Jump to content

Economic Systems


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:


You could theoretically have a functioning capitalist system with sustained zero capital growth, if the system also has sustained zero population growth. The idea being that the system would sustain itself purely on portability of assets, and the perpetual need to produce and consume fungible goods.

i think the problem with this speaks for itself, unless i'm misunderstanding what you're saying. 

6 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

The state isn't designed to do shit. Government wasn't created as a conspiracy by rich people to control the wealth, rich people developed because of government. Rich people, also, aren't a bad thing, the only bad thing is if poverty exists, and rich people should be the first targets of the state to minimize poverty. As to the state's purpose, that is to enforce the law and provide public services. The breakdown of rule of law will not benefit anyone but the people most equipped to use force, which, newsflash, isn't the Socialists, or minorities.

Again, though, the problem with your argument is that this assumes that this state of affairs will continue indefinitely. The less public services there are, the more discontent there will be. The more discontent there is, the more pressure there will be for more public services. Etc.

- uh no one is talking about conspiracies, i'm not into that shit either.  not talking about "rich people" either, i'm saying the state protects private property and protects the interests of people who own the means of production at the expense of people who are coerced into renting their labour. nation states in the modern form didn't really exist before capitalism, they arose as a means to enforce private property ownership, which isn't a natural thing. 

- this is partially true, but i don't think this is deterministic.  single payer healthcare has wide support in the us, but it isn't going to be passed anytime soon.  ultimately the people who have undemocratic control of the our healthcare system, aka the american medical association, pharmaceutical/insurance lobbyists, have power here, not people.  i don't think capitalism is really capable of solving problems like environmental sustainability, mass income inequality and poverty, and allowing people to realize their true potential. 

Edited by Radiant head
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours ago, Radiant head said:

- uh no one is talking about conspiracies, i'm not into that shit either.  not talking about "rich people" either, i'm saying the state protects private property and protects the interests of people who own the means of production at the expense of people who are coerced into renting their labour. nation states in the modern form didn't really exist before capitalism, they arose as a means to enforce private property ownership, which isn't a natural thing. 

 

Well I'm not a fan of the modern ethno-nationstate either, but for different reasons. I do agree that it protects the property of the rich, but I would argue that it isn't at the expense of the poor, or at least more at the expense of them than what an attempt at an Anarcho-Syndicalist society would do. Rule of law is fundamentally the most beneficial to the weakest members of society, because they have the least means to defend themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capitalism is an exceedingly effective form of society because it takes advantage of human nature. Greed, desire, competitiveness, among many others. in a capitalist society all of these things breed innovation and promote growth. It forces people to take action to achieve what they want, and that is how things get done. Most of the luxuries you take for granted you can thank capitalism for. The main flaw with capitalism isn't so much what was mentioned, but rather that it easily falls in to corporatism. While corporatism's effectiveness can be debated, it is not in favor of the average person just trying to get by.

Socialism fails because it actively works against human nature. It goes under the premise that everyone is willing to "pitch in their fair share" (for lack of a better term, I am trying to keep it short). The problem is humans do not want to do stuff that doesn't benefit them, or someone close to them (whether family, close friend, spouse, etc.). This stagnates progress and innovation and will eventually collapse. That's why socialism works wonders in a small-scale environment, such as a household, but is an utter disaster large-scale.

Communism is basically socialism on steroids...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

The main flaw with capitalism isn't so much what was mentioned, but rather that it easily falls in to corporatism.

...Explain...

I agree with pretty much everything else you posted. I'm iffy on this part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2017 at 3:28 PM, Camus The Dark Knight said:

Capitalism is an exceedingly effective form of society because it takes advantage of human nature. Greed, desire, competitiveness, among many others. in a capitalist society all of these things breed innovation and promote growth. It forces people to take action to achieve what they want, and that is how things get done. Most of the luxuries you take for granted you can thank capitalism for. The main flaw with capitalism isn't so much what was mentioned, but rather that it easily falls in to corporatism. While corporatism's effectiveness can be debated, it is not in favor of the average person just trying to get by.

Socialism fails because it actively works against human nature. It goes under the premise that everyone is willing to "pitch in their fair share" (for lack of a better term, I am trying to keep it short). The problem is humans do not want to do stuff that doesn't benefit them, or someone close to them (whether family, close friend, spouse, etc.). This stagnates progress and innovation and will eventually collapse. That's why socialism works wonders in a small-scale environment, such as a household, but is an utter disaster large-scale.

Communism is basically socialism on steroids...

Socialism need Capitalism to feed its mouth, without Capitalism, Socialism  cannot become Socialism.

Let me give you an example, the romhacking community.

Without their daily jobs, they can't pay for their daily food, thus they can't contribute anything to the community for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2017 at 2:39 PM, Shoblongoo said:

...Explain...

I agree with pretty much everything else you posted. I'm iffy on this part. 

Corporatism is when, in effect, things are run by a few large organizations (usually corporations, hence the name), it usually results in a corporate oligarchy form of government which the US nearly is now due to how lobbying works (though that is a discussion for another time).

The reason capitalism makes this easier to reach is because due to it's competitive nature there is the possibility of crushing all opposition in your field, whether it be agriculture, media, etc. and forming what is known as a monopoly. When each field is monopolized by a single company, those select few companies in effect run everything forming a corporate oligarchy and corporatism form of government. It should go without saying, but this is only beneficial to those in charge (or those close to them) of those organizations. While the average person is economically enslaved to them.

Many capitalistic countries have laws or safeguards against this, often breaking up monopolies (the Bell Telephone Company probably being the most famous, happened in 1984), though they are by no means perfect as many large companies often partake in controlled opposition to get around this, such as Intel with AMD. Intel is pretty much a step ahead of AMD at any given time, but suppresses their products until AMD catches up so AMD keeps a share of the market, therefor Intel will not monopolize processors and get split up in to smaller companies. While this isn't ideal for anyone other then the company itself and investors, it's better then no protection.

 

I apologize for the late response, I have been busy. I hope that answered your question since I am not 100% sure what you meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the "human nature" argument makes no sense tbh.  humans don't have a fixed, genetically hard coded affinity for capitalism, capitalism just promotes those aspects, which is if anything an indictment of it as a system.  an economic system that promotes the human desire for cooperation would be so much more efficient in meeting everyone's needs tbh. 

that's not even getting into capitalism's inevitability of forming monopolies and oligarchies.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capitalism: System founded on competition and profit. Thus, unequality, which is inherent to the system and necessary for its sustenance. Best system to generate wealth, terrible in its distribution. Suited to human nature.

Socialism: System founded on equality. However, it requires existing without any competition whatsoever as well as complete cooperation of all individuals within (even against their will). Therefore, easy to corrupt. Antithesis of human nature.

Edited by Cerberus87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cerberus87 said:

Capitalism: System founded on competition and profit. Thus, unequality, which is inherent to the system and necessary for its sustenance. Best system to generate wealth, terrible in its distribution. Suited to human nature.

Socialism: System founded on equality. However, it requires existing without any competition whatsoever as well as complete cooperation of all individuals within (even against their will). Therefore, easy to corrupt. Antithesis of human nature.

Don't worry, we'll soon be living in a socialism society with another name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hanhnn said:

Don't worry, we'll soon be living in a socialism society with another name.

All the rights you have in our capitalist society are thanks to socialism.

Edited by Cerberus87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/7/2017 at 1:37 AM, Camus The Dark Knight said:

Corporatism is when, in effect, things are run by a few large organizations (usually corporations, hence the name), it usually results in a corporate oligarchy form of government which the US nearly is now due to how lobbying works (though that is a discussion for another time).

The reason capitalism makes this easier to reach is because due to it's competitive nature there is the possibility of crushing all opposition in your field, whether it be agriculture, media, etc. and forming what is known as a monopoly. When each field is monopolized by a single company, those select few companies in effect run everything forming a corporate oligarchy and corporatism form of government. It should go without saying, but this is only beneficial to those in charge (or those close to them) of those organizations. While the average person is economically enslaved to them.

Many capitalistic countries have laws or safeguards against this, often breaking up monopolies (the Bell Telephone Company probably being the most famous, happened in 1984), though they are by no means perfect as many large companies often partake in controlled opposition to get around this, such as Intel with AMD. Intel is pretty much a step ahead of AMD at any given time, but suppresses their products until AMD catches up so AMD keeps a share of the market, therefor Intel will not monopolize processors and get split up in to smaller companies. While this isn't ideal for anyone other then the company itself and investors, it's better then no protection.

 

I apologize for the late response, I have been busy. I hope that answered your question since I am not 100% sure what you meant.

okay...that makes sense...

Mostly agree with everything you posted there.

Disagree that capitalism makes it EASIER to get to an undesirable system of oligarchy, such that this is a disadvantage of capitalism when weighed against the alternative of socialism.

Oligarchy in socialism is just rule by political monopoly rather than rule by corporate monopoly. But the effect is the same (i.e. a handful of elite special interests acting to promote and protect their own wealth, to the detriment of the general public). But it is a problem to which socialist systems are no less prone. 

And whereas a well-regulated capitalist system can, as you say, mitigate the moral hazards of corporate oligarchy through antitrust law and forced break-up of monopoly powers. Breaking a political monopoly is a much trickier thing.  (See North Korea) 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- this is partially true, but i don't think this is deterministic.  single payer healthcare has wide support in the us, but it isn't going to be passed anytime soon.  ultimately the people who have undemocratic control of the our healthcare system, aka the american medical association, pharmaceutical/insurance lobbyists, have power here, not people.  i don't think capitalism is really capable of solving problems like environmental sustainability, mass income inequality and poverty, and allowing people to realize their true potential.


Your post is interesting generally, but I am curious about people who are involved with the american medical association and pharmaceutical industry, and why you single them out. I'm not sure what's most responsible for pollution, but that makes me a bit nervous (I'll retire years from now, if ever, and the country will no longer be beautiful). I just find it weird to think the health industry covers everything. Is healthcare the issue that makes them have unequal power (in your opinion)? In other words, what about all these other institutions people find themselves in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2017 at 11:56 AM, Shoblongoo said:

Oligarchy in socialism is just rule by political monopoly rather than rule by corporate monopoly. But the effect is the same (i.e. a handful of elite special interests acting to promote and protect their own wealth, to the detriment of the general public). But it is a problem to which socialist systems are no less prone. 
 

uh no, socialism is the movement to abolish these things

4 hours ago, Professor Groeteschele said:

 


Your post is interesting generally, but I am curious about people who are involved with the american medical association and pharmaceutical industry, and why you single them out. I'm not sure what's most responsible for pollution, but that makes me a bit nervous (I'll retire years from now, if ever, and the country will no longer be beautiful). I just find it weird to think the health industry covers everything. Is healthcare the issue that makes them have unequal power (in your opinion)? In other words, what about all these other institutions people find themselves in.

no healthcare is just one example of how you can't really have a true political democracy when the economy is undemocratically owned by oligarchs.  i mention the ama and pharmaceutical industry to just briefly allude to how the healthcare industry is run in the country, and how it's run by people whose interests are the opposite of the interests of working class people who need affordable health coverage. 

environmental issues are just super bleak tbh, it's kind of hard to even talk about.  i think as long as oil has such a firm grip on the us government there's never going to be anything remotely adequate to address climate change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2017 at 8:16 PM, Radiant head said:

the "human nature" thing is a weird combination of pseudoscience and ideological make believe tbh

Pure socialism won't work because one person's idea of self preservation could actually be more along the lines of greed. There will always be those with more money and more power because ambition and greed drive society. The only way to come close to socialism is to make sure that the people with the will to be better than everyone else are kept in check and don't end up harming the general public.

Edited by Hylian Air Force
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small point of correction--the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry owns the American healthcare system (the former being the reason why we have this convoluted scheme of intermediary financing as a barrier to access; the latter being the reason why we have permissive use of "side effects may include discomfort, severe bodily injury, and death" pills for everything from muscle cramps to unhappy thoughts, but hit a bong and the law says you've committed the "crime"  of unlawful use of a controlled dangerous substance).  

The AMA doesn't do fuck-all. 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2017 at 9:13 PM, Hylian Air Force said:

Pure socialism won't work because one person's idea of self preservation could actually be more along the lines of greed. There will always be those with more money and more power because ambition and greed drive society. The only way to come close to socialism is to make sure that the people with the will to be better than everyone else are kept in check and don't end up harming the general public.

I think this is only true as long as you have a system that necessitates greed or self preservation.  but socialism isn't a state of affairs to be implemented, it's the real movement that seeks to end that kind of exploitation.

On 6/14/2017 at 9:15 PM, Shoblongoo said:

The AMA doesn't do fuck-all. 

no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...