"Recovery!" WHAT Recovery??

[BadBoy]

does the US have minimum wage?

 

[JihadJane]

"As an Anglo European white guy from a very long line of white guys, I want to thank all the brown, black, yellow and red people for a marvelous three-century joy ride.

During the past 300 years of the industrial age, as Europeans, and later as Americans, we have managed to consume infinitely more than we ever produced, thanks to colonialism, crooked deals with despotic potentates and good old gunboats and grapeshot.

Yes, we have lived, and still live, extravagant lifestyles far above the rest of you. And so, my sincere thanks to all of you folks around the world working in sweatshops, or living on two bucks a day, even though you sit on vast oil deposits."

more

'Joe Bageant: Our Plunder of Nature Will End Up Killing Capitalism and Our Obscene Lifestyles

To anyone who is paying attention, things look doomed. Fortunately for American capitalism, nobody is paying attention. They never have.'

 

[Nosi]

What results has capitalism produced?

A world on the brink of ecological catastrophe and economic collapse.

Shall we keep trying capitalism?

What economical system do you propose?

 

[Chaos]

What economical system do you propose?

Magicfairyism - the system where anything that is needed just pops into existence.

 

[ideogram]

I don't think capitalism should be a moral issue. That turns economics into religion. Then people make simplistic emotional arguments like you can never have too much freedom or too little taxes, and that pure capitalism is ideal. I would rather economics be more like science. My belief in capitalism is based on the fact that we performed an experiment that determined that capitalism is superior to communism. I don't care about arguments from first principles. I want to see experimental results. I don't care about doctrinal purity. I want to know what works.

You're childishly trying to establish the tired, trite false dichotomy of capitalism vs. communism.

I don't think I was.

The experiments are done and the results are in. Full Laissez-faire Capitalism fares no better then Communism. What does work is well regulated capitalism where government acts to contain monopolies, block/remove externalities and focus competition of tools and techniques that are more productive and efficient rather then allowing companies to compete on the basis of who can pay it’s workers the least

Indeed I was saying that only religious zealots argue in favor of full laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism must be regulated by government. Social programs have their place.

 

[ideogram]

Discussion of morals are still relevant for atheists and are very much in the realm of science.

I didn't say atheists have no morals.

I do not believe that science has anything to say about morals.

Take GM Foods - is it immoral not to use them to save people from starvation, not to mention the cloning issue, development of the atomic bomb etc etc.

Good questions. But science won't answer them.

For capitilism to work, you will always have unemployment and poverty IMO.

I think this is true.

I would state the argument as follows:

As far as we know, in order to achieve economic growth we must accept unemployment and poverty. Whether it is moral to do so, or rather how much unemployment and poverty we are willing to tolerate in exchange for how much economic growth, is a separate question.

But to suggest capitilism has no moral question I cant agree with.

Capitalism does raise moral questions.

 

[TraneWreck]

I don't think I was.

The why was this relevant:

My belief in capitalism is based on the fact that we performed an experiment that determined that capitalism is superior to communism.

That's a false dichotomy. A or B, not B, therefore A.

But there are a wide range of options. Proving communism wrong doesn't make capitalism right any more than showing the failure of mercantilism supports European fuedalism. It's not a bipolar system.

And one could argue that capitalism has been shown unsuccessful by the mere fact that there are no purely capitalist economies.

 

[ideogram]

That's a false dichotomy. A or B, not B, therefore A.
:
:
It's not a bipolar system.

And one could argue that capitalism has been shown unsuccessful by the mere fact that there are no purely capitalist economies.

You seem to be using "capitalism" to mean "pure capitalism". This is why you see a dichotomy in my words.

When I say "capitalism" I mean a general reliance on free markets, in contrast to the old Soviet command economies. Therefore I would say all Western European countries are capitalist, although not to the the same degree as the US.

 

[Roadtoad]

Well, I can't speak for communists, but I notice that every time there's a severe economic crises extremely non-capitalist measures are required to stabilize the system.

I don't know if that's the "end" of capitalism, but it sure means capitalism isn't sufficient.

I always hate that false dichotomy. There are some things for which capitalist incentives work really well (cereal choices, inexpensive technologies...etc.) and there are some things it fails at miserably (health care, self-regulation...).

The neat thing is that we get to consciously make choices about how to set up the system. Eliminate the market freedom of health insurance companies necessarily results in a liberation of small businesses and employees.

I agree with a lot of this. The belief in an "all or nothing" style of economics is a mistake, and history seems to have shown that the degree of government involvement tends to wax and wane over a very long cycle. It's not an easy thing to predict, what's needed and what isn't.

It does, however, tend to indicate from what I've read over the years that the most stable systems place greater emphasis on small businesses run locally -- no, franchises don't really count -- and less of an emphasis on megacorporations who aren't accountable to anyone.

 

[TraneWreck]

You seem to be using "capitalism" to mean "pure capitalism". This is why you see a dichotomy in my words.

When I say "capitalism" I mean a general reliance on free markets, in contrast to the old Soviet command economies. Therefore I would say all Western European countries are capitalist, although not to the the same degree as the US.

Ah, ok, fair enough. Let me point out, however, that we're getting into very cloudy territory. Do the nationalized health care systems of Europe count as a victory for capitalism or communism. If by "capitalism" you don't mean pure laissez-faire, then it seems unfair to hold up a model of pure communism.

I would also point out that a great deal of the social programs advanced in Europe (as well as the US) were done so precisely to correct for the often immoral results of capitalism.

Labor Unions didn't emerge for fun, they developed of necessity to protect workers from abuse. Social Security and Medicare were put in place because capitalism, even the non-laissez faire, tempered version of America in the 50's-60's, was not sufficient to take care of retired people.

I consider our culture to be more moral in so far as we decided to tax ourselves to care for old people--thus, a moral improvement over capitalism.

 

[ideogram]

Ah, ok, fair enough. Let me point out, however, that we're getting into very cloudy territory. Do the nationalized health care systems of Europe count as a victory for capitalism or communism. If by "capitalism" you don't mean pure laissez-faire, then it seems unfair to hold up a model of pure communism.

I would also point out that a great deal of the social programs advanced in Europe (as well as the US) were done so precisely to correct for the often immoral results of capitalism.

Labor Unions didn't emerge for fun, they developed of necessity to protect workers from abuse. Social Security and Medicare were put in place because capitalism, even the non-laissez faire, tempered version of America in the 50's-60's, was not sufficient to take care of retired people.

I consider our culture to be more moral in so far as we decided to tax ourselves to care for old people--thus, a moral improvement over capitalism.

I was making a specific point that I believe free markets are useful but not morally superior. I will try to avoid the words "capitalist" and "communist" from now on since their meaning is not clear.

As to my other opinions, I would say nationalized health care is a good thing. I think labor unions have done a lot of good but they became too powerful and now the pendulum is swinging back. I don't know how Social Security and Medicare can be sustained. None of these opinions are based on economics or science.

 

[Travis]

Magicfairyism - the system where anything that is needed just pops into existence.

That was pretty much what the The Venus Project proposed.....then they wondered why nobody took it seriously.

 

[stilicho]

It does, however, tend to indicate from what I've read over the years that the most stable systems place greater emphasis on small businesses run locally -- no, franchises don't really count -- and less of an emphasis on megacorporations who aren't accountable to anyone.

What does this mean exactly? Small businesses are usually the first to fail in any kind of downturn. A mere blip can force them into ruin. Someone here pointed out the experiences of the family-run logging businesses on a TV reality show and their paper-thin margin of solvency.

Small businesses are typically unable to change quickly enough to take advantage of technological improvements. They are also susceptible to minor fluctuations in the supply chain.

I read a Harvard paper (can't locate it right now) indicating that a drop in business bankruptcies in the past two years was partly due to small businesses blurring the lines between personal and small business finances. The small business was the one causing the bankruptcy but it was recorded as a personal bankruptcy in public statistics. I can try to locate the paper for you if you'd like.

 

[Roadtoad]

What does this mean exactly? Small businesses are usually the first to fail in any kind of downturn. A mere blip can force them into ruin. Someone here pointed out the experiences of the family-run logging businesses on a TV reality show and their paper-thin margin of solvency.

Small businesses are typically unable to change quickly enough to take advantage of technological improvements. They are also susceptible to minor fluctuations in the supply chain.

I read a Harvard paper (can't locate it right now) indicating that a drop in business bankruptcies in the past two years was partly due to small businesses blurring the lines between personal and small business finances. The small business was the one causing the bankruptcy but it was recorded as a personal bankruptcy in public statistics. I can try to locate the paper for you if you'd like.

I'd like to see that. Any better info than I have would help.

What I'm saying, though, is that over the very long term, meaning over the course of a century, at least, a society which has a strong base built of small businesses, and that is supportive of same, tends to be more stable. It does NOT mean that businesses don't fail; they do. It simply means the society as a whole tends to be more stable because wealth is distributed among many, rather than being concentrated in the hands of a few, a few who might not necessarily be particularly competent in handling it.

 

[BadBoy]

I didn't say atheists have no morals.

I do not believe that science has anything to say about morals.



Good questions. But science won't answer them.



I think this is true.

I would state the argument as follows:

As far as we know, in order to achieve economic growth we must accept unemployment and poverty. Whether it is moral to do so, or rather how much unemployment and poverty we are willing to tolerate in exchange for how much economic growth, is a separate question.

Capitalism does raise moral questions.

You implied this when you said:

I don't think capitalism should be a moral issue. That turns economics into religion.

There are moral questions concerning the consequences of capitalism, and that doesnt make it a religion. (I get a bit, well, tired and emotional when anyone suggests that morality is exclusively the domain of religion - oh well - off topic)

I do not believe that science has anything to say about morals.

I didnt say that science has anything to say about morals, but that it raises moral questions. So by suggesting that by we apply capitalism on a purely scientific basis does not escape us from the moral questions.

Capitalism does raise moral questions.

I think we are in agreement. I probably just misunderstood your post.

 

[BadBoy]

I'd like to see that. Any better info than I have would help.

What I'm saying, though, is that over the very long term, meaning over the course of a century, at least, a society which has a strong base built of small businesses, and that is supportive of same, tends to be more stable. It does NOT mean that businesses don't fail; they do. It simply means the society as a whole tends to be more stable because wealth is distributed among many, rather than being concentrated in the hands of a few, a few who might not necessarily be particularly competent in handling it.

I wonder if thats true...

I do remember, a long time ago - in the UK, where credit would be decided on by the bank manager in your local branch.

Now, the banks (in the UK at least), are huge faceless Ministries with decisions turned out of a computer.

"computer says noooo... - little Britain"


there appears to be no management of investments at a local level anymore. I guess this makes it easier for the large supermarkets to move in because business is done between large banks and large corporations.

Is it still true that in the USA small local banks that are interested in the regions local business

 

[Tippit]

I would be one of the ones who argues that profit maximization is moral.

The maximization of profit is moral to the degree that it doesn't involve coercion, fraud, or the externalization of costs. Greed, despite Gordon Gekko, isn't good.

 

[Tippit]

What results has capitalism produced?

A world on the brink of ecological catastrophe and economic collapse.

Shall we keep trying capitalism?

Capitalism isn't the problem.

A usurious banking and monetary system, runaway big government and corrupt politicians, despotic multinational corporations and corporate "personhood" are the problems. These aren't endemic to capitalism anymore than theft and fraud are. The problem isn't the idea of indivudials producing goods and services to sell in a free market, the problem is that banks, governments, and corporations have conspired to make the market unfree. We need government to prevent fraud, theft, and looting, not protect and conspire with the very biggest banks and corporations in order to institutionalize it.

If you campaign for "socialism" with the idea to replace a truly free market (which doesn't exist), then you advocate for your own enslavement.

 

[JihadJane]

What economical system do you propose?

I was observing the unfolding disaster wrought by capitalism, not proposing an "economical system".

Who knows what will emerge from the ashes?

Capitalism isn't the problem.

The problem with capitalism is that it is dependent on perpetual growth to function "healthily" within an ecosystem that has limits to growth.

 

[Tippit]

The problem with capitalism is that it is dependent on perpetual growth to function "healthily" within an ecosystem that has limits to growth.

That isn't a problem with capitalism, it's a problem of human life on earth. If you're worried about the earth, it was here before and will probably be here long after we're gone. Thus, the issue is really about sustainable, ecologically friendly growth, which doesn't threaten our life on earth, and which is in balance with a decent standard of living for everyone. If your position is that we need elites to dictate how and what we consume, then you will find no shortage of those who would tyrannically rule us under the auspices of conserving the earth.

If you're a critic of the system that causes us to buy houses and drive cars that we really can't afford, only to upgrade and replace them at whim, or to spend our money on technological baubles and trinkets, then I share your criticism. This is the result of a fiat money system that produces endless credit, causing malinvestment, recession, and depression. The key to sustainable economic growth lies in monetary reform. Ecologically sustainable growth is a political issue. Beware of charlatans who claim to be protectors of the environment, when all they really want is an excuse to rule over us.