marsten t1_it7zegz wrote
Reply to comment by cuteman in A new UN report explores how to make human civilization safe from destruction. There’s a way to make civilization extinction-proof. But it won’t be easy. by mossadnik
As long as we live in a world where many of the economic activities people care about require resources to be invested up-front (in factories, stores, real estate, etc.), the question is who makes those investment decisions. Capitalism's answer is: Those with the most skin in the game. It's hard to argue with that logic.
My_soliloquy t1_it85q2n wrote
Only as long as you're one of the 'winners' in the game. Those without resources or benefits or equal footing, are the losers in the capitalism game. They're just 'resources' to be used up and discarded. They get forfeit before they even start playing. The problem is, most don't even know how stacked it's become.
Gini-coefficient and wealth inequality are prime examples if you want to understand why capitalism is not a good system or think its better than all the other failures, like communism.
marsten t1_it8hbyg wrote
I think we need to separate out two things: How to maximize wealth creation for society overall, and how to distribute that wealth within society.
Capitalism is unequivocally the best answer to the first question. There are no counterexamples.
The second question is distinct and has to do with taxation, regulation, education, and so on. This is where the real discussion should be.
"Tax the rich" I get. "Destroy capitalism" makes no sense, it's the only system that works.
My_soliloquy t1_it8ltwb wrote
End stage capitalism is where we're headed, where the rich have gamed the system to the point they aren't taxed and the rest of us fund everything. They've practically captured our government with "Citizens United" and the "Patriot Act." It's exacerbated since the 1970's. Even Warren Buffet acknowledged that his secretary pays more per capita, than he does. So if we went back to the tax rates under Eisenhower, or better yet 90% above 1 million in personal income, then capitalism might be viable. But that isn't what happened. And we're headed back towards kings controlling countries and the serfs they own; with the current wealth levels of oligarchs and CEO pay disparity vs their employees. We can't even get reasonable health care and costs under control in "the richest country on earth." Medical bankruptcy is a real thing where most citizens don't even have $400 in emergency funds.
So NO, capitalism is not the best example. Only people lucky enough not to have been destroyed by it yet, might think it's still viable.
marsten t1_it8qq5r wrote
I think what you're calling out aren't problems with capitalism per se, but outcomes of the US's political system and cultural values. You could look at for example the Nordic countries for a different model of how to distribute the benefits of capitalism.
keviscount t1_itavd7j wrote
> Only as long as you're one of the 'winners' in the game. Those without resources or benefits or equal footing, are the losers in the capitalism game.
You're right that capitalism produces an outcome of winners and losers. All other systems tried have produced nothing but losers (lest they be corrupted and start incorporating some elements of capitalism, inevitably with a ruling class forming of effectively authoritarian capitalists ruling over the serfs who have been tricked).
You can pretend that other systems work, even on a small scale. But humanity doesn't work on a small scale anymore.
stupendousman t1_it8p02h wrote
> Only as long as you're one of the 'winners' in the game.
Translation:
I'm afraid I won't win according to my own subjective values in a situation where I need to provide value to others.
>Those without resources or benefits or equal footing, are the losers in the capitalism game.
First, people are individuals, there is no way to make them all equal. Second, there are many people who start with nothing and become wealthy. Third, again, you're afraid you can't do so.
>The problem is, most don't even know how stacked it's become.
Almost all market interventions which affect competition is from state organizations. My guess is you want those same states to intervene to support you.
My_soliloquy t1_it8sj14 wrote
Nope, I retired 12 years ago at 43, I already "won" at life, and yes it was state organization's that enabled me to do so. Transportation, communication, manufacturing and government among others, still use them and pay my taxes and try to get along with neighbors. Also encourage resonable competition inside of industries unless the state needed to step in to reduce monopolies and price gouging.
But I can acknowledge how fortunate I am, and how the deck is so currently stacked against others.
stupendousman t1_it8zu8w wrote
> and yes it was state organization's that enabled me to do so.
So you happily used ill-gotten resources to benefit yourself, and then turn around and critique people who didn't but succeeded without doing what you did.
> Also encourage resonable competition
You types are always wannabe dictators. You'll define reasonable, as it should be huh?
>price gouging
Sophistic political term, like union busting, X-phobia, etc.
>But I can acknowledge how fortunate I am, and how the deck is so currently stacked against others.
The deck is stacked due to people like you. Aren't you grand having concern for the little people?
I've had successes and failure, large and small. I've never lied, cheated, used ill-gotten gains, etc.
I'm far more suited to critical analysis than you are.
My_soliloquy t1_it9jeox wrote
Nice try, but I don't lie, cheat or steal either, always fully worked for a wage or if I made investment gains, I still pay more than my fair share of taxes, never taken more than I needed and I cooperate with my neighbors and contribute to my local economy. The state enabled the roads, the emergency services and other services I (and you) use, that's what I mean by the state enabled me.
Capitalism eventually consolidates, that's where it fails.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments