Support NeoGAF

[Pepboy]

Isn't the opposite true?

Yes, globally. Last quarter of 20th century saw unbelievable growth in poor/developing countries. Something like over 1 billion were pulled out of the "under $2 per day" range.

Basically capital is flowing to people and regions that actually need it the most. (Edit: assuming culture, institutions, and laws that protect it.) Capitalism is probably the driving force for the (mostly) peaceful last 30 years, with exception to the middle east. When capital intermixes between nations, powered interests now exist to reduce military competition.

Of course some don't get off that easy, like banana republics or oil interests in middle east. And privatizing military production has its benefits and costs too... Because military secrets cannot be overly transparent by nature, but at the same time rely on government selection and oversight, you get a bad cocktail of incentives.

Still better than whatever alternative people like to dream up, given our current technology or technology for foreseeable future.

 

[jay]

Capitalism has a sell-by date that's rapidly approaching. Once human labor has no value the system collapses.

This is my thinking. Regardless of the morality of capitalism (generally pretty terrible), we are approaching a very dark time. Police keep peasants away from the wealthy because they are still needed for labor. What happens when automation makes most people unnecessary?

 

[g11]

One of the biggest problems with capitalism today is the rise of the investor class. Even in the U.S. where things have never been equitable, they used to be arguably better back when significant amounts of a public companies stock were owned by the workers, giving them a direct vote in how a company functions and what their primary and secondary goals are. Workers have a vested interest in keeping the company alive and thriving without putting pure naked profit first and foremost.

Investors on the other hand, are about squeezing every last dime from a company for shareholders. That's how you ended up with this system where corporations will do almost anything to keep their profits up every quarter, even if that means cannibalizing itself in the process. It's also why in the 80s you got people like Carl Icahn cropping up, buying up the majority of shares of a company only to strip it for parts and obliterate it months later because it's component parts are worth more than the valuation of the company and it doesn't matter to them if thousands of people are out of a job if they can turn a profit.

This is my thinking. Regardless of the morality of capitalism (generally pretty terrible), we are approaching a very dark time. Police keep peasants away from the wealthy because they are still needed for labor. What happens when automation makes most people unnecessary?

You should watch Year Million on Nat Geo. Fascinating show about the future of humanity and technology, but while talking about the singularity, nanomachines, and human augmentation, they also talk about a future in which robots have replaced humans for work and what that means for the working class. It's really fascinating stuff.

 

[BocoDragon]

This sentiment is useless without an economic alternative.

I'm very secure in the view that the 19th/20th century alternatives to capitalism were worse. Not just worse... they were dangerous ideologies that trapped millions of people and deprived them of freedom.

 

[Grug]

This is my thinking. Regardless of the morality of capitalism (generally pretty terrible), we are approaching a very dark time. Police keep peasants away from the wealthy because they are still needed for labor. What happens when automation makes most people unnecessary?

Looking at things way too negatively.

If people's basic needs aren't met, they will take action to ensure they are met. Politically, or otherwise.

What is the use of automated industry if there is no one to consume the output?

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

This sentiment is useless without an economic alternative.

I'm very secure in the view that the 19th/20th century alternatives to capitalism were worse. Not just worse... they were dangerous ideologies that trapped millions of people and deprived them of freedom.

It's a good thing that real Marxism was never implemented in the 19th or 20th centuries then.

 

[Pepboy]

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.

We are still far, far, far off from a future where human labor has no value. And at the end of the day, robots can only make things for humans to consume. They don't get paid. The point at which robots can do most jobs, things will be so stupid cheap it'll be a moot point.

 

[Grug]

It's a good thing that real Marxism was never implemented in the 19th or 20th centuries then.

Marxism isn't a system, it's a set of theories and predictions pertaining to power and class struggle, largely existing as a critique of capitalism.

 

[Yarbskoo]

It's pretty shit.

Where's those damn replicators?

 

[Pepboy]

Marxism isn't a system, it's a set of theories pertaining to power and class struggle, largely existing as a critique of capitalism.

Even calling it a set of theories is being generous. Theories usually have testable hypotheses.

Its probably more like a philosophy or metaphysics. Though perhaps some Marxists since Marx have tried to codify some of it to testable hypotheses.

 

[Grug]

Even calling it a set of theories is being generous. Theories usually have testable hypotheses.
.

That's more of a semantic argument.

A lot of economic and political "theory" can't be tested in practice because you can't create a vacuum to try them out in due to a range of existing factors... laws, regulations, values, mores, path dependencies etc. In fact, most classic economic theory depends on the flawed assumption that humans are rational.

 

[jay]

I'm generally a nihilist about politics these days. I have no faith in things as they are but no faith things can be any different and no faith in the solutions that are different. This doesn't mean I am not constantly outraged by how terrible things are and how on a daily basis we get new stories about this business or that industry fucking people over and every time we as a people manage to compartmentalize the problem and not realize there's an obvious theme going on.

Looking at things way too negatively.

If people's basic needs aren't met, they will take action to ensure they are met. Politically, or otherwise.

What is the use of automated industry if there is no one to consume the output?

Is this what's happened so far for the large number of people living in poverty? Even if people take action, what's implied in that term is potentially years of upheaval and blood.

 

[BocoDragon]

It's a good thing that real Marxism was never implemented in the 19th or 20th centuries then.

I don't think it's anything but a false theory right now.

In order to put Marxism into place you need an armed group of the people who is going to re-organize and re-educate society in line with new economic values. But the fact of the matter is that a group of men holding force over people never really change them and consequently never really give up control at the barrel of a gun. The incentive is to squeeze the people, and there's never a good moment to let go.

Why did communist ideals give way to totalitarianism again and again? Is it just failed actors? No, it was a failed theory. A revolution forcing economic re-order can do naught but hold the populace at the barrel of a gun indefinitely.

"The withering away of the state". How naive. Real Marxism is a pipe dream. As if some 19th century German thinker had any insight into how the world really works.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

We are still far, far, far off from a future where human labor has no value. And at the end of the day, robots can only make things for humans to consume. They don't get paid. The point at which robots can do most jobs, things will be so stupid cheap it'll be a moot point.

You assume that the majority of people will even be able to earn money at all. We aren't dealing with benevolent welfare capitalism, quite the opposite.

 

[slit]

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.

When I read things like this, it just burns me up!

 

[Pepboy]

That's more of a semantic argument.

A lot of economic and political "theory" can't be tested in practice because you can't create a vacuum to try them out in due to a range of existing factors... laws, regulations, values, mores, path dependencies etc. In fact, most classic economic theory depends on the flawed assumption that humans are rational.

Most economic theories are very testable. At least of the past 50 years. For example, Becker's economic theory of crime. Economists have shown that with longer sentences or a higher probability of getting caught, crime goes down.

To the extent that humans are not rational is also being tested. For example, there's already strong evidence that people overweight large probabilities. Plus economists do a ton of experiments to further distinguish between or validate theories.

Even macroeconomics, while harder to verify, tries its best to make accurate predictions (still founded in microtheory to minimize risks of overfitting the data).

 

[MGrant]

Full-on socialist economics and social programs are the answer, but good fucking luck with how powerful the rich are. It's not enough to change one country or a few economies; the scale of power the capitalist elite has is insane. Any country that tries to break away is going to have a mountain of shit to climb before they see any gains from abandoning free-market capitalism.

 

[Grug]

Is this what's happened so far for the large number of people living in poverty? Even if people take action, what's implied in that term is potentially years of upheaval and blood.

I didn't imply that blood was inevitable. I specifically mentioned political solutions first.

As for people living in poverty. That remains the case because the vast majority of people (if we strip stated beliefs and values out of it, and look only at action) are okay with it. A lot of us talk a big game, but how many of us are putting in hours every night at a local soup kitchen? Not I.

When the MAJORITY are not okay with the direction that things are going, change is inevitable. It's way too melodramatic to think the one percent are just going to make the 99 percent vanish one day "because robots".

Financial wealth (as we currently know it) only has value because we all agree that it does. If the majority are suddenly excluded from that system entirely, the whole thing goes balls up, and the 1 percent have the most to lose from that.

In short, cheer up. That goes for you too SG-17.

 

[tokkun]

It's a good thing that real Marxism was never implemented in the 19th or 20th centuries then.

This is not exactly an original argument, but it may be that Marxism, like pretty much all other utopian social theories, is basically a platonic ideal and that the examples we have seen in history are what happens when you try to meld the theory with human nature. If we have to keep returning to the stance that the system could work if only it was implemented in a completely pure way, then it is probably not a tenable system.

It's a dim view of the world to take, but it may be that the success of capitalism is largely based on the fact that the theory relies people's inclination toward greed and self-protection rather than some more complex and noble desire for societal equality.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I already did. I don't think the notion really holds up. Properly harnessed and regulated capitalism produces significantly better outcomes than anything else we've tried.

 

[Pepboy]

You assume that the majority of people will even be able to earn money at all. We aren't dealing with benevolent welfare capitalism, quite the opposite.

Less efficient assets still have value, and Humans should still retain comparative advantage. Robots are not cheap to make or train and we are nowhere near robots that are as smart and capable as humans in general settings. AI is improving but this is only one element of robotics (and is still far off).

Plus there is going to be a HUGE public backlash against automation. Some people will probably pay more for handmade products or restaurants.

Edit: companies will still need to make products and services that people want to consume. I have faith that people never have enough, so increased productivity will lead to more consumption.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

I don't think it's anything but a false theory right now.

In order to put Marxism into place you need an armed group of the people who is going to re-organize and re-educate society in line with new economic values. But the fact of the matter is that a group of men holding force over people never really change them and consequently never really give up control at the barrel of a gun. The incentive is to squeeze the people, and there's never a good moment to let go.

Why did communist ideals give way to totalitarianism again and again? Is it just failed actors? No, it was a failed theory. A revolution forcing economic re-order can do naught but hold the populace at the barrel of a gun indefinitely.

"The withering away of the state". How naive. Real Marxism is a pipe dream. As if some 19th century German thinker had any insight into how the world really works.

But that's not true. That's not true socialism and true communism. Bolshevism and Maoism were authoritarian because they attempted to force socialism and communism on pre-industrial societies. Basically make 100 years of societal evolution happen in 10 years. They believed that an authoritarian government was necessary to jumpstart communism, which was false.

In an already established, technologically advanced, stable, industrial society, like the West today, socialism is a natural evolution of the current economic system. The hope is that it's allowed to happen naturally with the consent of the governed as laws naturally change and adjust to a post-labor and post-scarcity economy.

Liberal, free, state socialism and state communism is possible in the West. It's going to take a long time to phase out consumerist and capitalist ideals, but it can happen. It has to happen. The only other path is dystopian.

 

[Interframe]

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.

You could say the exact same thing about communism.

 

[G.ZZZ]

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.

Most of the population growth was in India and china, two countries that were developing and had nowhere as close to 1 $ a day poverty line.

China is also as far as you can possibly be from the free market mainstream economics and saw the biggest gains against poverty and hunger.Without China statistics would be horrible.

The biggest question is why freemarket capitalism is such a sacred cow when alla of the countries that adhered to it after the 70 saw worse gains.GDP grew by 600% in the last 30 years, the bottom 60% of the world saw only 5% of that increase

And on and on and on

 

[KingSnake]

It's a good thing that real Marxism was never implemented in the 19th or 20th centuries then.

What's real Marxism? Who rules that society? How that society works? Is it national or worldwide?

You could say the exact same thing about communism.

Communism is creating corruption though because nobody cares anymore about anything. Everything belongs to the "people" so everything belongs to nobody. So nobody cares if something is stolen or misused for example. I've lived it as a child and I still see its effects in the mentality of the people almost 30 years later.

 

[jay]

I didn't imply that blood was inevitable. I specifically mentioned political solutions first.

As for people living in poverty. That remains the case because the vast majority of people (if we strip stated beliefs and values out of it, and look only at action) are okay with it. A lot of us talk a big game, but how many of us are putting in hours every night at a local soup kitchen? Not I.

When the MAJORITY are not okay with the direction that things are going, change is inevitable. It's way too melodramatic to think the one percent are just going to make the 99 percent vanish one day "because robots".

Financial wealth (as we currently know it) only has value because we all agree that it does. If the majority are suddenly excluded from that system entirely, the whole things goes balls up, and the 1 percent have the most to lose from that.

In short, cheer up.

I think you're taking me too literally regarding 99% of the population disappearing. I more meant the social cohesion of today will be gone tomorrow and with it there will be upheaval. Your last point is interesting though and something I've never fully wrapped my head around. When things break down, what is actual wealth? The mansion, the jet, the champagne? Maybe wealth just becomes access to food and weapons.

Also, no. Are you in climate change threads trying to lift spirits?

 

[oneils]

I work for a government. Trust me, you don't want people like me making decisions about how you should live. A social democratic capitalist society seems to be a good balance between rights and good policy outcomes.

 

[Grug]

Full-on socialist economics and social programs are the answer.

Would love to hear more about these "full-on socialist economics". How does it deal with issues such as:

- determining what to produce (and not-produce) and in what quantities?
- incentivising effort and innovation?
- setting prices and quotas

When we've dealt with that, we can discuss political issues. How will you tackle corruption and greed? How much say will the people get in how the system works? What if they decide they don't want it anymore?

Also, no. Are you in climate change threads trying to lift spirits?

No, climate change is real, easily modelled, and terrifying. And to bring it back to thise thread, while capitalism has contributed significantly to this problem, ironically, I also think it provides the most fertile environment to finding the solution.

 

[HarryHengst]

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

Literally every country on earth is capitalist so this is always true.

 

[NiiloPielinen]

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?

This always amazes me, people making claims that sound like before invention of capitalism there was no corruption / abuses of power / etc.

It's an economic ideology on how to do business. How it is used depends on societies. Just look at the nordic nations with free healthcare, education and social security despite capitalism.

 

[Vermillion]

Nothing works because people suck.

 

[HarryHengst]

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.

Capitalism will always end in abuse, corruption, monopolies and such. The system cannot help it, as the company doing the abuse and corruption will be more succesful than its competitors, forcing other companies to do the same.

 

[Boney]

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:

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

It's no coincidence that Asian countries have developed at a much faster rate by not following the neoliberal assault. Even countries like Malasya have better socia indexes and growth than South America. See Gabriel Palma's accounting on neoliberalism

 

[Pepboy]

You could say the exact same thing about communism.

Communism has incentive issues and issues determining who gets to consume what and issues about what to produce.

 

[HarryHengst]

This always amazes me, people making claims that sound like before invention of capitalism there was no corruption / abuses of power / etc.

It's an economic ideology on how to do business. How it is used depends on societies. Just look at the nordic nations with free healthcare, education and social security despite capitalism.

The nordic countries are rapidly destroying their social services due to financial crisises and pressure to be more competitive compared to other countries. As always, capitalism will destroy everything that doesnt lead to money in the hands of shareholders next quarter. Its a flawed system that can only be contained for a short while before reverting back to its habits of exploiting labour to provide more money for capital.

Look at France right now. Macron is planning to dismantle workers rights because ''France has to become more competitive and needs to reform''. Reform is always used as a reason to remove workers rights and gut social services, because its an amazing word that needs no explanation why, because as modern people we are taught that we need progress all the time, and reform means progress and thus is a good and positive thing.

 

[Dehnus]

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.

You sound like 14year old me, but then capitalism was soviet communism. LOL.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Not really but most of the "solutions" the article suggests (UBI, public involvement in health/education, government policy to protect the environment) are stuff I already support so meh.

 

[KingSnake]

Liberal, free, state socialism and state communism

This is an impossibility. Do you think most of the people will give up their properties and money out of free will?

Communist was authoritarian because people had to be "convinced" to give away their belongings. And not just the richest ones.

 

[jay]

Nothing works because people suck.

This may be my deeply considered philosophical opinion.

No, climate change is real, easily modelled, and terrifying. And to bring it back to thise thread, while capitalism has contributed significantly to this problem, ironically, I also think it provides the most fertile environment to finding the solution.

Seems like we already have evidence it has not solved the problem.

 

[Hierophant]

The system is not broken, it is working exactly as intended

 

[Trey]

Nothing works because people suck.

we can still look at socioeconomic systems critically and try to fix them.

 

[UnblessedSoul]

Exploitation of Capitalism is the real problem. There are no solid rules set in place for greed.

 

[Grug]

Seems like we already have evidence it has not solved the problem.

It's an economic system, it doesn't, in itself, care about the environment. It can't. Nor does socialism.

However I am much more confident that the people who save us from climate disaster will emerge from a capitalist system due to the fact that they will be handsomely rewarded for it, and provided with the capital to make it happen.

 

[Lima]

Only poor people don't like it. Maybe implement a different system just for them. Get them out of my capitalism.

/s

 

[Guileless]

How are things shaping up in Venezuela?

 

[jay]

It's an economic system, it doesn't, in itself, care about the environment. It can't. Nor does socialism.

However I am much more confident that the people who save us from climate disaster will emerge from a capitalist system due to the fact that they will be handsomely rewarded for it, and provided with the capital to make it happen.

We are already passed the tipping point according to many scientists. You can explain to me that capitalism isn't a guy, it's a system and other pedantic shit, but your point is still a stretch.

 

[Foffy]

Neoliberal capitalism is a greater disease for the earth than climate change, for it's this social mind of thoughts that has created objective problems for life itself.

Nearly all domains of inequality in first-world nations, particularly America, unfold from the "commodify the commodifiable" mantra this country has adopted for over 30 years.

 

[KingSnake]

Only poor people don't like it. Maybe implement a different system just for them. Get them out of my capitalism.

/s

This is all you understood from this thread, honestly?

 

[sasliquid]

However I am much more confident that the people who save us from climate disaster will emerge from a capitalist system due to the fact that they will be handsomely rewarded for it, and provided with the capital to make it happen.

People said the same thing ten years ago and twenty years ago. I'm not saying it won't happen but instead of waiting we could, you know, use the government to curtail corporate greed that continues to wreck the planet?

 

[Circle Jerk]

This is all you understood from this thread, honestly?

You think they actually read the thread?