SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Capitalism is in trouble – at least judging by recent polls.
A majority of American millennials reject the economic system, while 55% of women age 18 to 54 say they prefer socialism. More Democrats now have a positive view of socialism than capitalism. And globally, 56% of respondents to a new survey agree "capitalism as it exists today does more harm than good in the world."
One problem interpreting numbers like these is that there are many definitions of capitalism and socialism. More to the point, people seem to be thinking of a specific form of capitalism that deems the sole purpose of companies is to increase stock prices and enrich investors. Known as shareholder capitalism, it's been the guiding light of American business for more than four decades. That's what the survey meant by "as it exists today."
As a scholar of socially responsible companies, however, I cannot help but notice a shift in corporate behavior in recent years. A new kind of capitalism seems to be emerging, one in which companies value communities, the environment and workers just as much as profits.
The latest evidence: Companies as diverse as alcohol maker AB InBev, airline JetBlue and money manager BlackRock have all in recent weeks made new commitments to pursue more sustainable business practices.
[...] A 2017 study showed that many companies with climate change goals actually scaled back their ambitions over time as the reality clashed with their lofty goals.
But businesses can't afford to ignore their customers' wishes. Nor can they ignore their workers in a tight labor market. And if they disregard socially responsible investors, they risk both losing out on important investments and facing shareholder resolutions that force change.
The shareholder value doctrine is not dead, but we are beginning to see major cracks in its armor. And as long as investors, customers and employees continue to push for more responsible behavior, you should expect to see those cracks grow.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @06:44PM (11 children)
It's pretty well understood by now in the field of political economics that capitalism does not, and can not, exist in a vacuum. It requires, at a minimum, contract law along with judgement and enforcement of same. You also need, depending on how you split things up, laws governing ownership and nuisance and so on and so forth.
Capitalism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Never did. Never can. Because the moment that you rip everything else away, the foundational structures that support it vanish.
The proper question is: what outcome do we want, and how do we shape the rules of our society to support that? To the extent that the result enables people to engage in establishment, modification and development of capital (whether physical or not), it will be capitalist.
Capitalism is like the horse; regulation is like the blinkers, reins and harness that direct it. Replacing capitalism has a ... let's call it a poor performance track record.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Friday January 24 2020, @08:08PM (8 children)
Any suggestions? I've thought for a while that congress-people and senators should make a lot more money, to attract ambitious professionals who are willing to put the job first. Now we get ideologues, rich people for whom politics is a hobby, and people who want to milk the connections.
If lust for money is a useful motivator in economics, then why not politics? The problem is that the people who manage a 4 Trillion Dollar budget get paid 200k/year or so. They should be making 100 times that.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 24 2020, @08:40PM (6 children)
You want good results? Tie their pay or even their continued employment to how well they do their jobs. Ditch the Rolls Royce Retirement and the Heavenly Healthcare and let them live with what they tell us we have to live with. Forbid them any income whatsoever outside the pay from their office. Have them shot without trial if their kid with no experience whatsoever gets a seven figure a year job at a Ukrainian oil company.
There are plenty of ways to fix our political system but it's never going to happen if we rely on the fucktards in the system we have now to vote for changes. It's straight up going to require either a nine figure political campaign that enrages the populace beyond all reason or their heads on pikes.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @08:59PM
Umm, what about their kids with no experience getting to run the white house? Oh right, your a tribal hack who can't ever admit he is wrong.
You are a blight upon this community.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Friday January 24 2020, @09:25PM (3 children)
They already lose their job if they lose the election, which is the ultimate verdict on how well they performed. The electorate is fickle, and who wants to deal with that kind of job insecurity, if the alternative is a higher paying career with more job security? That's why politicians are already beholden to others, so they can have the next think-tank or lobbying or corporate gig teed up. Better pay would reduce those conflicts of interest. The ones who are independently wealthy don't have those conflicts, but they are just representing themselves.
That makes for good polemics, but you see who it attracts to the job.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 25 2020, @04:00AM (2 children)
No, it's not. Not even remotely. If it were, the cities that keep electing the people who turned their city from a thriving metropolis into either a third world shithole or a first world shithole that nobody can afford to live in wouldn't. Hi, Detroit! Hi, San Francisco!
It's a referendum on nothing except who is the better bullshit peddler.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Saturday January 25 2020, @04:50AM (1 child)
Who else is going to judge the job performance of elected officials? Take SF's numbers: $12 billion annual budget and 300k mayor's salary.
A comparable size company is CSX (railways, first company of that size I found). Their CEO makes $1.2M base plus $1.5M performance incentive. CSX is probably easier to run than San Francisco.
But the mayor loves her city and is doing the job because she wants to serve the good people of SF? I'm sure the CEO of CSX also says that he loves his company. If we believe in a free labor market, how can we be surprised by poor performance, when elected representatives work for 20 % of the free-market rate?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 26 2020, @03:57PM
That'd be a legit argument if elected officials were worth 20% of the free-market rate. I'd say even 1% of the free-market rate would nearly always be overpaying them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @10:38PM
You gonna issue a retraction on your fake news journal yet?
Are you capable of admitting when you're wrong, or is "democrat" the magic word which triggers TMB out of all respectability?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @08:49PM
Depends on the outcome that you want.
The most successful parts of the american model are the parts that put limits on power; the famous checks and balances.
As far as the market is concerned, I can think of one place where I'm in broad agreement with Warren on goals, if not methods. I would shape monopoly law to recognise that a sufficiently large corporation is inherently distorting within its market, and require its breakup. Other than that, I would go back and do something rather trumpian, in terms of cleaning up, rationalising and simplifying regulations because the current burdensome environment is worse for small players than for large, and is a rich playground for activists who love regulatory capture as a way of driving their agenda.
It's a mixed bag.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday January 24 2020, @11:12PM (1 child)
That really depends on what you call capitalism. What would you call the stone age merchant who traveled the amber route? He had to have the capital to acquire his merchandise to start with, and he needed to sell it at enough of a profit to pay for his trip. And he had no governmental support, not even money.
Corporations depend on government. Capitalism, real capitalism, is a lot more basic. And it has existed as far back as we have records (including archaeological records). Even Neanderthals seem to have practiced it, though the evidence is quite sketchy. Chimpanzees don't seem to practice it, but they don't trade outside their groups, either. (The only explanation besides wandering stone age merchants that occurs to me is tourists, bringing back souvenirs...and that seems a bit implausible.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @11:25PM
It also depends on what you call government. The community or tribal standards that support trade and honest dealing are also a form of government - including for prehistoric amber merchants.
If you think governments only involve scribes and ministers and all the rest of it, sure, you're right.