Where will capitalism end?

Post Reply New Topic

I often wonder about our ecomomic system and what its goal is. I understand that our society should reward people for contributing to our development and progress and that is fine. But what annoys me is that since the 1980's it has all turned into a big game of buying shares and selling them on for profit. Also the property boom has made people simply buy and sell to gain profit on peoples homes. Why or how did we suddenly drift away from a fair and proper system of rewarding hard work and inovation to rewarding rich people for taking risks?

And as companies merge and take over other companies, getting bigger and bigger, I often wonder where it will lead us to? I know Karl Marx claimed it will lead to imperialism, which will then lead to revolution etc. But I wonder if we will come to our senses soon and put in measures to allow capitalism to carry on with certain constraints. I think that would be for the better than waiting for things to get so bad that revolution occurs.

I suppose I am a socialist/capitalist combined. We should have our primary industries owned publicly and allow the tertiary industries to be private. Secondary industries could be public and privately owned.

Or am I talking tosh?

The current system isn't Capitalism. As for the system of buying shares and selling them for profit, that isn't Capitalism in the socio-economic sense of the word, that's called share trading. And the housing "bubble" wasn't caused by Capitalism. It was caused by interference in the market with inducements and regulations (by the government) to "promote" debt financing. As for your claim to be Capitalist/Socialist; it seems like you lie more in the centre of both, without the principles of either.

So I doubt the Capitalists would accept any of your recommendations. I would suggest that the Socialists would, as your suggestions allow for one more step away from Liberty. Which, when you add them all up, eventually leads to Socialism outright.

But surely only capitalism would allow share trading?

I think the principles of socialism and capitalism need to meet in the middle. Capitalism needs curbing and socialism needs sweetening

It never will end.

Even if every capitalistic system in the world collapsed into socialism, short of having ultimate power to keep that the practice, capitalism will reappear.

Society will not abide equality in spite of effort. You would either have universal laziness or the desire of people to gain more for the effort they apply as compared to their neighbors. Whether openly or subversively, a capitalistic system will reappear.

I kind of agree with what you are saying. There seems an inbuilt need for us to go one better, to have more than the other. But I wonder if it is just a phase we are going through in human development. Maybe sometime in the future we will learn that equality is more desireable.

Also - I wonder what will happen if we ever manage to attain free and unexhaustable energy supplies. And if we ever achieved a completely autonomous means of production (without the need for human effort) then who will need to own the means of production? Who would need to own the power supply?

If we ever achive that kind of industrial capability then capitalism would surely be redundant?

Humans are born blabber-mouths and traders. Capitalism will never end.

ruveyn

I will side with the "capitalism will not end" people. Or at least the "should not end" people.

You see, even if capitalism is flawed, we don't actually have any better systems, as the political system is very short-term in outlook, emphasizes good-sounding ideas over good ideas, rewards charisma over success, tends towards bureaucracy and single solutions over innovation and plurality, and by its nature is continually mired in political conflicts preventing policy implementation from necessarily being stable or even potentially reducing the quality of implementation due to bad compromises.

The future holds a lot more derivatives and complex financial devices devised by Wall Street for the sole purpose of making more money for the wealthy elite and the hedge fund managers that serve to make that same wealthy elite even richer while making themselves rich in the process...

...And I want a piece of it!

Capitalism and the economy topic

No nation or state on earth is a pure capitalist economy. Most are mixed, in various degrees, including China.

There will always be citizens/persons living in whatever country who create wealth by private means--by banking, manufacturing, investing, etc.

In my opinion healthy economies are of the mixed type, as is Canada. There is both the public and the private sector. I believe, however, there will always be the rich and the poor. To have a healthy middle class seems mostly possible in mixed capitial societies, like Canada.

Personally, "Go imperialism!! !"

Perhaps in a Star Trek-type of reality where there is practically unlimited sources of power and substance, you could have worlds where it's possible for everyone to have a mansion, 20 cars, lots of vacation time, etc. and because it's openly available, people just stop caring about the acquisition of wealth.

However, the premise of such a system is for "wealth" to be so abundant that acquiring it is no longer worth the effort. If you have so many cars you don't have time to drive them all, why have so many (except as a obsessive-compulsive need)? Until you have that, you will always have people competing for what few resources are available.

If you follow Star Trek, the reason why humanity isn't so "greed" focused is because every need is supplied. Nobody goes without necessities and wants are easily obtained. So, all people focus on is achieving things (for themselves or humanity). "Status" is conveyed by what you choose to do with your life, not how much stuff you've acquired.

However, in Star Trek, worlds outside the Federation are very much in a capitalistic situation. They don't have the "comforts" of a Federation world, and life is much harsher.

Gene Roddenberry envisioned a future where man "grows up" and focuses on the better things to be had in society, but the condition for such was technological advancement and the discovery of resources that make the old way of doing things rather foolish.

Obviously capitalism is ending in the USA. Those in power regard workers as the enemy to be paid starvation wages and somehow screwed out of whatever money they manage to acquire. On the other hand business is eager to acquire markets which means the consumers have to buy stuff. But the power people don't seem to get it that the workers are the consumers and if they have little or no money they can't buy stuff so the system is gradually winding down with no real purchasing power. It may take a few years but as technology provides advances in robotry (made by the Japanese) and workers are slowly eliminated there will be nobody to buy the stuff manufactured. It's inevitable.

Do you see private ownership of the mean of production ending in the U.S.A. in the near future. That is what a capitalist system is: the means of production are owned privately. There is some government ownership but in the U.S. most firms are privately owned.

ruveyn

For a man who waves his IQ as a banner of reason you do say the dumbest things. Is trusting the as*holes who run GM or the pharma people or the total insurance crooks in charge of health insurance or those complete s**theads who run Wall Street any better than the elected morons that run the government? They're all out to skin you alive and hang you out to dry but the government people are, at least, not so efficient.

Yeah on Star Trek they have a replicator don't they? It makes anything they want. So if we acquired that technology then it would be blatently unfair to have one person or group owning that technology.

Capitalism only came about after the industrial revolution. So the next revolution may make capitalism redundant and meaningless.

What do you expect the Government to produce? The kind of people who go into government are power trippers, leeches, empire builders, blood suckers and parasites. Very few technically competent people are in government. Those who can, do. They go out and make a lot of money by inventing stuff and being productive. Those who can't regulate those who can.

Perhaps we should deal with corporations by letting incompetent looser corporations go under instead of giving them tax funded subsidies. Perhaps we should finally execute the laws against reckless endangerment, fraud and criminal negligence. But the Government is not likely to do this because the Government is the main engine of reckless endangerment, fraud and criminal negligence. But the Government is legally immune from being dealt with. So if the voters don't take care of the matter no one will.

If you think Government is the cure, then you are vastly mistaken.

ruveyn