This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Does capitalism continue to serve the needs of people?
Suggest your vision for a replacement, if you believe that is necessary.
Which reforms are needed, if you believe that capitalism does serve.
Dylan Gonzalez
Joshua Aasgaard
Jah Sun
I will check out what Eileen has written when I reach a suitable break in my lengthy to-read list.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Dylan Gonzalez
Socialism simply does not work in the fact that it makes a strong work ethic seem futile. At the same time, complete laissez faire allows the upper class to practically enslave the lower class and have the middle class be nonexistent.
However truth be told, theoretically any economic system would work as long as all individuals in a society stop valuing money so much and being so materialistic. The root of all money problems is how we value money in regards to our overall happiness. In short, we need to disregard all our extrinsic values (money, status, etc.) and pay more attention to the much more important intrinsic values (true joy, accomplishment, love, etc.)
Kat Haber 500+
What have other world leaders said or predicted regarding capitalism?
Kat Haber 500+
Chris Ke-Sihai 200+
Very interesting article here, by an oil executive, on the idea of companies as living things - and what this means to the people running them. Lots of implications for how things work, or could work.
Average lifespan for a company: 12.5 years.
Average life for a major corporation that has survived the first ten years: 40 years
One third of Fortune 500 companies in 1970 had vanished by 1983. (I've heard of similar attrition rates for longer periods.)
But some companies have survived for hundreds of years, as do universities, chirches, and other institutions.
Basically, the corporation is a failure in evolutionary terms. In it's current form, it's not something we should invest in because the probability is that it will collapse in the near future. By 'invest in' I mean to have any kind of dependency on, including working for one.
The key changes recommended, based on a study of long-lived major corporations, are:
1. Sensitivity to environment, responding rather than trying to control/dictate.
2. Creating a strong sense of community, with a sense of stewardship.
3. Tolerance for experimentation, outliers, diversity and failure.
4. Conservative financing, keep away from debt.
Sounds good to me, but apparently it goes against the accepted practises.
Joanne Donovan 30+
Jah Sun
Corporate personhood must take into account the relative health of said corporations. As with human societies, infant mortality rates say a lot about the general standard of living and ethics of a culture.
The big question to your 4 points is HOW to get corporations to recognize the need for them to act in sane and rational ways when (as they are currently structured) they can only ever engage in activities that seek to profit their shareholders?
Until we recognize that corporations are soulless, without compassion, and DO NOT have the public interest or the ecosystem at heart... we can only continue to act as if we are discussing economic systems in the abstract while ignoring the fact that we actually have voracious, powerful beasts roaming the earth who have no qualms about chewing up people, resources, and biospheres to suit their short term interests... a bit like the dinosaurs of old.
Chris Ke-Sihai 200+
Jah Sun
If only we could invent some corporate sized thorazine injections...
Kat Haber 500+
Chris Ke-Sihai 200+
It *might* work if you can continue to increase demand for stuff in line with the increased productive capacity. more consumption = more destruction of the environment. Probably not a winning strategy in the long term.
I am going to speculate that it's theoretically possible for everyone to work fewer and fewer hours as technology increases their productivity. The cost of the goods and services they produce should fall at the same rate, lowering the cost of everything, so that everyone can continue to enjoy the same amount of stuff and also have more free time. The end result could be a 2-3 day working week and a good standard of living.
Even if theoretically possible, this would take an enormous restructuring of how things work. I doubt it can be achieved without a lot of dislocation, and anyone who has anything to worry about losing would probably resist.
Jah Sun
Unfortunately, on its own, this process has not led to any Utopian future like what Chris has envisioned... rather, it has led to massive layoffs, sweatshops in 3rd world countries taking over all of the manufacturing & industrial work, and a general destruction of the middle class.
Don't believe me? Just go to Detroit.
While the efficiency of production and the leaps in technology should be bringing about a new Renaissance with leisure time and relative luxury for all... and a complete end to starvation and extreme poverty... what we are seeing is unprecedented accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few. We have entire industries that only exist to siphon wealth out of the system without really producing any tangible goods or services.
If the system is not redesigned along humanitarian and ecologically sound lines, I am afraid what we will see is the rampant destruction of the poor and otherwise "useless" masses.
The nation state of the 19th & 20th century is not equipped to deal with the trans-national corporations we have today. They have been pawning the governments of the world for a long time now, and with the Citizens United decision, you can only expect this situation to get worse.
Corporatism has become a vast global illness. And to bring this all back to your main question... No, capitalism does not continue to serve the needs of the people. It has always been a system to serve the needs of a very small number of people... those with the capital. Capitalism serves the capitalists in much the same way that Feudalism served the feudal lords. If you think otherwise, you are simply not paying attention.. or you are shilling for the oligarchs.
Chris Ke-Sihai 200+
But not with this - sweatshops in 3rd world countries taking over all of the manufacturing & industrial work
This kind of comment makes me really angry.
The third world sweatshops are full of people who need the work. They're not great places to be, but they're better than starving or living on aid deliveries. They are part of the process by which wealth moves from the rich countries to the poorer ones. I have no sympathy for anyone complaining that people in poor countries are taking jobs from people in richer countries.
Every time you express resentment and disapproval about the movement of wealth and jobs from the rich to the poor, you are basically saying "screw them, I want mine."
If this is your opinion, then you are a selfish capitalist. Hiding behind talk of fairness won't work if you are advocating protection of your own tribe at the expense of others. In terms of global wealth, the USA is the rich minority that owns or controls everything. If you're not willing to share the wealth, then you are the enemy of the poor and disadvantaged.
If you are an unashamed patriot, willing to give your country precedence over everyone else, then don't buy imports. Spend your money on products made in your country, and pay the higher price due to the increased labour costs. If your people are losing their jobs, it's because YOU prefer to buy cheap imports.
You are the invisible hand, my friend. You can hold people down, or lift people up, but you can't blame others for the way you use your power. I hope you will choose not to force millions out of work in other countries so that the richest nation on Earth can continue to consume more than everyone else.
Jah Sun
Me, a super-patriot unsympathetic to the needs of the poor? I happen to spend most of my free time doing hydro-philanthropic work around the world. (not to toot my own horn)
The system as it stands is the reason that 3rd world people are in a position to be exploited and forced into indentured servitude to trans national capital. These people are not nationalists (except when it suits them to appear as such). The profiteers could care less about the US or any other arbitrary divisions of humanity as far as I can tell.
I forgive you for taking one half of a sentence of mine completely out of context.
Jah Sun
Is set up to discuss alternatives to global capitalism. I would be thrilled to hear your input on this question.
Kat Haber 500+
Jeffrey Turnbull
A person who has no consideration of a greater innate conscious Source-Essence will by unable to recognize the need to worship anything other than...3rd-dimensional mammon. With this higher innate consciousness activated in one's existence, capitalism is superfluous, unnecessary, a mere tangential concern. Without this higher unifying timeless, non-linear awareness, capitalism and every other formula, system, or B.S. (Belief Structure) will never work, never be fair, balanced, sustainable.
Kat Haber 500+
Kat Haber 500+
Johnny Sacko
There is a system called Time Banking ( TimeBanksUSA ) that holds over 3000 local time banks worldwide - reciprocal sharing systems that build true wealth in communities. This is the " Caring Economy" and the concept goes back to the 80's. It's not taxable according to the IRS ( no guarantee of reciprocity ).
I just watched the movie " Thrive" and came away very hopeful about our human race. Highly recommend!
There was an element about Caterpillars eating 3 times their body weight a day, then going to sleep and morphing into Butterflies. Our group is convinced there's and energetic and spiritual transformation in progress, possibly just tipped like when 51% of the flock of birds looks one way and the whole flock changes direction...
We think this is in play now.
I didn't know the Federal Reserve was privately owned til a year ago. Without the rampaging greed and obscene accumulation of wealth, and egregious military action, we would've stayed asleep.
DARPA invented the Internet. Goldman Sachs owns Facebook. A huge percentage of internet traffic flows through Northern Virginia, home of the CIA. Yet majority components of all these populations, corporate and governmental, are in fact good folks like us.
When the Dutch invented Venture Capital, the British jumped in, not realizing it would be the end of the Empire.
Maybe a compressed and evolved version of that scenario is playing out now - in front of our eyes.
I think the actual definition of Armageddon is " lifting of the veil ".
Watch Thrive!
May cool heads and warm hearts prevail - Love over Fear.
Debra Smith 200+
Kat Haber 500+
http://www.partnershipway.org/get-connected/social-wealth-a-new-national-framework-for-caring-economics-and-human-infrastructure
GDP does not add in the monetary value of “the caring economy”—the unpaid care of households, children, the elderly, and the disabled by family members. She proposes a new economic map that includes these six sectors:
Household economy
Unpaid community economy
Market economy
Illegal economy
Government economy
Natural economy
Others have also noted that GDP does not take into account the work done within families and communities for free (Rowe 2008). For example in Massachusetts, these goods and services are not counted in the commonwealth’s GDP:
Residents 16 years and older spent an average of 4.8 hours a day providing unpaid care or supervising those who need care;
Residents perform 24.9 million hours a day of unpaid care work (the equivalent of 3.1 million full-time workers);
Valuing unpaid care work at the typical wages for paid care workers, the total value of unpaid care time is $151.6 billion annually.
Women compose 75 percent of paid care workers and provide 64 percent of all time devoted to unpaid care activities (Albelda, Duffy, and Folbre 2009)
Still others argue that not only is GDP inadequate as an economic index, it simply fails as a measure of social welfare. GDP does not adequately take into account variables such as the quality of a health care system, the environment, the level of sanitation, and the extent and quality of education (Abdallah et al. 2009; Dipierto and Anoruo 2006).
GDP does not speak to the quality of life and well-being of individuals, families, & communities
Can we assume that rational actors would revalue these contributions?
Debra Smith 200+
David Hamilton 50+
Defending the status quo is unacceptable... but I don't trust the government more than free people as a purchaser of products... and I don't know who else you could trust... Independent regulators? You'd have to pay them so well they can't be bribed, and they'd have to be competent... I think it's easier for the people of the world to fix it's consumer spending habits, than to uproot the whole idea of consumer choice as a whole.
Also to save capitalism, we'll need to end subsidies to oil companies, raise the estate tax because inherited wealth is a cancer on capitalist economies, and regulate the banking industry like crazy. I just don't think the fundaments of incentive, merit, and choice, built into the concept of capitalism have been replaced by any more valid proven ideal.
A caring economy, may create a better economic indicator, that shows us that we're number 7 or something... but it won't replace capitalism, as a basic strategy for free people pricing goods and services.
Chris Ke-Sihai 200+
YAY!
This goes hand-in-hand with equal access to education. Give everyone a fair start, and collect theri chips at the end of the game so they don't give their own kids a massive advantage.
Rich people's kids are not necessarily smarter or more creative than poor people's. Giving more effective power (money, social advantages, any headstar) to one group makes all of society poorer in the long run because the best brains don't rise to the top. They get blocked by the privileged, or wasted on a life of drudgery.
Social inequality, big bad!
Jah Sun
--- Robert Kennedy
I'm going to assume you saw Nic Marks' talk on The Happy Planet Index... considering you link to it in your introduction.
The Kingdom Of Bhutan actually uses a Gross National Happiness index to make their decisions. Sad when a remote feudal society in the Himalayas is more progressive than all the democracies of the West together.
Kat Haber 500+
Kat Haber 500+
Kat Haber 500+
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/video/video-spains-unemployed-youth-pass-the-time/article2239474/
Vivienne Eggers
In other comment posts I've to date been a little tough on describing the personality type of politicians as tending to be those questing external power structures, needing attention, immature and not very strategic or considering overall implications. I do actually realise that many in politics are dedicated to improving human society and forming greater harmonious ways of governance - of saving what is left of our planet.
I have recently been upset a little by the callous and seemingly ignorant or non thinking decisions of some politicians - who instead of acting with legal and ethical integrity - refuse to face up to what is really going down in the world. The situation is too large, they feel overwhelmed by the huge environmental upheaval we now face - and the complete mess and destruction that Capitalist (and actually just greed around current economic wealth status model regardless of its branding) since the industrial revolution especially.
So we're no different from Greek, Roman or any other Patriarchal civilisation that has collapsed when it has devoured its own. But yes we are - because we are in an age where we have on physical plane advanced our technology to create global interaction and movement. We have raised third dimensional consciousness to the level of global entity (and unity) at least. At the same time we are still behaving like selfish barbaric primitives - and the severity is that our behaviour continues even though we (as society) are now fully aware the dire consequences our actions have on our survival. Through greed destruction of our environment and natural resources in the name of continuing this wonderful model we all pay homage to because we can 'buy' some luxury and comfort (well some of us and we think it looks promising for others too also). Its one thing to be selfish and destructive when ignorant. Its evil to be apathetic when you know the truth.
E.g - selling uranium in Japan's death wake
Kat Haber 500+
Kat Haber 500+
Chris Ke-Sihai 200+
Not yet ....
Kat Haber 500+
Vivienne Eggers
If it was just human civilisation - I would have walked away - or taken that final breath when offered on numerous occasions. But its everything - its LIFE - and Earth's life in turn has a role in the greater universe.
So getting back to the question. The intended evolution of capitalism is the MNC socialist model I describe. But as the last of our natural resources are destroyed the model won't survive either.
Lets say we can get our act together - usually some calamity forces change - and some of us survive. It will be hard because of the destruction and we will need survivorship skills. The international society model and the use of what has developed in technology is good. Replacing money with another trade system alone will not help. In a transition model - we can
Vivienne Eggers
In transition build business models that 'feed back' - shift the tax payer burden and state burden of responsibility away from a central governance and instil profit (or other) philanthropy models - where percentage profits go back into local causes - and consumers are able to nominate and vote how these are distributed.
I'm being brief - I'm saying first we make use of technology and try to move values away from raw commodities - make it more valuable to share or buy products that have low footprint. Second we re-organise the capitalist model and the NGO fundraising model - so that they combine - business profits fund community and community drives how the funding is spent. Three take protection and enforcement to international level and incorporate with the local model - and international exchange and network model.
That's pretty much what part of my thesis is anyway. But really - I do know we don't have a clean road ahead. We need to stop right now - as the world is under real threat - especially from nuclear waste.
David Hamilton 50+
We need to inspire them, and make them our titans, feed them our collective energy, if we want to survive... Of course that's just my opinion... I could be wrong.
Chris Ke-Sihai 200+
We often use evolution when we should really be talking about intelligent design. We could choose to evolve our economic systems in a direction that is more responsive to our needs, including care for the environment. This is not a free market, it's a managed economy, and it's not really evolution. Evolution is blind, we have eyes and can see where the lemmings are going. We have the power to guide our 'evolution' in better ways.
Evolution is pure trial and error, survival of the fittest. The internet is the closest thing we have to an unrestricted free market, and it's dominated by a very few major players that have increasing power over how things work, which they use to maintain their own positions.
It didn't used to be like that, it was once much more diverse. But the fittest triumphed at the expense of everyone else, just as the global banking mega-corp now dominates the financial industry. The aviation industry is dominated by two companies, there is a 7-11 on every corner in my city, cars have displaced most other forms of transport in many of our communities. This is what evolution does when left to its own devices, it produces super-successful giants and it's a winner-takes-all game.
In the natural world, there have been periods of mass extinctions in the past. There have also been many situations where individual species or populations have failed. And within species or populations, individuals get killed and eaten all the time. But the huge diversity and complexity within the ecosystem means that there is always something else waiting for a chance to profit from the failure of another, and as a result we live(d) in a world that is teeming with life.
I would rather take my chances in a massively diverse ecosystem than one dominated by a few organisms. Whether it's banks, dinosaurs, or communism, something will happen eventually to hurt them. Better to have alternatives than put all your eggs in one basket.
Joanne Donovan 30+
The problem we have now, is the bull is out of the stall and grazing in the corn, how do we rein in the barons of the world's oligarchies? The four horsemen of the apocalypse and others?
Even if that is possible, what systems can we advocate for as citizens, or lobby groups?
Proportional representation? A people's Bank? Community based housing schemes? A ban on industrial scale fishing? A user pays tax on dwindling resources? Restrain the power of banks? Any other ideas? Investment in Education from the roots up?
Chris Ke-Sihai 200+
Actually, I would guess that the richest of the rich (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet) would accept some redistribution of power. When you're at that level your personal needs are taken care of and you're de facto concerned with the big picture.
But if you're CEO of a huge corporation, making *only* $10million a year, and your duty is to your shareholders before anything else, then you are committed to preserving the status quo. And those people benefit when they make the right decision, but they don't eat the losses when they get it wrong - agency problem again. They have incentives as well as power to resist change.
A couple of interesting facts I keep running into:
- companies merge to enjoy economies of scale which give them an advantage over everyone else, but also become subject to the law of diminishing returns. As they get bigger, they become less profitable in proportion to their capital. They also become less able to respond to changing situations, which makes them more vulnerable to the inevitable disruptions and shocks.
- companies don't last, their lives are usually a lot shorter than ours, and compared to our civilisations they are shooting stars (see http://www.businessweek.com/chapter/degeus.htm )
So it seems to me that a cultural shift, a marketing campaign, a meme, could move the emphasis away from agency-led short-lived mega-corps that drown in their own shit. When people stop believing the hype about mergers and integrations and superhuman CEOs, and start looking for more sustainable investment opportunities, the money and talent will move into systems that can take better care of us.
David Hamilton 50+
I'm the invisible hand, you're the invisible hand and we all bought a lot of slave products, and corporate crap, and I see a lot of people that want to blame advertising and manipulation, rather than their inabillity to fight it. It's tough to fight the propaghanda machine of corporations and governments in any country, but we have too. I think we need to use the system better, because we can't trust people to regulate it.
It seems to me, like you think that 100 minds are better for solving a problem than 1. I would suggest that 95 times out of a hundred 100 peolpe will be better at solving a problem. On the other hand, when you have a really complex problem, I think only 1 in one hundred people are even remotely capable of solving the problem. Different people for different fields.
In every field there are a few people that are considered geniuses... often they're not the most popular or peer reviewed people, but they have an undercurrent of respect in the community. They predict the future... Often these people have already solved our problems, and they're just sitting in a room, angry...
Solar conentration works... we could power almost everything we own with glass and existing solar tech... We're just not paying people enough to buy it, and not expressing the urgency with which it needs to be distrubuted. Where you don't get much sun, but there's a coast, tidal power works. Where you get a lot of rain, gravity water wheels work. Electric Motorcycles work... These people are out there and they're just waiting for us to spend money on things that work... and they should get rich... So I advocate we spend our money better, while we wait on legislation.
Chris Ke-Sihai 200+
If nobody borrows to buy houses they can't afford then there is no sub-prime. If nobody eats fish, then there is no over-fishing. if nobody drives to work, there is no carbon problem. The system is the aggregate result of all the decisions made by all of us.
But it's easier to blame 'them,' the bad guys. Instead of acknowledging that we are the invisible hand, it's more convenient to see conspiracies and cabals. Instead of taking responsibility, it's easier to blame government because they didn't take care of us like good parents will prevent their kids from doing anything dangerous.
What are we? Sheep? You're saying 95% of us are, and you might be right.
David Hamilton 50+
I think we need to empower those people, and that at its core is the goal of capitalism, to create titans that people respect, who could lead them into the future. We as consumers need to demand our media machine empower these people further, and stop empowering people than no one likes. We also need to buy products from these people as they are created. We need to be better consumers. I think most of the 95% are capable of seeing the right choice and moving towards it, if it's presented fairly...
I don't think 50 million people are going to "build a concensus" around solving any of our big problems any time soon though. I think that it's going to be 1-5 brilliant crazy people that have been sitting in a windowless room reading books that are going to solve problems. When they do, it's on the influence makers, to nudge the sheep towards that solution. Influence makers, the middle management of culture, teachers, priests, police, celebrities, etc... They need to help explain to people what products need to be purchased to save our economy and world.
Unfortunately we haven't picked a great crop of those in recent years.
Vivienne Eggers
The theoretical prediction of Marxism that capitalism might need to be endured and exhausted in order for communism to 'take over' as a global model has also in a sense been realised - or at least we are in the transition period of it.
This is because of the third structural component of Capitalism and reality check on its philosophy through experiential validation.
The great principle of 'any many can make it to the top' under Capitalism has proven severely challenged. Ideally this is true. But as soon as the model (and its process) moves away from the SME village or local-intl exchange by small to medium enterprise operators the ideals become unable to fulfilled to the everyday man and woman. At least - in reality only 2 percent of the 6 billion will make it to the top. The rest have to make do underneath and by result a lot of brat pack power struggling goes on to form mini power silos as compensation for missing out.
Yes the third component is the rise of the Multi National Corporation. This is the new millenia quasi equivalent of a socialist model - employees and agents serving a board instead of a 'state' for the good of the entity - whose primary goal is to make profits - by exploiting new markets and efficiency. Back into the process described below. Yes many citizens make up the communist feel of the enterprise through shareholder investment - but again only an elite minority receive the true profits of the corporation. The rest get the pickings.
Meanwhile because the beast isn't human and because of its transborder nature - it has powers beyond state - and collectively pressures governments and controls markets, production and wealth. It finances wars, politicians and media. Most, not greedy are happy with pickings
BUT CAPITALISM DESTROYS LIFE
David Hamilton 50+
Capitalism is survival of the fittest incarnate. Capitalism is the only thing that is capable of surviving, it doesn't end life. Capitalism doesn't say that everyone can succeed, it says everyone can succeed if they become the best. It says that the government doesn't get to choose who's the best, free consumers get to choose. Any form of planned economy is destined to be planned by people who get old, and whose idease become obselete.
You forget the positive spiral of capitalism. When corporations become intolerably oppressive, people stop shopping there, or at least we used to. Capitalism is an economic system that trusts people to be adults and make their own decisions... It makes mistakes, but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. You don't take the decision making process away from people and give it to government... All smart people will be miserable if you give purchasing decisions to a democratic council, because what's smart isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't always smart.
Democracy is supposed to be a check on capitalism that improves standard of living... and democracy isn't doing it's job because people are lazy citizens. That is not the fault of capitalism however. The basic idea of capitalism is meritocracy decided by the consumer... Consumers made shitty decisions for 30 years.
Craig Patterson 10+
What we need now more than ever is to have no externalization or unintended consequence go unaccounted, of which there is no evidence. I suggest you put your effort into holistic life cycle cost analysis instead of being co-opted by isms. It just might serve you better, and us too. Market capitalism has indeed been free, free of responsibility, accountability or liability.
David Hamilton 50+
People not having any self respect, in this so called free society is responsible for the collapse of our economy. People choosing, through freedom of choice, to buy shitty products maded by slaves, and pollute our planet until it's unlivable. But capitalism says that people can take responsibillity for that, as consumers, and change. Anything else suggests that they can't. Any system that doesn't have free markets will inevitably collapse, because good people won't be able to rise to the top, only people best at manipulating regulators.
Capitalism needs to re emerge and evolve in this country, not die. Survival of the fittest, and meritocracy is the only thing people will ever really want. They will say they want other things, until they live in other things. We no longer have a meritocracy for working people in this country and we need to fix that, but giving purchasing decision to someone other than free people is not the way to go... Giving up the idea that some people are more valuable than others because they produce the goods everyone else consumes, is not a valid option.
David Hamilton 50+
David Hamilton 50+
Vivienne Eggers
Capitalism has a negative spiral impact on world economy at local and individual level.
NEGATIVE SPIRAL 1) In first world economies this has led to almost removal of a 'bottom layer' (i.e. grass roots trade and blue collar labour) - increase in unemployment and less job security.
NEGATIVE SPIRAL 2) - Diminishing consumer buying 'power' - rise in unemployment leads to greater poverty - less money to spend on consumerism.
As a first world model capitalism seeks to mitigate (counteract and prolong) the negative spiral of diminishing profits in ways:
CHEAP THIRD WORLD LABOUR - AND OUTSOURCE MANUFACTURE OF PRODUCTS (where we are now)
In the sense of globalisation and sustainable development this seems great (apart from domestic loss of jobs). Masses of poor people receiving economic support, jobs and development = poverty alleviation.
All looks good. BUT - there is a problem. That problem is the next stage of Capitalism AUTOMATION to increase margins and its future impact on current third world population economies.
NEGATIVE SPIRAL 4) Agricultural land and environmental living 'space' is increasingly acquired and developed - for production (e.g. resource exploitation) and industrialization. Poor people and Earth Indigenous are the first to 'go'. Impelled relocation.
NEGATIVE SPIRAL 5) Technology replacement with automation.
This is also another great feature of Capitalism and how it can aid sustainable development - as the paradox of education and knowledge it brings to commons. BUT in a capitalist model - this event - the next phase to come in third world capitalist development will be to lay off the jobs it now pays through automation efficiency.
At this point Capitalism's eco destructive features outweighs benefits = collapse
Chris Ke-Sihai 200+
People who own capital will be OK, they will make ever-increasing profits on their investments.
Nobody yet has an answer for the question of how people are going to pay for the stuff made by machines. If you don't have a job, and don't own any part of the economy, then you don't have any currency to buy things with. I think this is a new problem the human race has never faced before. What do you do when 99.9% of us are surplus to requirements? Build machines to keep us away from the rich people while we starve?
Vivienne Eggers
Why? Although principles of 'any (wo)man' equal can make financial success and prosperity under this model - its basic foundation is economic drivers - Capitalism is to make profits generated from commercial enterprise.
How? utilising a labour force, technology and 'selling' supplying consumers with a product or service or both.
Sounds great so far. Sounds like win-win-win - people get jobs, technology and production requirements fuel further enterprises and consumers benefit from wonderful products and services - these days through cutomer centred design - tailored 'to' them rather 'at' them.
SO WHY WON'T IT WORK LONG TERM?
BOTTOM LINE - IN CURRENT FORMAT - IT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE - IT IS NOT REGENERATIVE
Why? As we see with first world economies (many who now hold almost zero population growth) the beast has to keep making profits. Most business lifecyles generally are longer than a two-five year 'sell it' fire sale models. A SME (small to medium startup) will usually need at least two years in the ground to really start churning profits. People, families, partners etc. put in capital and lots of energy to nurture. Large corporations will also (unless merger or acquisition) look to an approximate 2 year 'break even' plan to start seeing return of investment. Accountants more cautious will look for five year profitability (yes there are many variations to this model - but this is the most prevalent).
So it takes a lot of time and energy to set up and run a business of any size and whether it is physical, web or both. Consumer markets by contrast have become increasingly transient. Customer loyalty of old is replaced by the latest, newest, fastest, cleverest and media popularised or marketed as 'fashionable'.
By result businesses seek other ways to find profitability - through laying off employees and efficiency ... [continue]
Kat Haber 500+
Chris Ke-Sihai 200+
On the whole, tribal societies are good at telling people what they should be/do. Roles are defined by tradition, inherited, and only occasionally chosen by free will. Especially for women. For me, this sounds like a bad thing, because it prevents individuals from finding out what they're good at and making the most valuable contribution they can.
On the other hand, a tribe is basically a family business, and we forget that Afghanistan's historical significance is as a trading centre. It's a trading culture, inherently capitalist. And the tribe takes care of it's own. There is a social safety net and support network.
Democracy is not essential for a capitalist system. You could have a democratic socialist or communist state, or any other economic system.
And even if we agreed definitions of tribal culture and capitalist democracy that confirmed they were different, who are we to tell anyone that they should move in one direction or another? We might feel that X is better than Y, but it's undemocratic and anti-capitalist to impose an agenda on others. The whole point of capitalism is that every experiment is permitted, and the successes will propogate. By experiment I mean "let's try it this way," whether it's finding the best way to organise a society or finding the best way to cook a burger. We try something, and if it doesn't work then we try something else.
My problem with the current mess is that large-scale integration of systems has resuted in there being basically only one way of doing things. When that system faces a problem, which it has, and can't cope, nobody in power is willing to look at alternatives. There is no room in the modern world to tolerate experimentation with other ways of doing things.
Joanne Donovan 30+
Kat Haber 500+
Craig Patterson 10+
Kat Haber 500+
Debra Smith 200+
I would like to see all children recieve free education but that we change societies fundamentally to realize that kids should also make a fair contribution to their societies. Yes, they shoud most certainly play but they should from their earliest days do some sort of contributory work as well. My own kids had well chosen chores that were appropriate for their age- not to have child labour- but to teach them that they were essential and important parts of the family unit. My three year olds had the chore of sorting the cutlery from the cutlery basket into the cultery draw. Did I need this help? NO! But they got dignity and a sense of importance from this well shaped task which helped them to learn mental skills of matching and sorting.
Kids in industrial arts should be building useful things for their schools. Rather than one more thing they should know that they improved the lives of their school mates with shelving, sheds to hold equipment and other things. We raise kids who know that we are just diminishing them by 'keeping them busy'. Kids should be able to progress at their own skill levels on computerized international curriculums in math, science and other subjects. All kids should be able to go back and restudy whatever they need to and participate if they are very talented on real international problems.
Our very best thinking students in every area should have a way to continue on and excell to the benefit of society and the world.
Joanne Donovan 30+
Joanne Donovan 30+
one of the excerpts:
'a deeper pattern is emerging that is extraordinary.If you ask all of these groups for their principles, frameworks, conventions, models, or declarations, you will find that they do not conflict. This has never happened before.
[...]These groups believe that self-sufficiency is a human right. They imagine a future where producing the means to kill people is not a business but a crime, where families do not starve, where parents can work, where children are never sold, and where women cannot be impoverished because they choose to be mothers. These groups believe that water and air belong to us all, not to the rich. They believe seeds and life itself cannot be owned or patented by corporations.
[...]'[...] No one started this world view, no one is in charge of it, and no orthodoxy is restraining it. It is the fastest and most powerful movement in the world today, unrecognizable to most American media outlets because it is not centralized, based on power, or led by white, male, charismatic vertebrates. [...]
Debra Smith 200+
Debra Smith 200+
The one dramatic and drastic change all societies need to make is to enable their young to have a level playing field. It is the favouritism for the children of the elite and the discrimination against the worthy and brilliant underclasses that ensures that we fail as societies. If we really did give all kids a level playing field, nurturing their health, their education and their opportunities we would continually rejuvinate and balance the insights and potential contribution that can be made by societal leaders in every field. I think this one change could keep us more firmly on track and give all people a greater reason to believe in and hope for their societies.
Kat Haber 500+
could this be a prescription for a more compassionate economy in America? Many developed nations have already moved to this-or is it not possible to sustain this?
M Maternity/Paternity Leave: Provide paid family leave after a new child comes into the family.
O Open Flexible Work: Promote jobs that have work hours and career options that allow parents to meet both business and family needs: flexible work hours and locations, part time options and the ability to move in and out of the labor force while raising young children without penalties to wages and benefits.
T TV We Choose and Other After-School Programs: Ensure safe and educational opportunities for children after the school day such as accessible and affordable afterschool programs, age-appropriate computer games, as well as more educational television options and an independent television rating system, with technology that allows parents to choose appropriate programs for children.
H Healthcare for All Kids: All children must have quality health care.
E Excellent Childcare: Quality, affordable childcare should be available to all parents who need it. Childcare providers should be paid at least a living wage and healthcare benefits.
R Realistic and Fair Wages: Two full-time working parents should be able to earn enough to adequately care for their family. In addition, working mothers must receive equal pay for equal work.
S Sick Days, Paid: All people should have access to paid sick days.
Debra Smith 200+
Canada has most of these things and we are doing fairly well as a society but we have much to work on even so. Our families need more affordable childcare options but afterschool care is run in many schools by third party providers like the Y. We also need to address the wages for child care workers and more work is needed for living wages for every sector as well as sick days for every sector.
One of the biggest tactics used by businesses to keep families impoverished is the move to part time or contract work to avoid benefits and this is making life hard for a lot of young couples.
David Hamilton 50+
Kat Haber 500+
Chris Ke-Sihai 200+
Is financial literacy a core part of your school district's curriculum? It wasn't in mine.
David Hamilton 50+
At the same time... Democratic capitalism, with an educated citizenry... So that it's difficult to make money, without doing work. It's difficult to make enough money to never work again... and the minimum amount of work you recieve for a laboring 40 hours a week, is enough to support a spouse, and two children while owning a home...
Incorporate that into an international minimum wage on imported goods and you should have a stable society, that creates stable middle class jobs wherever it goes... We're actually very close to the perfect system in America, we just need less billionaires, and we need to take the time as citizens to elect competent leaders to implement it.
Ultimately my financial system would be augmented with an idea I call "salary capitalism", which basically limits yearly income to a lifetime of spending.... probably 20 million dollars a year nowadays for a really nice life that supports a large family. To deal with enormous existing wealth... your kids can't make more than 20 million the year you die, the rest is taxed... We keep raising it, so that it's always a fantastic lifetime salary that every rational human being would be happy with, and we watch the billionairs cry like babies.