Support NeoGAF

[Lime]

Jason Hickel and Martin Kirk wrote this article for the Fast Company. I think the economic analysis is absolutely essential for left-oriented people, where issues like climate change, racism, sexism, immigration, globalized exploitation, sweatshop factories, huge income inequalities, etc, are interlinked with the logic of capitalism.

It’s not only young voters who feel this way. A YouGov poll in 2015 found that 64% of Britons believe that capitalism is unfair, that it makes inequality worse. Even in the U.S., it’s as high as 55%. In Germany, a solid 77% are skeptical of capitalism. Meanwhile, a full three-quarters of people in major capitalist economies believe that big businesses are basically corrupt.

Why do people feel this way? Probably not because they deny the abundant material benefits of modern life that many are able to enjoy. Or because they want to travel back in time and live in the U.S.S.R. It’s because they realize—either consciously or at some gut level—that there’s something fundamentally flawed about a system that has a prime directive to churn nature and humans into capital, and do it more and more each year, regardless of the costs to human well-being and to the environment we depend on.

Because let’s be clear: That’s what capitalism is, at its root. That is the sum total of the plan. We can see this embodied in the imperative to grow GDP, everywhere, year on year, at a compound rate, even though we know that GDP growth, on its own, does nothing to reduce poverty or to make people happier or healthier. Global GDP has grown 630% since 1980, and in that same time, by some measures, inequality, poverty, and hunger have all risen.

We also see this plan in the idea that corporations have a fiduciary duty to grow their stock value for the sake of shareholder returns, which prevents even well-meaning CEO’s from voluntarily doing anything good—like increasing wages or reducing pollution—that might compromise their bottom line.

Just look at the recent case involving American Airlines. Earlier this year, CEO Doug Parker tried to raise his employees salaries to correct for “years of incredibly difficult times” suffered by his employees, only to be slapped down by Wall Street. The day he announced the raise, the company’s shares fell 5.8%. This is not a case of an industry on the brink, fighting for survival, and needing to make hard decisions. On the contrary, airlines have been raking in profits. But the gains are seen as the natural property of the investor class. This is why JP Morgan criticized the wage increase as a “wealth transfer of nearly $1 billion” to workers. How dare they?

What becomes clear here is that ours is a system that is programmed to subordinate life to the imperative of profit.

For a startling example of this, consider the horrifying idea to breed brainless chickens and grow them in huge vertical farms, Matrix-style, attached to tubes and electrodes and stacked one on top of the other, all for the sake of extracting profit out of their bodies as efficiently as possible. Or take the Grenfell Tower disaster in London, where dozens of people were incinerated because the building company chose to use flammable panels in order to save a paltry £5,000 (around $6,500). Over and over again, profit trumps life.

It all proceeds from the same deep logic. It’s the same logic that sold lives for profit in the Atlantic slave trade, it’s the logic that gives us sweatshops and oil spills, and it’s the logic that is right now pushing us headlong toward ecological collapse and climate change.

There’s something fundamentally flawed about a system that has a prime directive to churn nature and humans into capital.

Lots more in the article, including solutions and suggestions on what to do: https://www.fastcompany.com/40439316/are-you-ready-to-consider-that-capitalism-is-the-real-problem

 

[Skellig Gra]

The problem isn't capitalism. It's human nature. There is no perfect system. Is the U.K. Government so awesome that you want it controlling all conmerce?

 

[Captain Smoker]

Global GDP has grown 630% since 1980, and in that same time, by some measures, inequality, poverty, and hunger have all risen.

Isn't the opposite true?

 

[Sinfamy]

Chrony capitalism where the rich influence the political process.
Want to prevent it? Bring out the guillotine.

 

[Desperado]

The problem isn't capitalism. It's human nature. There is no perfect system. Is the U.K. Government so awesome that you want it controlling all conmerce?

Human nature shapes society, but society also shapes human nature.

 

[barber]

Isn't the opposite true?

I mean by all shows global poverty and hunger have decreased a lot in the last decades, maybe it is the focus on western countries?

 

[Kayhan]

No because the happiest, highest ranked on progress and living standards, the least corrupt, countries are all capitalist.

 

[eizarus]

I think one of the biggest issues, socially speaking, is the worst by-product of capitalism: consumerism. It's not difficult to see it has a negative effect on people and that our current societies (arguably the world) is gripped by it.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Isn't the opposite true?

That's why the author used weasel words to set it up.

 

[KingSnake]

There seems to be an intentional confusion in the article between capitalism as an economic ideology and the social systems of different countries, which are political ideologies.

You can have capitalism and a decent social system in the same place. It's a matter of political will. Which is in the end a matter of popular will. And just to tackle one of the proposals in the article, Swiss people rejected in a referendum (with 77% to 23%) a guaranteed basic income for all.

So maybe before blaming everything on the capitalism, look at the people first.

 

[Hyun Sai]

Capitalism can be OK with a minimum of government interference to keep it in check.

Of course, when we factor the corruption of said governments, of course it goes to shit.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

I think capitalism can work, but it needs governments to step in and force companies to behave ethically. I mean, that's how things were originally intended to work, until large-scale lobbying completely shattered the divide between governments and the companies they're supposed to regulate.

Although I guess that's all a bit quaint now that Donald Trump, of all people, is President of the United States; a more brazenly-corrupt capitalist you'll struggle to find.

 

[EGM1966]

Of course it's part of the problem although I think the main issue is regulation, control and how it fits within broader structure of society.

If you accept statistics, probability and the actual age of our society vs the Universe it's obvious none of our social structures are going to be ideal.

They're the current state of mostly unplanned, organic reactions to conflict, migration and availability (and perceived value) of resources.

By default they're going to be flawed.

The biggest issue for me - over and above capitalism - is the fundamental social approach we seem to have evolved which is to seek stability and focus on protecting and continuing social structures rather than accepting social structures should - indeed must - be subject to organised and planned change over time as we continue to evolve.

To take US as an example since we're talking about Cspitalism - it shouldnt be "US forever" and "Capitalism is the best" but "what's US of tomorrow and how should Capitalism be changed accordingly".

 

[Ahasverus]

The political tints of religion and anti intellectualism are far bigger problems than capitalism, as they break the bond of trust necessary for society to function in service of all parties involved.

Capitalism can be OK with a minimum of government interference to keep it in check.

Of course, when we factor the corruption of said governments, of course it goes to shit.

Minimum, but boundless in need is how it must be. The government needs to be able to stop abuses instantly

 

[ClosingADoor]

Stock drops when company announces they will make less profit. Is that really an argument against capitalism? What do they expect, for people to pay more for the stock that now returns less money.

Capitalism isn't the problem, it has brought prosperity to a lot of people. It is far from perfect, and that is why you need strict laws and enforcement to prevent abuse. And that is lacking.

 

[Prime crotch]

There seems to be an intentional confusion in the article between capitalism as an economic ideology and the social systems of different countries, which are political ideologies.

You can have capitalism and a decent social system in the same place. It's a matter of political will. Which is in the end a matter of popular will. And just to tackle one of the proposals in the article, Swiss people rejected in a referendum (with 77% to 23%) a guaranteed basic income for all.

So maybe before blaming everything on the capitalism, look at the people first.

Swiss live on a very regulatory culture, shaped by decades of government action.
Cultural changes happen but mostly with a lot of incentive from government structures. People can change their culture on their own, sure, but it's a longer, arduous and more violent process. Right now we live in a systemic idea of capitalism being let run wild, with some people having a different perspective, but not enough in my opinion due to a lack of options. I'm putting the blame on the system rather than the people enduring it.

Capitalism can be OK with a minimum of government interference to keep it in check.

Of course, when we factor the corruption of said governments, of course it goes to shit.

lol no

 

[G.ZZZ]

Isn't the opposite true?

No.

Read :

http://www.academia.edu/21593862/Th...Narrative_of_the_Millennium_Development_Goals

Dropped they may have, but nowhere as it is often claimed.

Some excerpts:

If we take China out of the equation, we see that the global poverty headcount at $1.25 actually
increased
during the 1980s and 1990s, while the World Bank was imposing structural adjustment across most of the global South (Figure 1). In 2010 (the final year of
the MDGs' real data), the total poverty headcount excluding China was exactly the same as it was in 1981, at just over one billion people. In other words, while the MDGs lead us to believe
that poverty has been decreasing around the world, in reality the only place this holds true
is in China and East Asia. This is an important point, because China and East Asia are some of
the only places in the developing world that were not forcibly liberalised by the World Bank and the IMF. Everywhere else, poverty has been stagnant or getting worse, in aggregate.

For example, a 1990 survey in Sri Lanka found that 40% of the population
fell under the national poverty line. But the World Bank, using the IPL, reported only 4% in
the same year.
In other words, in many cases the IPL makes poverty seem much less serious than it probably is in reality. India offers another example. In 2011 the World Bank estimated that India had 300 million people living below $1.25/day and claimed that the proportion of
impoverished people had been decreasing steadily. But that same year nearly 900 million Indians, or nearly 75% of the population, were subsisting on less than 2100 calories per day.
And this was a significant increase from 1984, when only 58% of the population suffered this
level of calorie deprivation. So the World Bank has been celebrating a ‘reduction' of poverty in India while hunger has been rising decisively.
Moreover, in 2014 new research in India showed that 680 million people ‘lack the means to meet their essential needs',
which is more than double what the World Bank's numbers suggest

In short, the IMF and a lot of economist are scums who perpetuate simply wrong economic myths for the sake of keeping power. China being the main promoter of lifting people from poverty while being the only country not subject to the "mainstream" economic policies of the IMF? Color me shocked.

Hunger is way worse:

And proportions too had begun to rise, reversing a downward trend that had lasted until 2005. The report indicated that the UN's hunger reduction goal was going to be impossible to achieve, and led with the frank headline: ‘Hunger has been on the rise for the past decade'. What is more, the FAO even suggested that its estimate of the impact of rising food prices on hunger ‘may well be an underestimate'

And again, China, going against the main economists suggestions and the UN's, was by far the biggest lifter of people out of hunger:

Interestingly progress against hunger in China during that period was largely the result of land reform, which guaranteed small farmers secure access
to land.
But land reform is not a strategy promoted by the MDGs; in fact the policy direction
advocated by the UN tends to be towards consolidation of land in corporate hands (such as through the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, which the UN promotes).

Yooo

 

[nubbe]

the Scandinavian systems are the best

 

[B-B-Bomba!]

I am ... But I don't know at what point it could become realistic to side against the individualistic and selfish tendencies of people. It feels to me like, throughout history, selfishness and greed on the one hand and community spirit on the other have both shaped our course. I can't see why that pattern would ever cease?

The more lambs society produces, the bigger the target for wolves. I just can't imagine a world in which exploitation doesn't come into play at all., much as I would like to.

 

[AxeMan]

Capitalism can be OK with a minimum of government interference to keep it in check.

Care to elaborate on this in light of this

Just look at the recent case involving American Airlines. Earlier this year, CEO Doug Parker tried to raise his employees salaries to correct for “years of incredibly difficult times” suffered by his employees, only to be slapped down by Wall Street. The day he announced the raise, the company’s shares fell 5.8%. This is not a case of an industry on the brink, fighting for survival, and needing to make hard decisions. On the contrary, airlines have been raking in profits. But the gains are seen as the natural property of the investor class. This is why JP Morgan criticized the wage increase as a “wealth transfer of nearly $1 billion” to workers.

For a startling example of this, consider the horrifying idea to breed brainless chickens and grow them in huge vertical farms, Matrix-style, attached to tubes and electrodes and stacked one on top of the other, all for the sake of extracting profit out of their bodies as efficiently as possible. Or take the Grenfell Tower disaster in London, where dozens of people were incinerated because the building company chose to use flammable panels in order to save a paltry £5,000 (around $6,500). Over and over again, profit trumps life.

 

[sphagnum]

Of course it's the problem. And it's not shocking that the happiest, most well off countries are capitalist countries when they were built on the legacy of the wealth of imperialism and death and continue to function because of the exploitation of third world laborers and resources.

 

[KingSnake]

Lack of good governance is the issue. Corruption. Extremism.

These are more of an issue than capitalism. Good governance means also having decent rules in place, like not being allowed to run a residential tower without decent fire prevention measures. Or not providing some minimum health coverage for your citizens.

The lack of these minimum requirements for a civilised society is due to corruption, not capitalism. Is government acting in the interest of few due to lobby, bribes (a lot of times done in a legal way).

Actually I'm pretty sure that any problem that is associated with capitalism ends up in being either incompetence or corruption.

 

[Kuroi Gogeta]

I think one of the biggest issues, socially speaking, is the worst by-product of capitalism: consumerism. It's not difficult to see it has a negative effect on people and that our current societies (arguably the world) is gripped by it.

Not necessarily. There's no such thing as a worthless product. The frivolous junk that people buy are allowing others to make a living. China is seeing its rates of poverty decrease because of factories designed purely to produce non-essential goods. It should go without saying that I am not defending the practices of these factories, but people are being lifted out of poverty because of the west's desire for products.

Capitalism is a tool, like a knife or a hammer. If used in the right hands, it can build something and give to everyone. If used in the wrong hands, it can do immeasurable harm. The way capitalism is regulated/practiced in a country reflects the values of that country. If it is a nation that places blame and success purely on the individual, then it can lead to people making decisions that will help them individually or their specific group at the expense of others.

 

[Zaru]

You can have capitalism and a decent social system in the same place. It's a matter of political will. Which is in the end a matter of popular will.

This. Social capitalism, with all its remaining flaws, is the best realistic system for a well-developed nation until we hopefully reach real "post-scarcity" through automation or whatever.

But as often is the case, the problem with this system is that it doesn't work perfectly in local isolation.
As long as there are numerous havens for greedy assholes to bunker their absurd amounts of money at, neither can their greed be fully kept in check nor can their obscenely excess wealth be put to good use.
If a country moves in that direction, many of them just "leave" or threaten to do so in order to prevent it. (Or spend enough money to influence public opinion, see: every republican voter)

 

[Calabi]

The problem isn't capitalism. It's human nature. There is no perfect system. Is the U.K. Government so awesome that you want it controlling all conmerce?

Human nature is fluid. Capitalism isnt an inherent structure. Government is supposed to be for the will of the people.

 

[sasliquid]

I think Capitalism, as it is mostly implemented, like Fuedalism and other economic systems has worn out its welcome we should look transition into a new format which better accommodates our current needs and ability.

 

[Boney]

GDP is so absurd. Most of the increments in GDP in the US for the last decades have been in the financial sector, which has next to zero impact on production.

It's always been socialism or barbarism. Capitalism isn't commerce, it's a system designed for the accumulation of wealth for a tiny elite, and that tiny elite can decide it doesn't want a social democracy and to give back money through redistributive taxation.

Stock drops when company announces they will make less profit. Is that really an argument against capitalism? What do they expect, for people to pay more for the stock that now returns less money.

Capitalism isn't the problem, it has brought prosperity to a lot of people. It is far from perfect, and that is why you need strict laws and enforcement to prevent abuse. And that is lacking.

Stocks drop when they grow less year on year even if they're making a lot more profit.

 

[KingSnake]

Using stock evolution as an argument against capitalism is a bit ironic in itself.

 

[Jerry]

Lol.

I have way less trust for governments handling money than I do for corporations.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

Capitalism is a very broad term for which everybody has a different definition, so it's a bit of a problem to make assertions because everyone will interpret it differently.
Market economies are nowadays accepted by everyone to be a good thing. The fact that you can start a business and you have a legal framework that regulates your actions and those of your employees and clients and gives you security for your investment is a good thing, as is the fact that you are not accountable to the state beyond safety, labor, environmental (etc) issues.
So is, however, the fact that the state provides for services that a bunch of people acting for their own profit would never do. I'm talking infrastructure, healthcare, education, basic research, all that.
This is economics 101, and in theory it all sounds very good.
The thing with today's society (And every other society for that matter) is that the application of these ideas is lousy at best. Regulations are poor, corruption is widespread, globalisation has brought so many loopholes to avoid necessary regulations, politicians trick and fuck people over and over for their own profit, and all in all the legal frameworks that we have are very flawed and don't provide a level playing field for social mobility or equality, which is an essential factor in an inclusive economy.
Then you bring cultural factors to the mix, that make people vote for terrible politicians over and over and over. And then you bring in a creepy-ass 1% of super rich people that make their living distorting the financial markets and sucking money from them like leeches.
The idea is good, but having a well working, fair economy is dauntingly complex and requires constant effort in so many fronts. Which is why saying "capitalism is the problem" is a gross oversimplification.

Spoiler

Some of the things I think are needed are:
Complete overhaul of all countries' fiscal system, accounting for foreign revenues, property and loopholes in tax evasion
Basic Income
Free Trade Agreements and agreements in regulation of financial markets and fiscal information. Keep the claws of the US Government and its lobbyists out of the negotiations
A sweeping success of the Paris Agreement
The West ending their support of theocracies in the Gulf
Western governments supporting the Rule of Law in Subsaharian Africa, even if it means the end of Western profits from their looting of the continent
The end of Facebook and Twitter, people voting using their brain

 

[travisbickle]

Lol.

I have way less trust for governments handling money than I do for corporations.

They're both in the pocket of each other under a capitalist system. Did you not see the fucking 2008 financial crash!!

 

[G.ZZZ]

As for why world economists all over promoted this nonsense brand of free-market capitalism on the south (and not only) of the world, the answer is pretty easy: profit for the 1%.

Quoting:

Recall that Wolfensohn, whom I quoted above, admitted that developing countries experienced rapid poverty reduction in the 1960s and 1970s, which was slowed and then reversed through the 1980s and 1990s (even according to the Bank's own $1.25 line). Hunger, too, was declining during the 1960s and 1970s, even according to the FAO's own numbers (Figure 2). This is probably
because of the developmentalist strategies that countries in the global South were using
at the time, including trade tariffs, subsidies, public spending and regulation of foreign
capital. But, beginning in the 1980s, the World Bank and IMF's structural adjustment pro-grammes reversed these policies, forcing developing countries to cut spending, privatise
assets and liberalise their markets. Robert Pollin estimates that developing countries
lost $480 billion per year in potential GDP during the 1980s and 1990s as a result of structural adjustment.
Per capita income growth rates in the developing world fell to half their previous levels.
In Sub-Saharan Africa per capita income began to decrease
at a rate of 0.7% per year; the GNP of the average African country shrank by around 10%
during this period.

Free market neoliberalism is this world's cancer. Shameless propaganda of the 1%, and it worked great.

 

[hanspampel]

Isn't the opposite true?

All depends how you present and interpret the available dataYou can make it look like you want.

Capitalism being considered unfair is no problem.
Life is unfair. Every system is unfair. Basically Everyone feels let down and to deserved more sometimes.


If something is the fucking problem it's society.
And not the just the other you fucker, too.
If people would realize that first


But people like to fall for socialistic propaganda.
Gladly it's not the majority

 

[1st Course]

Isn't the opposite true?

Yeah way to destroy the article credibility .

 

[Polioliolio]

It's definitely the problem, but we're in so deep that it seems unimaginable how we could ever change things.

The obvious first step would be to keep capitalism with government guidance to step in when capitalism can't make ethical choices, but republicans have shown they don't give a fuck about ethics and morals.

Take a step back for a moment and consider things like this... With capitalism, solving issues like world hunger will never happen.. The idea of getting food to people who need it makes no sense with capitalism. Same with healthcare. Instead of making sure people are healthy, people are more worried about insurance companies making enough money.

Right now, the only way science advances is if it can be monetized and marketed. The only way medicine advances is if it can be monetized and marketed. The only way to get healthier food to the people is if that healthy food can be made profitable first. Think of how massive and pointless the food industries that exist now are, how much absolute garbage is on the shelves, and the colossal waste of land and human resources it take to put fucking lucky charms on the shelves. But that's the system we have in place.

Even small local businesses are encouraged to play the game to eat profits over supporting humans. It's hard to make money, so how could a small business be expected to pay anything more than what they possibly can to survive? The system is a machine to create these large, money hungry organisms, and humans don't matter. Want to see what the end goal looks like? Look at the biggest, most profitable business on the planet.. Walmart, Mcdonalds, Amazon, whatever. These companies are notorious for paying out the least to human beings, and for the reason that making money is more important in this system than anything else. Why should the companies that make the most, pay the least? If there was no federal minimum wage, how low would these companies go? Remember when slavery existed in the US? Do you think businesses wanted to turn that around? Do you think the republican types at the time wanted to turn that around? Of course not.

Some matters need driven by ethics, by progressive science, by passionate humans whose own well being isn't caught up in the system.

We with the kind of resources available, we could be living in a utopia, but so much is spent making sure consumerism is the primary function. We need conscious human guidance at the reigns. Keep your lucky charms and beer and cigarettes, but give people health and intellectual stimulation.

It would be much easier to care for people if human numbers were kept under some kind of control too. Feeding everyone, giving everyone a job is a challenge. We have 7 billion now, imagine how hard it'll be to house, feed, and treat 14 billion using the consumer driven system.

 

[Razorback]

We need to zoom out and look at the big picture here. For all of human history, the majority of people had to worry about famine, disease, and war almost every day of their lives. This went on for millennia.

Capitalism pretty much solved all those issues. Needless to say, it is a blunt instrument so of course there was some collateral damage along the way. But overall cooperation is better than conflict economically speaking. So now we live in a very unusual time period of almost constant peace. A healthy productive population is paramount to a working economy, so it is in the interest of the system that everyone is fed and disease free.

So we owe the advanced technological civilization we have today to capitalism.

But now, If you think about it as an algorithm, its main purpose is for the economy to grow, it doesn't really care about human welfare. So far we've just been lucky that the system needs people, but that is changing rapidly. The second machine age or the fourth industrial revolution is near.

We need socialism to patch in the appropriate measures that make sure no one is left behind. But it's a complicated messy business trying to get a system going with two different utility functions. So the machine is creaking and leaking and showing signs that it's going to break down soon.

Capitalism did us good, but soon it will be time to replace it with something more appropriate to the times we live in. So bring on the fully automated luxury gay space communism.

 

[biggersmaller]

I would rather be the poorest person in a western capitalist society than any of the alternatives.

 

[Ahasverus]

I would rather be the poorest person in a western capitalist society than any of the alternatives.

The average Cuban lives like a prince compared to the average Haitian.

 

[Sakura]

It would be much easier to care for people if human numbers were kept under some kind of control too. Feeding everyone, giving everyone a job is a challenge. We have 7 billion now, imagine how hard it'll be to house, feed, and treat 14 billion using the consumer driven system.

I don't really see what this has to do with capitalism. The rich capitalist countries don't have populations growing out of control. Whether they were capitalist nations or not they would not be feeding, giving jobs, and housing all people in countries with this population issue.

As for capitalism itself, sure it has its flaws, but I don't think it is a static thing. Systems change as time goes on. Workers didn't always have the rights they do now, universal health care didn't use to be a thing. I think the system we have now can be tweaked as necessary to work better, I don't think we need an entirely new system.

 

[shnurgleton]

Capitalism has been the greatest engine for growth and prosperity in the history of the species.

That being said, not capitalism, but unfettered capitalism, is the problem. If we let the drive for profit be the sole rule in our society, then rich get richer and poor get poorer. Why aren't we having violent political upheaval in the developed world?

Bread and circuses.

We need some humane counterpoint to the profit motive that values humaniity and opportunity. We need to try and coax the system into one that actually encourages the "trickle down" Reaganites like to simply take on faith.

 

[g11]

Capitalism isn't the problem. Capitalism is an idea just like Socialism is an idea. How it's implemented is the problem. Arguably the best system currently available to society is a merging of capitalism with socialism. Look at the places where people are consistently the happiest, and the standard of living is consistently the highest. The order vacillates but usually Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are in the top five nearly every year. Capitalism is alive and well in these countries but there is a bare minimum of care for citizens that keeps them from constantly worrying about their wellbeing and future and just lets them live. You still have rich and you still have poor, but the extremes of the spectrum are much less than they are in even Germany, much less the United States. Also taxes in those places go mostly for societal issues than more big missile-dicks to swing around.

 

[Jimrpg]

Yep I have to agree, but what are the other choices?

It just feels like in capitalism, its a zero sum game and somebody has to lose in order for someone else to win. If there's a crazy deal somewhere, somebody is losing money.

Costs always gets passed down to the consumer while businesses make profit. If there's too much profit, expect middlemen to jump in.

Or i'll give you another example, a project gets sub contracted multiple times and everybody takes their cut and the end product is not even worth what the initial sum was. Meanwhile everybody walks home with a cut of the profit, and the end user gets a shitty product.

 

[RoadHazard]

No, but there are degrees of it. Capitalism with a good dose of social safety nets thrown in, like we have here in Scandinavia, generally seems to work well. It's when you remove that, like in the US, things go to shit for many people.

 

[teruterubozu]

And if I did then what?

 

[a.wd]

Chrony capitalism where the rich influence the political process.
Want to prevent it? Bring out the guillotine.

That's exactly what I think, when capitalism is managed by strong moral government then it is successful. Government needs to be transparent open and incorruptable.

Democracy needs to be open to all and simple to engage with.

Communication between capitalist enterprises and government should be via independent specialists only. Scientists not lobbyists. And tax should not be something that can be ducked, especially as you become a giant corporation.

I am a big believer in capitalism, but the way it's currently implemented is bullshit.

 

[Dictator93]

The problem isn't capitalism. It's human nature. There is no perfect system. Is the U.K. Government so awesome that you want it controlling all conmerce?

Beyond being afraid of snakes and spiders and shit like sexual hormonal things, man* is a product of the times, ideologies, and societal-economic-biological relations he is embededed in, with the former being the primary catalyst of everything. The capitalist selfish man, who takes advantage of others, commoditizes nature and human alike, in its current form, is a historical product. Man has been different in the past, and can be differen tthe future.

*I am using man, as in mankind, this applies to all genders and sexes of course

 

[Grug]

I definitely lean well to the left but you have to be absolutely brainwashed to seriously not think that capitalism is by far the most effective economic system yet used by man in terms of creating prosperity, innovation and allocating resources.

That's not to say it's perfect, far from it. And it creates issues that need to be managed.

Income inequality, monopolies, anti-competitive behaviour, erosion/corruption of the political process, resource/environmental management, labour exploitation etc.

Like Churchill said "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

What is up for debate is how you mitigate the unequal sharing of blessings. It's now well established that the invisible hand will not do that alone. And that is basically western politics in a nutshell.

There is no magic utopian formula for a perfect economic and political system. All the best acquired wisdom and evidence points to the benefits of a capitalist foundation to the economy. We then just need to build a policy and regulatory framework on top of it that is compatible with the ethics of a modern humanity.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Capitalism has a sell-by date that's rapidly approaching. Once human labor has no value the system collapses. We need to start the transition to state socialism while we can do it in a controlled and safe manner. Ideally we'd fix our elections to be more respresntative of the people and then we'd nationalize industries and give people the means to live freely.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

HELL YEAH

 

[Goro Majima]

No.

Read :

http://www.academia.edu/21593862/Th...Narrative_of_the_Millennium_Development_Goals

Dropped they may have, but nowhere as it is often claimed.

Some excerpts:




In short, the IMF and a lot of economist are scums who perpetuate simply wrong economic myths for the sake of keeping power. China being the main promoter of lifting people from poverty while being the only country not subject to the "mainstream" economic policies of the IMF? Color me shocked.

Hunger is way worse:



And again, China, going against the main economists suggestions and the UN's, was by far the biggest lifter of people out of hunger:



Yooo

Do these statistics control for the rapid population growth since 1980 where we went from 4.4 billion to our current 7.5 billion? One billion in poverty in 1980 is a whole lot worse than in 2017.