does capitalism have within it the seeds of its own destruction?

Running Bing

Akrasia wrote: »

Well a fat cat is an obese feline, and a worker is someone/thing who creates wealth by his own labour and received a wage as payment.
A capitalist is someone who earns a profit from commanding the labour of others. (the capitalist might also be earning a wage independently of the profits he makes on the ownership of capital)

Still not getting it....my father works as a tradesman yet he owns company shares. What is he?

My uncle is a taxi driver, again Im lost?

I think the lines need to be clearer between noble worker and evil exploitative capitalist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Running Bing wrote: »

Still not getting it....my father works as a tradesman yet he owns company shares. What is he?

An inconvenient detail.

Akrasia - what age are you? I ask because the romanticism that surrounds the whole left-wing versus right-wing thing, is largely a folly of youth, in particular with university. Or a device to control said youth.

While we don't not lose our principles as we grow older, we do realize that the whole black versus white take on things is actually pretty silly, and only really held up when we were students because we never really challenged them - it was more important to 'believe' than 'question'. As the expression goes; "the man who is not a socialist at twenty has no heart, but if he is still a socialist at forty he has no head."

silverharp

Akrasia wrote: »

the real issue in that objection is inflation, and the boom bust cycles of market economics, welfare is never a driver of inflation (it usually trails inflation unless there is a political party trying to buy votes during an election)

In the context of what I was writing was not to do with inflation , more to do with solvency , look at Ireland to day we have a higher solvency risk now which is directly linked to the general welfare system. Bring the system to its knees and nobody benefits.

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with that, I am far more worried about the competition within the labour market itself. Without a social welfare safety net if there are more workers than jobs, they will offer to work for lower wages themselves because it becomes a choice between working for a pittance, or starving to death.

Sorry, but this does not bare out with the facts. There are sizeable differences in salary level in many countries even when they all have social welfare safety nets. Ultimately, it does not matter if you agree with it or not, it's simply how economics work.

The prices are low by our standards, but they are still high enough that workers often have to work excessive hours 7 days a week just to survive (and to have any hope of saving for even the simplest 'luxuries' like an education for their children or a 50 cc motorcycle

Where are you getting your facts?

India had a socialist tradition, but this has been largely abandoned by successive right wing governments.

So you agree with the flaw in your argument, given conditions were not exactly great when that socialist tradition held sway.

In the sweatshops and factory farms, there is no socialism.

The terms "sweatshops" and "factory farm" are tied to the conditions of work - just because a venture is a 'collective' does not mean that the conditions are wonderful, after all. Just look at the result of all those five-year plans that were meant to leapfrog capitalism.

Ireland is a relatively right wing country, but there is a welfare state that does not exist in the parts of the developing world where the worst forms of capitalism exist unfettered by 'manipulation by the state'

Ireland was socially conservative, but until the late eighties it was very left-wing economically.

There is gross inequality in the U.S. which is not reflected in those statistics.

No argument there, but all I'm pointing out is that your arguments are flawed, not that capitalism is wonderful. It ain't.

The model still applies. the dynamic of competition is that people are attracted to the wealth of a successful industry (like estate agents springing up everywhere in the last decade) until the market becomes over saturated and when it turns down, most of those new entrants will go out of business. Obviously the higher the supernormal profits, the more saturated the market becomes and the worse the consequences will be when the market crashes and overshoots on its way down.

I don't think you understand what perfect competition or a perfect market mean.

Well, I am blaming capitalism for market failures, I don't see how that is so unreasonable (market failures, bubbles, and also failures in labour markets that result in poverty and de facto slavery)

Actually, you appear to be blaming it for pretty much everything, even when it is obvious that socialism is equally prone to the same defects. And that would be unreasonable.

Affable

Just walking around London I was thinking of this. We got all this pace of change and economic progress which is hailed as a God above all else. Replacing spiritual and moral values. In the mean time, we got more newsagents selling more pointless vapid media, more lies, more coffee shops per yard, more kebab shops, more restaraunts, more gambling places, more congestion, more immigrants to do all these jobs, more people being housed, more and more land being built on, and we are told it's the only way. We never stop for one moment to think what the hell are we doing it for. We are a fragmented consumer society that has lost values.

turgon

Affable wrote: »

We are a fragmented consumer society that has lost values.

There is no consumer society - each individual decides whether or not he wants to engage in consumerism. No one forces you to buy a kebab.

Society values is a word just thrown around so people can add gravity to their limited world view by insinuating that this is the right way and that most people agree with them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Akrasia wrote: »

The model still applies. the dynamic of competition is that people are attracted to the wealth of a successful industry (like estate agents springing up everywhere in the last decade) until the market becomes over saturated and when it turns down, most of those new entrants will go out of business. Obviously the higher the supernormal profits, the more saturated the market becomes and the worse the consequences will be when the market crashes and overshoots on its way down.

Eh mate, in the perfect market there's perfect competition which means there cannot be any supernormal profits. It's pretty much why it isn't used as a model for anything but classroom demonstrations of competition in it's simplest form.

af_thefragile

Affable wrote: »

Just walking around London I was thinking of this. We got all this pace of change and economic progress which is hailed as a God above all else. Replacing spiritual and moral values. In the mean time, we got more newsagents selling more pointless vapid media, more lies, more coffee shops per yard, more kebab shops, more restaraunts, more gambling places, more congestion, more immigrants to do all these jobs, more people being housed, more and more land being built on, and we are told it's the only way. We never stop for one moment to think what the hell are we doing it for. We are a fragmented consumer society that has lost values.

I think London is a great city. You always find something to do there. Its full of different kind of places, different restaurants you can try out, different people. Unlike here in Dublin where all you can do is go to the pub or a night club... if thats what you call values.


Spirituality exists within oneself. You won't be able to find it in a church or at the Vatican.

Also i think media has become a tool to distinguish classes of people based upon their intellect.
There are people who spend their time reading Heat magazine. There are people who spend their time watching MTV. And there are the people who spend their time reading literature and writing novels.

And so I don't complain about the number of people buying gossip magazines and wasting money on lotto tickets. It gives them something to keep busy with. It gives me less competition for where I wanna succeed!!

I quite like this fragmenting i'ld say.
It ends up managing to put the birds of a feather all together.
Which is better. There will be less conflict that way.
You live your life, we'll live our lives, if we cross path we'll greet one another and walk on by!!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Affable

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm hardly justifying state religion or theocracy. I'm just saying consumerism and capitalism isn't necessarily always good for people just because they lap it up and envy (inequality and resulting crime) matierialism, instant gratification, self-interest and temptation, pace of society, all make it harder and harder for people to cultivate deeper values, and do not make necessarily make people as happy as they think. It's conditioning, stockholm syndrome shows people get to like and need anything, including the bad, given enough of it. So because consumers lap product or media up does not mean it's good, that they 'need it', or that markets perfectly reflect people's 'needs'(Do you know how much psychological study and manipulation, how much pushing of boundaries goes into advertising or for example?). Or indeed, that people with responsibility in power wouldn't be best off to be hampered by some moral considerations for the people they can influence, which ironically, they'd be more likely to be if they weren't driven by profit/self-interest. That doesn't make a government nannying, that's the very job of the government in other respects, ie law, so why shouldn't be with economics? I'm not saying we should go and run economies so people have to wait two hours for a loaf of bread like in communist eastern Europe. I'm just saying before we build over every single piece of unspoilt land to build flats, or a hotel, or a drive thru, or whatever, should we not actually think of deeper justifications than 'it brings more jobs'? We bring more jobs and more activity and more housing we get richer in terms of overall GDP but not per-capita, and we get more and more overcrowded. So wtf is it for? Norways tiny and sparse and they got the highest GDP per capita in the world, or one of em. I didn't say any of it is remotely new. It's probably intensified to some degree after Thatcher and Reagan years though yeah, and that change was noticable to people I think.

Affable

turgon wrote: »

There is no consumer society - each individual decides whether or not he wants to engage in consumerism. No one forces you to buy a kebab.

Society values is a word just thrown around so people can add gravity to their limited world view by insinuating that this is the right way and that most people agree with them.

No-one forces you to but it's conditioning. Psyhcologically manipulation of advertising. If theres all that **** on the street you buy pointless stuff, I do that in London all the time, and I know afterwards it was pointless and a waste. The way society and people are influences whether people cultivate inner values, which is a cumulative process which when people get a taste for they want more of. Just like instant gratification and givign away inner values is a taste that people want more of.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Affable

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You've exaggerated there. I don't want anyone to live in a monestary. Or live under totalitarianism. I don't mean to be extreme. But, you have to realise that people are not entirely free. We are all human, not superhuman. And we have our rational, objective minds that can make decisions and have independence up to a point, but no-one can escape influence entirely, no man is an island of pure free will, we all absorb what's around us, we have an interdependence. (same reason why, an extreme example of subtle phenomenon of conditioning, the feral child raised by animals, picks up the sounds, and movements of the animal- obviously we are not so suseptible as adults, but conditoning and influence is always there-thats why people rail agsinst beliefs stronger when they are surrounded by them-because their objective inds don't want those beliefs but the bullying and force and emotion of those beliefs, they are conscious, consciously or subconsciously, that if they don't rail against them then those emotions will overpower their objective rational mind-the extreme of your suggestions implies people can act in a kid of belief vaccuum and be entirely of free will and not be forced to feel what others feel by empathy even though the objective mind tells them it's wrong-this is influence) We are conditioned, and thats why those that are in a position to influence this conditioning from the highest and most influential points should take that responsibility seriously.

That's like saying to me I punched you in the nose yesterday and it bled, so why is it a problem if I punch you in the mouth today and it doesn't?

Not hampered. If they are too moral they are hampered and won't be successful. The successful ones, I'd say, understand moral considerations objectively, but they are strategists who want to win. They prattle on because they want to get elected. It's driven way too much by cynicism, distrust and self-interest.

Actually the purpose of law is to enforce morality as well as to protect victims. Prostitution and drugs are illegal why? Actually economics is a moral subject. It can't be taken out of the context of morality- thats how capitalism won over communism because society wasnt progressing, people were starving, things fell into corruption etc. Getting rich isn't immoral, and it trickles down, thats what capitalism believes, and thats fine. But it needs regulatiion and I'm not sure there's enough.

It's not at all in Ireland, but it is moreso now in England(see SE) but thats the mantra the young generation in the States who are ever more brainwashed are coming out with. Socialists are bullied and laughed at increasingly, and the US influences other countries more than anywhere, and by socialists I'm not talking extreme or Karl Marx, I'm just talking someone who believes ONLY that any coastline, countryside whatsoever etc should be government protected for the public(eg)

No I know you don't, I was more talking about the general population of worshipping the vacuous mantra of 'development' 'vibrancy' and 'new jobs' wit no indication as to why or consideration of other conseqeunces or whether it's actually beneficial in empirical terms, scientifically and rigorously defined ones.

Middle East has had ****loads of oil and they are hardly living like kings, most of em. Load of places got oil. All the Scando countries got solid economies, northern Europe alwasy did better that way.

silverharp

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'd argue that there is a moral dimension to how the economic system is structured. I've heard the argument that the breakdown in market dicipline via inflation and excess credit since the 1960's (US) has in some way made people "mad". if living beyond ones means is encouraged by the system then there are obvious moral consequences.

turgon

Affable wrote: »

I do that in London all the time, and I know afterwards it was pointless and a waste.

So you go buy something, fully regret it and then, despite this, purchase things again. And then you blame this on society? Maybe you should look at yourself more than trying to blame everything on the society around you.

Consumer culture is totally down to the person. I would not consider my self obsessed with consumerism, although you will probably claim that that because Ive been brainwashed.

Affable

turgon wrote: »

So you go buy something, fully regret it and then, despite this, purchase things again. And then you blame this on society? Maybe you should look at yourself more than trying to blame everything on the society around you.

Consumer culture is totally down to the person. I would not consider my self obsessed with consumerism, although you will probably claim that that because Ive been brainwashed.

I'm not saying individuals don't have free will, I've made that clear. I'm just saying none of us exempt from conditioning and influence and those in power should think about a moral responsibility to the public. In doing so, state control is not always a wicked thing. It's effetcively what made us civilised, so people should stop hurling absue at the state all the time.

silverharp

Affable wrote: »

In doing so, state control is not always a wicked thing. It's effetcively what made us civilised, so people should stop hurling absue at the state all the time.

I dunno , the state here encouraged the behaviour I critizised in my previous post. It encouages a lot of moral hazzard and Slothful behaviour amongst its citizens and corporates.

af_thefragile

Affable wrote: »

I'm not saying individuals don't have free will, I've made that clear. I'm just saying none of us exempt from conditioning and influence and those in power should think about a moral responsibility to the public. In doing so, state control is not always a wicked thing. It's effetcively what made us civilised, so people should stop hurling absue at the state all the time.

And thats why we say people need to get educated and get responsible.
People need to think before they buy that car they don't need. People need to think before they buy that house they can't afford. People need to think before they buy that **** they'll never use.

But we don't. Why??

Maybe the person bought the car he didn't need cuz the government made it desirable to him by introducing a scheme where he could throw away his perfectly working old car to get a few extra quid to buy the new one.

Maybe the person bought the house he couldn't afford cuz the bank still was ready to give him the mortgage. The bank ready to give the mortgage cuz the bank knew if things go wrong, the government will come to save them!

And all of this because people don't have a clue how things work.
Thats cuz no one teaches this to them in school. No one teaches them the importance of saving money and how to manage your finances.
No one teaches them how banking works and what all those fancy terms like equity and liquidity mean. No one teaches them how money is made in the fiat monetary system.

And i ask why aren't people being educated about these things??
The state likes to clamp down on businesses fast when they're making use of people's ignorance. But the state does little to educate the people so that they themselves can make better decisions.

This is the problem with state control. State always ends up controlling the wrong things!!

turgon

Affable wrote: »

I'm not saying individuals don't have free will, I've made that clear. I'm just saying none of us exempt from conditioning and influence and those in power should think about a moral responsibility to the public. In doing so, state control is not always a wicked thing. It's effetcively what made us civilised, so people should stop hurling absue at the state all the time.

"Conditioning and influence"? If someone falls for this conditioning how is anyones fault but their own? People should be able to stand on their feet and be able to say "that advert is misleading" or "that product is faulty" without the state behind them propping them up. It really does all come down to personal responsibility.

ionix5891

the whole thread can be rewritten as

"does humanity have within it the seeds of own destruction"

the question is can capitalism and humanity refrain from self imploding

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Affable

turgon wrote: »

"Conditioning and influence"? If someone falls for this conditioning how is anyones fault but their own? People should be able to stand on their feet and be able to say "that advert is misleading" or "that product is faulty" without the state behind them propping them up. It really does all come down to personal responsibility.

It doesn't ALL come down to personal responsibility, because studies will show that even when someone doesn't want sooemthing to influence them or enter their head, with enough force it does. It's not entirely their own fault beccause no-one can withstand pressure entirely. Your argument suggests that any amount of force and manipulation is ethical in advertising(eg) because it's all down to freew ill fot he individual. Expect it isn't, thats why there are advertising lawas and brainwashin is illegal in that sphere.

Affable

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hardly. You're twisting arguments. I actually said no-one is exempt from conditioning, however intelligent or in possession of free will they are. This means, simply, that people in the positions to influence this do have to set ethical boundaires. I'm not saying that those boundaires are easily definable.

That's not the point though, is it? Those laws were set to enforce morality was the point I was making. Not whether that morality was correct.

Turbulent? First I've heard, I thought that the liks of Sweden were the stablest economies in the world. Link?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Affable

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I've already told you why, because the idea of absolute free will and immunity from influence is a fiction. Read about Stockholm syndrome, conditioning and brainwashing. Read about Milgram's experiments, or any such stuff.

Umm, hello? Where do you think the (I am guessing infinitely more serious)crisis right now originated from? Yes, from a much freer economy.
And the Wall st crash?

Akrasia

nesf wrote: »

Eh mate, in the perfect market there's perfect competition which means there cannot be any supernormal profits. It's pretty much why it isn't used as a model for anything but classroom demonstrations of competition in it's simplest form.

the commodities market is 'perfect competition'

The stock market is 'perfect competition'


Supernormal profits can arise when a shift in demand or supply occurs that results on one sector of society suddenly becoming very profitable. There are a lot of natural causes that can precipitate this event over varying lengths of time.

There have been more than enough real world examples of supernormal profits arising in close to perfectly competitive markets that have resulted in cartels or oligarchies for me to conclude that this 'textbook' demonstration only disproves that the competition model is grossely inadequate.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You want to foster a society that rewards people for acting on their immediate impulses. Can you not see the flaws in that kind of system?

If you ask people to plan the future that they would like for themselves and their future, they would come up with some kind of life plan.

If you then structure their lives around spontanious decisions that result in long term consequences. I would be pretty certain that allowing young people perfect freedom of choice at 15 years old, would result in them not being to achieve most of the life aims they would have chosen if they were asked at 25.

Freedom of choice is disasterous if you're allowed to choose to gamble everything for some glass beads.

Ireland has one of the lowest population densities in Europe, with only 153 people per square mile. The United Kingdom has 650 people per square mile. India has 954. South Korea has 1,288. So I don't see that we have an "overcrowding problem" just yet.

We have a major conflict between maintaining the natural beauty of our island, and facilitating every whim of a spoilt tiger cub.

If it wasn't for planning laws, every beauty spot in the country (on the virtue of being beautiful, commercial and valuable) would be overwhelmed by opportunistic developments (holiday appartments in the ring of kerry, holiday homes all along the coast road in the Burren.....)