only system that would afford us a decent standard of living. It affords a decent standard of living to a relatively small minority of the earth's population, and does this by the exploitation of the larger majority - with so much wealth around, how come so many people are still living in poverty. I am fortunate that I fall into the relatively wealthy minority, but that doesn't mean that I have to accept that it is the only way to do things.

Bas_I_Am has a point, and he is entitled to put his point across. But, firstly, he seems not to be able to envisage a system where he wouldn't need to pay for his kids' college or healthcare and meds as it could be provided for by, for example a state-funded system.

Secondly I am disappointed that he chooses to revert to flame and insult to make his statement. That is the sort of ranting we see on political blogs, but it does nothing here except alienate people, imo.

That stance, for me, is the personification of Western Capitalism - arrogance, cock-suredness and an inability to entertain the notion of any other workable economic structure, perhaps for fear that somebody else might have a good point too, which undermines their belief system.

So let's rant and insult and belittle instead of engaging, cos that way we don't need to even consider what the other person is saying, much less question our own views...

more eloquently put than i ever could...........