This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Possible Alternatives for Capitalism?
Lately, the current public discourse surrounding capitalism presents it as "bad" due to its propensity to create and maintain economic disparities and its poor management of environmental resources. This discourse was largely vocalized by the Occupy Movement (although I tend to agree with Dr. Martin Bauer of LSE ISP that it is more of a "rhythm" than a "movement", but that is another discussion entirely). However, what I think is really at the core of the Occupy Movement (Rhythm) is a critique of the competitive nature of the capitalism model, i.e. that the system tends to promote individual property/rewards than collective cooperation.
Taking a page from Professor Saadi Lahlou (also of the LSE ISP), one could argue, in contrast to capitalism, that socialism and communism focus much more the cooperative nature of humanity. However, the problem with just focusing on the cooperative part of human nature results in what is often called the "problem of the commons" or "public goods" in political science. In other words, while it is true that people can be cooperative, they also have a competitive side to them that often results taking advantage of others' work to benefit themselves.
So the question becomes (as aptly voiced by Dr. Lahlou, if socialism/communism overly focuses on the cooperative part of the human psyche, and capitalism overly focuses on the competitive nature of humanity, and this is the reason why neither (nor ultimately will the Occupy Movement be) are highly successful in a general, historical sense (apologies for the run-on sentence), then wouldn't the best system by a combination of both parts of the psyche, i.e. a system that simultaneously encourages both cooperation and competition within one unified framework?
Thus, I pose to you (the TED Community) to develop a workable system that allows for both parts of the human psyche to work together. Such a system would clearly be the best model for the future.
Joan Viaene
Random Chance 30+
It is capitalizing on other peoples problems, on what they don't know, on what they lack.
It is by its very nature taking advantage of others directly or through stealth.
If the principle of all loans were to be paid back, the amount of money still owed for the "hidden tax" called interest, would be un-payble because there would be no money in circulation to pay it with.
This is inherently fraudulent, dishonest and worthless as a system that one could imagine making right again.
It was never right to begin with, has been unraveling for 2,000 years and is unjust to the core and cannot be made just.
A truly just system is what everyone wants and needs and is not about repairing the "box" most just cannot seem to live or think outside of.
If a truly just system is not what you want or think the world needs, or is impossible to build, then I don't know what to think.
The needs of a monetary system are crime, greed, inequality, poverty, slavery, war and death. You cannot change the laws of such a system. You have to change the system into something entirely new and different and it would be best if people started thinking and envisioning the new and different or they will always say, "Oh, it can't be done!"
Then it won't be.
How decisions are arrived at is more important than "who?" for that lends itself to crime, corruption, deceit, greed and inequality. The 'ole boy system, including women today, who buy into this method and means of functioning.
Capitalism inherently is all about the "ism" I Self Me!
It is best to remove government but not to remove governing. This involves how we make decisions, not who makes them. Today, decisions are made for one of two reasons:
1. Things don't "get done", because of money.
2. Things "don't get done", because of money.
Politicians do not solve problems and they are not going to begin doing so now.
Rikki Ansell
People did not realize that the banks wanted them to fail to make payments, nor did they realize that one late payment would make unrelated prices (like insurance) go up. No one quite understood that banks were lobbying to change bankruptcy laws because the banks knew the house of cards was on its way down. What people are angry about is banks causing the mess and not caring. Looking back, they can more clearly see how the financial segment manipulated the masses. People expected the banks to say NO if the people couldn't afford credit, and the banks did not do that. Banks pay the biggest bill first, even if it is the last one to come in, because then they can charge overdrafts on more transactions, putting people who are struggling into more difficulty.
We don't really need to replace capitalism, we need to replace the laws that once controlled the greed. We also need to replace the "got to have it" mentality that easy credit brought about. Sometimes excessive supply creates the demand, as easy credit exemplifies. Everyone deserves to get a fair price for a fair product or service. What we really need is a clear definition of "fair price" and "fair product or service."
Adam Engstrom
edward long 100+
Adam Engstrom
edward long 100+
Adam Engstrom
However, I guess what I was trying to say (and quite badly at that) was that we what we often forget is that there are things that we haven't thought about, new ways of doing things that we can't even imagine (e.g. the idea of space travel for the ancient Egyptians), and when there is no "impossible thoughts" (so to speak), then there is nothing let to invent, discuss, think, etc. For that reason, I tend to shy away from absolutism because I do not know what I can not conceive.
I would also like to state that I don't think that we need to remove government, I think we just need to re-envisage the economy which might alter the form of government as a by-product. Or rather, I should say that others have suggested this. Personally, I see huge flaws with capitalism, but I think that the economic woes we are facing now are only the end of our economic hegemony the West has had and shifting it to China, Brazil, and India (among others). They are now currently benefiting from our recession while we benefited from their economic disparity before. Thus, capitalism is actually balancing previous economic inequalities... at least in a semi-arguably way.
edward long 100+
Anne Dagen 10+
Once a structure reaches a certain size, the majority of the people within it begin to feel anonymous and unaccountable. This can lead to people feeling disenfranchised. The anonymity also encourages people to exploit the system for their own ends.
Adam Engstrom
Anne Dagen 10+
It was interesting that both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet set time limits on their charities by which all the money had to be divested. I suspect that part of the reasoning was to prevent those rich foundations from developing into self-sustaining bureaucracies.
Robert Winner 50+
The occupy Rhythm is political where the welfare society wants something they did not work for but was promised by our president that they could have. That is a socialistic thought and the major problem is that at some point you run out of other peoples money. It would be much smarter to get a job than to bring the whole country down. A major political donor, George soros, wants a one world government and is pushing our president toward socialism. Money talks and after you take it you "owe" a debit. Sadly even our presidency and legislators can be bought. My opinion. Bob
Adam Engstrom
As for your comment about socialism being purely about taking other peoples' money, I would have to, unfortunately, disagree. For example, I would point to Sweden and Norway which have some of the lowest debts of the Western world (i.e. they do not take money from other countries), have some of the most robust economies with very hardworking individuals (i.e. they don't just take money from the state--indeed, there wouldn't be money from the state if they didn't pay taxes of which they would have to work to earn), and are the few countries that are actually surviving the current recession. That being said, I do totally agree with you that governments have FAR too much of a propensity to be bought and sold these days which is a terrible shame and a disgrace.
Rhona Pavis 50+
To each according to her or his ability to appreciate.
Kenneth Boulding once wrote something he called the "Grants economy." That's worth thinking about.
What about finding some basis for distributing money income other than "work?" I know Aristotle would have appreciated that.
Adam Engstrom
Rhona Pavis 50+
quantity of smiles per day on the faces of children. I also came up with an idea for a City Sindex to measure what was happening in cities such as Las Vegas and New Orleans. Let's keep working on this very important project. Happy Today.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html
to find out that capitalism is a scheme of cooperation on grand scale
Adam Engstrom