The Guardian brings us Economist Thomas Piketty — Capitalism simply isn't working and here are the reasons why.
Piketty is a man for the times. For 1970s anxieties about inflation substitute today's concerns about the emergence of the plutocratic rich and their impact on economy and society. Piketty is in no doubt, as he indicates in an interview in today's Observer New Review, that the current level of rising wealth inequality, set to grow still further, now imperils the very future of capitalism. He has proved it.
It is a startling thesis and one extraordinarily unwelcome to those who think capitalism and inequality need each other. Capitalism requires inequality of wealth, runs this right-of-centre argument, to stimulate risk-taking and effort; governments trying to stem it with taxes on wealth, capital, inheritance and property kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Thus Messrs Cameron and Osborne faithfully champion lower inheritance taxes, refuse to reshape the council tax and boast about the business-friendly low capital gains and corporation tax regime.
Piketty deploys 200 years of data to prove them wrong.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @02:39AM
The LHB management is proud to announce that the 2nd Annual 600 Black Cock Gang will be happening at the Pogsob residence this Saturday. We are also pleased to announce that Mrs. Schmitz of Herkimer, New York will be joining Mrs. Pogson in satisfying these hungry cocks.
Seating availability will be limited so if you have any questions send emails marked 'Strictly Confidential' to:
dietrich@dtschmitz.com
OpenPGP Public key id: E6D1EEE0
And we will do our best to get back to you as quickly as possibly.
Thank you.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by crutchy on Friday April 18 2014, @02:42AM
it is, but that doesn't mean everyone prospers. you will never have a system where everyone prospers; that is impossible (there simply isn't enough resources to go around and make everyone happy).
i think i prefer capitalism to the alternatives. at least with capitalism i have a chance (however remote) to have a comfortable life.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 18 2014, @03:53AM
> you will never have a system where everyone prospers; that is impossible
> (there simply isn't enough resources to go around and make everyone happy).
Sounds to me like you are begging the question there. How do you know there aren't enough resources to make everyone happy?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @04:11AM
Yeah and it's easily disproven too. Take the extreme case - kill-off nearly everyone people and you have enough resources for the rest.
We won't have enough resources if population keeps growing exponentially.
But if the population can be kept at sustainable levels then we will have enough for everyone.
The big problem is the sustainable level could be far less than 7 billion ;).
p.s. I'm excluding the set of people who will never be happy no matter what, and assuming happy includes "reasonably satisfied". I don't think it's practical to make billions so happy that every day they are singing "Happy" on the streets or similar.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday April 18 2014, @04:24AM
That's like saying: "Well, it's working, but it doesn't get the result".
The point would be everyone to progress (live a little bit better everyday), even if not everyone would progress equally. Lately however, it seems like many started to live a little worse everyday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Friday April 18 2014, @04:51AM
Capitalism is not broken, but Capitalism is not what we have anywhere in the world today (save perhaps Iceland which told the banks to take a hike).
Crony Capitalism is what we have. Crony Capitalism is entirely broken. Crony Capitalism is not Capitalism.
When your success or failure depends only on how well you lobby for your own privileges (and in parallel others misfortunes), that is no longer Capitalism. There is no "invisible hand;" it's cut off by government interference. Once you ensure nobody could possibly threaten your business, you can start charging more for poorer product. This is the system we live in. It is not Capitalism. It does not encourage new players to spring up and fight with existing ones, competing based on quality or price. The only thing this system fosters is malinvestment: lobbying enough to strangle all competitors and then funneling the rest into executive compensation and the stock price. No R&D to make the next line better. In fact, make it crappier and cheaper but raise the price anyway.
Sound familiar? Think about ISPs, caps, and which direction your bill has gone over time.
This is not Capitalism. This is the antithesis of Capitalism. Capitalism works. We need true Capitalism, but we must be rid of Crony Capitalism.
(Score: 1) by urza9814 on Friday April 18 2014, @08:59PM
The problem seems to be more one of scale than pure regulatory capture. You need laws to prevent companies from becoming too large -- antitrust laws for one example. Companies are going to expand as far as you allow, and if they manage to establish themselves as multi-trillion dollar multinationals, it's going to be damn near impossible for some new start-up to unseat them. Competitors will be bought out, smeared with false advertising, sued with frivolous lawsuits, driven out of business by selling below cost..whatever it takes.
Also, the entire theory of capitalism is based on consumers being rational actors always acting in their best interest. This isn't even close to being true, if for no other reason than the fact that there's not enough time in the day to fully research every single thing you buy. Advertising of course can then make this situation far worse.
(Score: 1) by thoughtlover on Friday April 25 2014, @02:46AM
We need true Capitalism, but we must be rid of Crony Capitalism.
Ermm... what we need is to get rid of greed. There's more than enough 'stuff' to go around, but until we get rid of greed, favoritism (toward friends or family) will not end. Till you can treat someone you don't know with the same equality as a friend, then we'll have true social progress.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 18 2014, @02:50AM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Friday April 18 2014, @03:03AM
No, so please send better ones. Seriously, I've been trying and I'm all tapped out here. Lost the inertia I had at launch due to interesting stuff simply not happening. Or at least not enough for me to consider it submission worthy.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 18 2014, @03:24AM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday April 18 2014, @10:33AM
I went to submit a story about Kepler finidng an Earth-like planet in the goldilocks zone yesterday. After writing it, I checked the list of submissions at http://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=list [soylentnews.org], and someone else had written it. Great.
I now find it's not on that list, but I can't find it on the main page.
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Friday April 18 2014, @10:58AM
When a story is accepted it is removed from the submission queue and usually put into a pending story list. It'll appear soon enough.
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Friday April 18 2014, @01:59PM
Even if you see it in the pile of submission, please send it in. the editors here are more likely to merge good points, and links.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @03:23AM
These days it is far too often that the science and technology works are heavily politicized too. It is the natural outcome when politicians, bureaucrats and the governments they represent want to control everything they possibly can, especially since it can be so profitable to the bankers and the real money controllers of the world.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 18 2014, @03:31AM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by moondrake on Friday April 18 2014, @08:45AM
I think it is quite refreshing sometimes to think critically about what we are doing and where we are going. Can capitalism be improved? Is there an alternative?
Discussion about this can certainly be nerdy, but in a philosophical way. It does not have to end in a shouting match.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Friday April 18 2014, @09:39PM
Yes! Politics and economics and such has always seemed to me to be kind of a natural extension of my interest in science and tech. Geeks are good at analyzing big complex systems -- that's just what we do. That's what computing *is*. And politics and economics are just another big complex system.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Saturday April 19 2014, @01:58AM
The framing of the question on its own (implicitly by TFA) is flamebait and reason to suspect or even assume that the article is sophistry/sophism [wikipedia.org]: "the one true -ism to rule them all" :P It might still have a point or two (and certainly responds to the zeitgeist) but I've read enough about TFA and it's author elsewhere to decide not to read it (I'm wading through enough overt manipulation and BS as it is).
As far as I know currently all countries and states including the extremes of Cuba and North Korea that are primarily command economies have some degree of mixed economies and no country is capitalist in any of the various definitions of that word nor is any country primarily capitalist (whatever that means it doesn't mean command economy or mixed economy) nor are any of the legal free market segments of any of these countries capitalist or unregulated nor are the illegal parts of the economies if one also considers the possibility of criminal prosecution a market regulation (and I think one should).
The framing/summary/summary title also implicitly conflates economics and ideology, something which is unfortunately (imo) incredibly common no matter what views and opinions or chosen political affiliations are involved. Economics is a very young (a few hundred years old) empirical science absolutely inundated by chaotic positive and negative feedback loops and both stable and intermittent irrational behaviors, and ideology is an old (at least something like three thousand years) fetid rank swamp of offal used for manipulation and enslavement (usually disguised and hidden behind ideals and principles).
Do we even know what a primarily capitalist economy would look like? I don't think any country with any taxation could truly be called capitalist. As far as I know (and I could be wrong) Marx coined (or at least popularized his definition of) the term capitalist but if it turns out one would have to go much further back in time to possibly find an actual example of such a country/system than the time in which it was coined then his contemporary use of it for his contemporary situation and similar future use is reduced to gibberish! To me it seems like it's simply one of the things Marx didn't really think through (perhaps he just wanted a derisive name for his own definition of the nature of the systems he opposed) and which has become or always was yet another meaningless word for people to get riled up about and kill each other over or whatever else nastiness they wanted justified.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday April 18 2014, @10:46AM
These stories get the comments though.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lhsi on Friday April 18 2014, @11:04AM
Usually a lot of the comments on political stories are people arguing and not really saying anything insightful.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday April 18 2014, @01:58PM
I'd mod you "Insightful" but I'm all out of points :(
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @05:42PM
No they aren't.
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Friday April 18 2014, @01:57PM
Well since I'm bringing them; I'll explain.
I haven't seen a compelling tech story in WEEKS.
Outside of the local drama, the Linus story and the the Occulus/facebook thing there hasn't been one damn good tech breakthrough.
Noone wants to talk about the science stories.
I wanted a discussion about system building and hardly anyone commented.
if you see something worthy of discussion - PLEASE SUBMIT IT..
I'm lousy at this!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Theophrastus on Friday April 18 2014, @02:51AM
I believe the key to making capitalism as good as may be is to accept that it isn't a stable system; it oscillates, it drifts, and must be managed,(traditionally, this management was to be as little as possible - but that's only tradition). Lately, for example, in the west, there have been too little effort to curtail monopolies. The origin of this is, as always it has been, the influence of money over the government.
The other drift is away from organized labor unions (particularly in the states). The labor unions saved capitalism the last time money became too powerful, and i believe, (in Pollyanna fashion), that they could do so again - but not in their current form. For instance, someone brighter than me (which isn't hard!) should make use of social media to form neo-unionism. Please, let's start with the programmers.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by crutchy on Friday April 18 2014, @03:16AM
unions are corrupt. henry ford payed his workers handsomly before labor unions took over everything.
unions benefit union cronies at the expense of employees.
not saying there should be no representation, but unions with too much power are worse than employers with too much power.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lunix Nutcase on Friday April 18 2014, @03:47AM
And plenty of other business owners didn't.
Yeah, securing 40 hour weeks, weekends, workplace safety, living wages were all just terrible things for employees.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @04:03AM
unions benefit union cronies at the expense of employees
Just as a country gets the government it deserves, the quality of a union--or lack thereof--is the responsibility of its members.
SHOW UP [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dissidentvoice.org] AND VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT.
The economic system where that happens is called Marxism. It is VERY democratic.
[1] Can you imagine workers voting to export their own jobs?
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by crutchy on Friday April 18 2014, @08:52AM
if workers choose to join a union that then organises a strike which threatens the viability of a business if alternative labour isn't sought, then yes i guess i can imagine workers voting to export their own jobs... it has happened a lot in america's recent history.
can you imagine a company voting to use overseas labor if local labor is more cost-efficient?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @06:20PM
workers voting to export their own jobs... it has happened a lot in america's recent history
This would be the point where you SPECIFY THE NAME of such a company.
Every time that I have seen jobs offshored, it has been a separate ownership class that made the decision.
Capitalists are people who make money from money; the actual labor is provided by a separate group--an exploited class of workers.
THAT (exploitation) is what I see every time that jobs have been eliminated/downsized/exported.
The working class who make their living from labor NEVER choose to export their own jobs because then they have no way left of making a living.
Try to shake some of the nonsense-based indoctrination you have received via Neo-Liberals, the Sunday morning gasbags, and presstitutes.
Allow yourself to become enlightened by Prof. Wolff. [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by crutchy on Saturday April 19 2014, @06:42AM
i prefer to get my advice from people who get things right, not consistently get it wrong... like peter schiff and ron paul
helicopter bernanke and nobel idiot krugman haven't got anything right... ever
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 19 2014, @07:33PM
You are saying Ron Paul gets it RIGHT??
All the names you mentioned are useful idiots for the Plutocracy.
Had you made the slightest effort, you would have noticed that Professor Richard D. Wolff has a completely different take on Economics from all of those guys.
Prof. Wolff advocates worker empowerment aka DEMOCRACY EVERYWHERE.
He teaches Comparative Economics.
Feel free to reject his ideas AFTER you have sampled them.
If you work for a living (aka are one of the 99 Percent), my bet is that you will see the wisdom in his words.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by crutchy on Sunday April 20 2014, @04:15AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgRGBNekFIw [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detai lpage&v=bzbEWYi_CI8#t=172 [youtube.com]
can you point to anything that prof. wolf got right?
(Score: 1) by crutchy on Sunday April 20 2014, @04:27AM
you do realize that workers already do own a decent amount of company shares?
google "superannuation"
i do work for a living (i'm not anywhere near the 1%)
you would benefit from listening to someone like Milton Friedman: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=milto n+friedman [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 20 2014, @09:00PM
Milton Friedman
The Chicago School of Economics (and the Neo-Liberals in gov't who listen to those nitwits) is what got US into the current mess.
We were doing fine for the 50 years before their hocus-pocus.
I don't do video. If you can't be bothered to link to a transcript, I can't be bothered with your links.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by crutchy on Monday April 21 2014, @05:54AM
nice revisionist history there. i guess ignorance is bliss.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday April 18 2014, @02:03PM
I work at a not-for-profit hospital. The workers effectively "own" the hospital. I have never seen such happy and productive workers as we have here. Our pay is high, our benefits amazing, and the care of our patients is world-class. When we've needed to expand, workers here voluntarily donated money to new construction projects.
It really does work better when the workers own the company. But that isn't how capitalism works. My friends who work at for-profit companies are being squeezed and squeezed and squeezed, no raises, no bonuses, slashed benefits, all the maximize shareholder value.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 1) by crutchy on Saturday April 19 2014, @06:49AM
your understanding of how capitalism works is flawed... there are plenty of capitalist companies that are owned by the employees.
capitalism
ˈkapɪt(ə)lɪz(ə)m/
noun: capitalism
1.
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 19 2014, @07:11PM
controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state
That definition is correct--as far as it goes.
It could, however, apply equally well to Marxism.
The 3 systems are correctly defined by WHO OWNS THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.
The "experts" who make a poor effort at defining economic terms in dictionaries always manage to leave out THE MOST IMPORTANT PART.
Socialism: The means of production is owned by the gov't (read: the taxpayers).
Marxism: The means of production is owned by the workers within the enterprise.
Marxism is making money with YOUR OWN labor.
IOW, if you don't WORK, you don't eat.
(If Teabaggers were true to their principles, they would LOVE that characterization, wouldn't they?)
Capitalism: The means of production is owned by an elite class (The Aristocracy) who do not have to do labor (read: don't have to PRODUCE anything).
Capitalism is making money with money.
Paris Hilton sitting on her ass waiting for a check to arrive is an example of Capitalism.
there are plenty of capitalist companies that are owned by the employees
No, if there is no SEPARATE class of owners (e.g. Paris Hilton), and ONLY the people who do the LABOR are owners, that is Marxism.
If a company has only ONE worker and that guy also owns 100 percent of the company, that is Marxism.
Non-owner employees is the mark of Capitalism.
Even in Socialism, the majority (read: the workers) can vote out the gov't if they don't like the way companies are being run.
NB: Not a single country that ever called itself "Communist" was Marxist; they have all been examples of State Capitalism (aka Crony Capitalism aka Plutocracy: what the USA is rapidly becoming).
Those were/are top-down systems; Marxism and Socialism are bottom-up systems.
If a company has employee stock ownership and **the employees own the MAJORITY of the stock**, I would call that Marxism.
Feel free to disagree with THAT **ONE** INSTANCE.
You need to stop consuming lamestream media. It is filling your head with nonsense.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Friday April 18 2014, @02:49PM
Marxism is not the best method of employee ownership. Chesterton & Bolloc developed their own system called Distributism based on Catholic teaching. Mix a government true to the ideals of the founders (states set domestic policy, feds set international) with small businesses owned by the employees, and society will be better off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @06:27PM
Marxism is not the best method of employee ownership.
Had you removed one word and added one word, we would be in complete agreement:
Marxism is not ALWAYS the best method of [] ownership.
I covered this in my defining what the terms mean link in my other post in this thread. [soylentnews.org]
Professional writer Bill Johnson deftly covers some examples of where each of the economic models applies well.
An excellent piece to bookmark.
Catholic teaching
Recovering Catholic here.
Anything that involves that dogma (or any other) quickly loses my interest.
Mix a government true to the ideals of the founders[...]with small businesses owned by the employees
Democracy that works well is a goal to be valued--in gov't and in the workplace.
A gov't for sale to the highest bidder and mega-corporations with carte blanche are the opposite.
http://movetoammend.org/#main [movetoammend.org]
I think that you and I can easily find common ground.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Friday April 18 2014, @08:46AM
Some unions are corrupt. Others are certainly not.
Management would like for you to believe every union is corrupt so you won't notice their corruption.
(Score: 5, Informative) by gallondr00nk on Friday April 18 2014, @09:04AM
In 1932, laid off Ford workers took part in a demonstration that marched from Detroit to Ford's largest factory at Dearborn, protesting the lack of work and immense hardship they were suffering. Ford employed security guards opened fire on the crowd, resulting in the death of 4 and the injury of 60 people.
Ford might have done some decent things, like paying good wages regardless of race. Yet he was also a harsh employer who had Ford staff conduct searches at the homes of employees looking for liquor, mandated church attendence and company leisure activity. There's a superb book called Fordlandia by Greg Grandin about his attempts to grow rubber in South America, well worth reading.
As far as I'm concerned, capitalism has had its chance to prove itself. It has had the rule of the roost for thirty years, and a major influence for a century or more. It has given immense riches to a minority at the expense of the rest of the population.
When regulations were removed for the sake of capitalism, inequality and instability went up. When we stopped social programs and welfare for a "more pure" capitalist system, inequality and misery went up. When we fuelled the credit markets and CDO's, believing in the invisible hand, it caused the biggest economic collapse since 1929.
I'm not against markets, but I'm against the naivity in believing a system will bring happiness and joy for us all if only we persue it thoroughly enough. We tried it, and it failed. It's time to move on.
Capitalism as we know it today is incapable of sustaining an environment, providing for a population, supporting a democratic society and producing happy, positive, financially secure outcomes.
Things are changing, and I'm excited to see what comes next. It has to be better than Credit Default Swaps.
(Score: 1) by NeoNormal on Friday April 18 2014, @03:29PM
I wish I had mod points today. Excellent post.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday April 18 2014, @07:35PM
it seems to me that crony capitalism is the natural state of capitalism once combined with human greed and selfishness. like communism, capitalism may look great on paper, but the implementation simply will not work in the long run, except for the lucky few elites.
anybody who refuses to see the flaws of capitalism despite all the evidence that keeps piling up is really no different from geocentrists or creationists. please note - thats not an attack but an observation, as all of them ignore the facts because they dont fit their worldview. capitalism seems to have become a religion: "oh capitalism just isnt working because you dont have enough faith in it!" that is seriously what these people are saying, as you hinted.
anybody rooted in reality that isnt pushing an agenda* can plainly see that pure capitalism is inherently flawed.
* pretty much everybody that pushes capitalism is also pushing an agenda, usually wishing to acquire even more riches for themselves and their buddies, to everyone's detriment.
(Score: 1) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday April 19 2014, @04:34AM
I think the problem with adhering strictly to any sort of economic system is they all have an end state that is not desirable for the vast majority. Capitalism is a win-lose system, it leads to a situation where fewer and fewer control more and more wealth, with the majority getting only crumbs tossed to them by those at the top. Socialism leads to a situation where fewer and fewer support more and more unless there is nearly ideal leadership, something which is difficult when humans are involved. Communism also requires nearly ideal leadership, otherwise human nature kicks in and those in charge grab more and more for themselves and their cronies. I'm sure one can find additional flaws in any other economic system.
The best idea is to graft the strong points of different systems together, so the negatives of each system are tempered. The liberal capitalism that replaced laissez faire capitalism in the US when Roosevelt came in is an example. Capitalism with socialist safety nets led to an unprecedented creation and expansion of a middle class, which led to an unprecedented strong, broad based economy. It's no coincidence that since laissez faire capitalism started to reassert itself in the 70's and took off in 1980 ("Reaganomics") the middle class has been getting hammered, with a corresponding decline in the economic base. Service industries, IP and speculation are poor substrates on which to sustain an economy.
(Score: 1) by crutchy on Saturday April 19 2014, @06:56AM
Capitalism as we know it today isn't capitalism. In fact the cronyism that destroyed capitalism may have started (or was certainly boosted) by Herbert Hoover.
"As the United States Secretary of Commerce in the 1920s under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, he promoted partnerships between government and business under the rubric "economic modernization"."
When you get corporations in bed with government, the results are predictable.
The problem is that government shouldn't be selling favors to corporations in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @12:23PM
The point is that crony capitalism is a natural end result of capitalism. When a large amount of wealth and power is concentrated on a few hands, it's easy that this wealth is used to influence government.
(Score: 1) by crutchy on Monday April 21 2014, @01:52PM
perhaps, but in that case the berlin wall is the natural end result of socialism.
there is concentration of wealth and power no matter what 'ism you refer to. nature calls it "survival of the fittest". the business types refer to it as "nice guys finish last".
those who rise to the top do so with the help of the majority, with little if any opposition. its only when they get to the top do people start complaining.
crony capitalism is the consequence of socialism displacing capitalism (crony capitalism isn't really capitalism at all). when any government becomes large and powerful, infiltrating significant aspects of the economy, elements of corruption within that government will sell that power to the highest bidder (can't fight human nature). if that power wasn't for sale in the first place (ie limited government) there would be nothing notable for big corps to influence.
(Score: 2, Informative) by GmanTerry on Friday April 18 2014, @06:21AM
The problem with unionism is that it is the exact opposite of capitalism. I have belonged to unions. Everyone makes the same exact money. There is no incentive to do more because unlike capitalism, there is no reward. So everyone does the minimum required and nobody gets to move ahead. That is my definition of socialism, not capitalism.
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
(Score: 1) by urza9814 on Friday April 18 2014, @09:57PM
Depends on the union.
At the hospital where my mother works, no, everybody most certainly does NOT make the same money. They make a hell of a lot more with the union than without though. Although the real benefit is in working conditions -- prior to unionizing, verbal, sexual, and even physical abuse of the nurses was fairly common. Before the union, they were being forced to *physically injure themselves* or lose their job. While trying to unionize, there were private investigators parked outside my family's home trying to harass fucking *children* (ie, myself, when I was about ten). None of that has happened since. The rare cases of abuse that do still occur now result in the assailant being punished rather than the victim.
Of course, having said all that...from what I hear the union has started failing recently. They gave up many of their gains in the last round of negotiations because nobody is willing to fight anymore. Nobody is willing to take on management. The problem with unions is the same as the problem with governments -- it's too easy for all involved to forget what they're fighting for and lose everything they've gained. At the extreme end, they can become just one MORE problem.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @02:54AM
Simplistic short answer? Yes
At least it involves working, unfortunately it is heavily taxed to fund the non-working socialist functions. Makes it kind of difficult to keep it functioning properly when the government gets more of the profits by virtue of taxing ever step of the process then any individual handling one of the processes does. Now we even have a tax on living.
Factor in laws and regulations that are more anti-competitive actions then real protection for the public. etc A less extreme form of Capitalism, ie without corporations, would do much better in the invisible hand balancing act. Returning things to the local first, then state, then federal would improve things greatly too.
Anyone remember that past era expression about if you didn't want to work for a living, become a policeman, politician or preacher?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday April 18 2014, @04:05AM
Being a civil servant isn't working? I doubt you'd ever tell a fireman, policeman, soldier, park ranger, nasa scientist, or dmv clerk that they are only doing their job because they don't want to actually work (those are all government jobs in the US).
Your problem should be specifically with corporations, politicians, and lobbyists (sort of a hybrid of the first two). Unless of course you don't like things like GPS, the internet, security/safety, and public parks. Then i suppose you could very well dislike all government employees.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @04:11AM
I've done a lot of contracting for gov. No, many civil servant positions aren't working in the sense that everyone else works.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Friday April 18 2014, @12:14PM
Doesn't contracting for the goverment depend on the government not having the resources to do the work itself? If so isn't it in your interest to perpetuate that stereotype so the public insists government remain small and unable to do work for itself?
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday April 18 2014, @01:55PM
The government can have the resources itself instead of contracting. It is a conservative idea that the government should be so lean that it cannot do anything except pay others to do the actual work. The end result is almost always substandard work by people who just want to get paid.
The US Army has tried contractors several times. Instead of training soldiers to be mechanics they would just contract mechanics. Saves tons of money.. right up until you need to deploy. Now you have to pay incredible amounts of money not only to pay the contractors but to support their quality of life and increased safety. They tried making only deployable units have soldier mechanics and non-deployables have contractor mechanics. This left no "peaceful" station for soldier mechanics to move to if they wanted/needed a break.
I guess i'm trying to say that the government can contract a job for money but stipulating that "you have to care" just doesn't work. Park rangers who do not care about the environment make for very poor rangers.
I do like the idea of contracting though. If a contractor isn't doing a good job you can wait until the contract expires and get another contractor. Except they are all the same and the results are rarely different. I do agree with you on some civil servants are lazy bums though. Lazy bums work everywhere.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @10:00PM
I sometimes spend my eight hours a day reading Soylent and I'm private sector in a fortune 500... ;)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by anthonytkim on Friday April 18 2014, @02:55AM
The problem isn't that Capitalism isn't working, it's that America isn't a true capitalistic nation anymore.
I start with a recent study from Princeton that cites America is more of an Oligarchy than anything else: http://www.policymic.com/articles/87719/princeton- concludes-what-kind-of-government-america-really-h as-and-it-s-not-a-democracy?utm_source=policymicFB &utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social [policymic.com]
Capitalism isn't the term for "everyone prospers" it's the term for "everyone has the opportunity to prosper." Capitalism is not perfect, it relies on fluctuations in the economy. Unlike socialism, which relies on an economy that doesn't have any significant changes, Capitalism allows for swings (that bring a wealth of prosperity) from time to time. Is my argument that pure capitalism is perfect? By no means. However with [reasonable] regulations, it allows for the greatest chance for the poorest of poor to become the wealthiest of wealthy.
America is built on the principles of allowing anyone to succeed. We have deviated from that a bit in the sense of some of the laws and regulations we have enacted actually put the poor and middle class at a greeter disadvantage, however we are focused on opportunity. No one in America is promised a specific future, but they are promised the opportunity to try to make it whatever they want. Capitalism allows for that because the invisible hand guides the market. Alternatives require an overarching government to determine what the market needs and should be, therefore not allowing the freedom for individuals to decide what they want their future to be. If there is no need or no market for artists, alternatives to capitalism makes it impossible for anyone to be an artist whereas capitalism at least allows them to try.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @03:01AM
And for good reason. Those times you pine for only brought robber barons, non-existant worker safety, and mandatory 60-80 hour work weeks with no weekend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @01:54PM
Those times you pine for only brought robber barons, non-existant worker safety, and mandatory 60-80 hour work weeks
That is not pure capitalism either. Many of what you stated were government interventions too. Market manipulation is easier with more money. Ever ask yourself why there are not thousands of ISPs with fiber to the home? It is because the big companies have convinced the local communities that it is in their best interest not to let anyone else in without a huge headache. Thru the use of 'campaign contributions' and astro-turf.
and mandatory 60-80 hour work weeks
How is that different than what exists today in many programmer jobs? Its even better that the work force itself takes care of it thru the use of guilt and 'performance reviews'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @08:00PM
Thats how it was before government intervention. Its thanks to the government that we can go to work without risking our lives and not have to spend every waking moment with the company.
There seems to be a theme where any time something negative comes up about capitalism, somebody says, "Oh, thats not pure capitalism!" Seems strangely similar to "No True Scotsman"...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @03:35AM
Capitalism is not perfect, it relies on fluctuations in the economy
What you just described is NOT Capitalism.
You described a market.
Markets can exist without a Capitalist anywhere in sight.
It would be good if stories on Economics would start by defining what the terms mean [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dissidentvoice.org] and where each economic system is appropriate.
Here's a Marxist environment [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [rdwolff.com] where EVERYONE in the company has a comfortable living.
(There isn't a separate investor class anywhere in sight to exploit the people who perform the labor.)
In a Marxist environment, the *management* is the hired help. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wikipedia.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @04:21AM
The American Dream is [nationaljournal.com] a [cnn.com] myth [academia.edu]. The opportunity of which you speak only exists for the rich.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tathra on Friday April 18 2014, @03:26AM
capitalism in its current form is absolutely broken. the whole point of society is to help everyone prosper, not just the lucky elites - the acknowledgement that not everyone is the same, but those differences can be made into a strength by pooling everyone's talents and resources. society is what allows for specialization and the increase of knowledge; if everyone is isolated, only looking out for themselves, then survival (obtaining food, water, shelter, and safety) is a full-time job, but grouping together, such that only a few people have to worry about everyone's food and water while a few others take care of everyone's safety, etc, allows everyone to benefit by lowering how much time and effort each individual has to put towards just surviving, thus allowing everyone to spend more time on less 'essential' (as in, things not purely for survival) things such as research, acquiring and distributing knowledge, providing entertainment, etc.
proof keeps piling up that capitalism will not work in the long term, and is causing us to 'regress' into a kind of neo-feudalism, and its already pretty well known that communism is just as broken (or perhaps more since every attempt at communism has failed spectacularly rather quickly), so a fusion of the two seems like a natural solution, or at least worth attempting to address the known flaws of each (see synergy [wikipedia.org]). give everyone a stipend that allows them to survive, something like $1000 a month (say, 600 for housing and 400 for food) plus universal healthcare, and have the stipend slowly taper off as wages increase such that nobody is 'punished' for success but everyone at least has the right and the means to live. ideally this would help curtail the selfish, "as long as i get mine, fuck you" attitude and the huge rewards for sociopathy that capitalism pushes since taking care of society itself would be built in.
yes, i'm just pulling numbers out of my ass, but since nobody is searching for a real solution to the problems society is facing (probably due to capitalism's inherent selfishness), thats all i can do. anyone who doesnt want to support the society in which they live should not be allowed to reap its benefits, period. selfish mooching like that used to be punished through ostracization, but along with that being impossible with a global civilization, capitalism has instead made it the fucking goal, to the detriment of everyone.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by physicsmajor on Friday April 18 2014, @04:40AM
What you think of, when you reference "broken capitalism" (as well as the article), is actually Crony Capitalism.
Please go look that up, it's important we have our definitions right. The Wikipedia article is actually quite good.
Crony Capitalism is in no way Capitalism, nor is it free. The only way to get ahead in a Crony Capitalist system is to get in good with government, so they will write convoluted laws to favor you and only you over your competitors. Not because your product is better. Not because your product is cheaper. Simply because of graft and gaming the system. This lets you lower the quality of your product while simultaneously charging more for it; you get away with it because the government has legislated everyone else out of existence. If this sounds familiar, it's exactly what mobile and wired ISPs are currently doing.
Crony Capitalism is what Ayn Rand is truly and correctly demonizing in Atlas Shrugged. It is the enemy of modern and free society. Every small company or start-up knows they will have rules, legislation, etc. piled on their heads the minute they threaten any entrenched player. If the business specific bullshit isn't bad enough, our entire tax system is built to punish homegrown start-ups which can't hide income in multinational subsidiaries. By definition, they have to charge more - much more - because they can't dodge all of their taxes. Never mind the fact that they can't produce in 3rd world countries. Wonder why there aren't new jobs all over the place? Savvy entrepreneurs know this, and a whole lot of us aren't forming any new companies right now.
Once more, for clarity: what I've described above is not Capitalism. It is a completely broken and gamed system designed to make the entrenched players/elites richer and more firmly entrenched while guaranteeing anyone and anything which could threaten them is squashed before they ever had a chance. It is the very antithesis of a free market. It cuts the so-called "invisible hand" off at the wrist. Capitalism, when done right - when government regulates to ensure a free market, not to pick winners and losers - absolutely does work. We need true Capitalism. We really, really do. Please stop referring to the current completely broken system of Crony Capitalism as Capitalism, because it confuses and confounds the public debate.
(Also, not all markets can be free and some shouldn't be: utilities, roads, etc. We need to start treating internet this way. In such limited cases, custody should be entirely public or not-for-profit private with massive oversight to ensure all funds are reinvested into infrastructure.)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tathra on Friday April 18 2014, @05:33AM
economic theory isnt my specialty, nor does it interest me in the slightest, but i shouldnt have to understand it anyway. i may not know (or care) about the specific term for the current, wide-spread incarnation of capitalism, but that kind of pedantic nitpicking is even less useful in addressing the problems and coming up with solutions.
just like with communism, human greed and selfishness will always find a way to fuck everything up. as such, pure capitalism runs counter to the entire point of having a society. it definitely has its uses and lots of benefits, but people shouldnt have to be slaves to jobs that they despise just so they dont starve to death or die from exposure. the upward mobility it provides in addition to the extra comforts it allows people to obtain through effort should always be maintained, but so should making sure that everyone participating in the society is able to survive.
even you agree that certain things should be relegated to the government's control (utilities, roads, internet, etc). food and shelter (and healthcare, which basically the whole world except for the US understands) need to be added to that list. capitalism should be the "top" layer, with socialism/communism/whatever as the "bottom" layer to ensure that everyone's basic survival needs are covered. unfortunately too many people have bought into the whole "fuck you, i've got mine" mindset (and whether that comes from capitalism or just one specific type of it is irrelevant), and there seems to be this polarizing mindset that capitalism cant be combined with other types of economies, using each where it is best suited to obtain the most from each and providing the largest benefit to the most people.
or maybe i'm not using the right specific words to describe what i mean, but pointing that out in an attempt to dismiss everything is a pretty big fallacy which doesnt help in any way.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by physicsmajor on Friday April 18 2014, @05:55AM
I'm sorry, but you misunderstand the purpose and function of capitalism. And who can blame you; you've never seen the real thing. We haven't had true capitalism in evidence for nearly a century.
Defining the terminology here is crucially important. Crony Capitalism is not an incarnation of capitalism as you suggest. Not in the slightest. It is an entirely different, entirely separate, entirely broken system. It is the opposite, the antithesis, the yin to Capitalism's yang.
There is no need for layers. When things are at their most capitalistic, there are jobs everywhere - no need for wage slaves. Right now it's a waste of time and effort to start new companies, because the entrenched players will plow you under with frivolous lawsuits, bought and paid for legislation, and a system which ensures an immediate, vast disadvantage if one cannot spring into existence as a multinational corp. So the job market is thin and getting thinner, because these are the only players in town - and they're heading overseas.
The "fuck you, I got mine" mindset, which I consider to be the modern MBA mindset, is actually taught in business school these days. It's a product of the broken current system, which - again - is NOT Capitalism. That shit would not fly in a Capitalist system. It wouldn't work; they couldn't get away with it. Because they would have competitors, and their bottom line would be cut to the bone either by competing on quality or price.
The words we use are important, because they define the debate. Certain players in our current society love these stories which just say "Capitalism bad!" - they are deliberately feeding the slow perversion of the term by asserting that the current state of affairs is even slightly capitalist. It is not. Such players have as their goal a different system which is even easier for elites to remain entrenched.
Capitalism, true capitalism, is the least friendly to elites and entrenched parties. This is why they want it gone, and have done their level best to pervert both the actual system we live under and the popular definition over the last century. I'm not coming after you; I'm trying to educate you and properly frame the debate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Friday April 18 2014, @06:37AM
the logical conclusion of that is that the people unable to work, due to age, handicap, injuries, etc, dont deserve to live. i dont think anybody can defend that position (despite lots of people apparently wishing for it to be the case), but nonetheless that is what you are saying pure capitalism advocates - work or die.
there seems to be a good bit of ignoratio elenchi (missing the point/ignoring the issue) going on. words are important to a point (language is flexible and evolves), but dismissing something over semantics while understanding the key point(s) is an ad hominem ("you dont know the right words so nothing you say on the subject matters"). suggesting that only the experts who know the nomenclature perfectly are fit to debate a topic is nothing but elitism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @12:24PM
Just because you believe John Galt's description of capitalism doesn't make it true. Furthermore, if you believe that laissez-faire economics of the 1880s-1920s was "working," then I invite you to google "Gilded Age," "Panic of 1873," "Panic of 1893," "Great Depression," and "Haymarket affair."
The fundamental problem with anarcho-capitalism is that it requires excess labor, like any other excess resource, go away. Now, it's easy to make excess oil go away by reducing drilling. The only way to make excess labor go away is to starve off large swaths of humanity. Most people place some value on human life, even if the particular human is not able to make you a really good sandwich, so very few people are willing to support a society that demands we throw away unproductive people.
You're using a utopian ideal as the basis of your definition of capitalism, and this doesn't help the debate any more than does claiming that the USSR wasn't "real" communism, but using the system described by Thomas Moore as a reference.
Capitalism depends on the individual ownership of finite property (capital, right?). As long as that property is necessary for economic benefit - and it's hard to grow anything without land or to build anything without tools - then the profits of economic activity accumulate with the owners of capital. Society and government exist to moderate that natural tendency. When wealth or income disparities grow, it's a sign that government is not doing its job. Not to make everyone equal, but to make sure the power inherent in capital is not abused.
(Score: 1) by urza9814 on Friday April 18 2014, @10:46PM
Even that won't work. You'd have to undo technological progress which has caused such great gains in efficiency. Or shorten the work week again. Just killing people off is going to decrease demand by the same amount it decreases excess labor. So if labor capacity already exceeds demand, that will clearly never bring the two to equilibrium.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday April 18 2014, @02:27PM
I would say what we have now is Italian fascism [wikipedia.org].
However, you seem to think that if we eliminated government involvement in business, we would have some anarcho-capitalist utopia in which businesses competed fairly in free markets thereby increasing quality and decreasing cost, bettering society by an invisible hand bullshit. But it wouldn't. That world can never exist because capitalists have no interest in free and fair competition. Their natural inclination is to monopoly, oligarchy, and exploitation. Look at the tech wage-fixing scandal. Collusion between Apple, Google, Amazon et. al. had nothing to do with government meddling. It's simply what the wealthy do. They use their wealth and power to accumulate more wealth and power at the expense of anyone else they can stick it to. Same thing with the H1-B visa scam. At least now they have to buy off the government to allow them to import indentured servants. It's just like the robber barons importing coolies to build the railroads.
That is what unfettered capitalism looks like. Robber barons. Gilded age. Slaves. Indentured servants. Company towns. 60 hour work weeks. Child labor. Death trap mines and factories.
That is the natural result of Capitalism. That is your utopia. You think in that dog-eat-dog capitalist world you would be some free champion of honest enterprise but you would not. You would be just another slave for some other man's wealth.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by TK-421 on Friday April 18 2014, @03:49PM
I am a believer in capitalism, but I personally draw a distinction between the capitalism practiced by most American corporations and that which is practiced by American small business. That which is practiced by corporations (employing tens of thousands) is broken in my opinion. There is no restraint, the third leg of the stool is missing which allows them the free conscience to metaphorically saw off the other two; economic and political freedom. When a corporation lacks moral responsibility you wind up with slave wages, corporate campaigns urging internal employees to seek public assistance to "make up" the difference, and other general douchery (sp?).
Contrast that with the small business owner. They lack the resources needed to saw on those stool legs (at least at the federal level). Their lively hood very much hinges on the day to day delivery of services/goods to their customers. Douchery isn't tolerated at that level.
Is capitalism working? At the small business level I say, "Yes!" According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, 99.7% of employer firms in the U.S. are categorized as small business.
As for the other 0.3% of U.S. based employer firms, other than making a profit at the end of each quarter (some don't even do that) there is very little about them that actually fits into the capitalism model. For this group it isn't so much about capitalism being broken, it's more a matter of the people involved at the top being broken.
P.S. My first ever post is now complete, which was preceded by registration. Now if I can just find an article worthy of submission my journey to the dark side will be complete.
(Score: 1) by urza9814 on Friday April 18 2014, @10:51PM
The question, of course, is how you stop those small local businesses from becoming the trillion dollar multinationals. Apple was once two people in a garage. Same is pretty much true of Google, Microsoft, and probably nearly any multinational you'd care to name.
Most humans have this insatiable lust for power. Because of this, capitalism left unchecked will seemingly always dissolve into something resembling crony capitalism.
(Score: 1) by TK-421 on Saturday April 19 2014, @12:33AM
In all honesty, I disagree with the notion that we need to stop a small business from becoming a trillion dollar business. I think the question is how do you stop a business from growing out of service excellence and into general douchery. I admit, I have no immediate solution for that. As of today there is no law against being a sociopath or narcissist which seem to be early qualifiers for crony capitalism.
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Monday April 21 2014, @04:04PM
Years ago I started reading this book and found it insight to your point. Is it the only solution? No, but it open the mind a little.
http://www.amazon.com/Barbarians-Bureaucrats-Corpo rate-Cycle-Strategies/dp/0449905268 [amazon.com]
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday April 18 2014, @07:05PM
Capitalism has also never managed to create a society where nobody was living in poverty. That's why there needs to be a layer underneath it.
Expand that layer a bit with the basic income and you can assure that there will be a steady supply of people in a position to start a business in order to keep competition strong.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday April 18 2014, @08:52AM
It goes much further. The first government boon that needs to go is incorporation.Kill that and the rest follows. Smith points out that markets can only work when buyer and seller are on more or less equal terms. Some guy making 40K will never be on even vaguely equal footing with a billion dollar multi-national.
(Score: 1) by soylentsandor on Friday April 18 2014, @05:16PM
INAE(I'm Not An Economist), but would say you're sort-of defining social capitalism. Two well-known social capitalist models are the Rhineland model [wikipedia.org] and the Nordic model [wikipedia.org]. They used to work well until the Soviet Union collapsed and the Anglo-Saxon model [wikipedia.org] more or less took over.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday April 18 2014, @08:23PM
thank you, that is exactly the kind of thing i was looking for. or even just simply implementing a basic income [wikipedia.org] or negative income tax [wikipedia.org] would go a long way towards making things better.
government is an inevitability of having people living together. the purpose of government should be the welfare of the whole group, making things better for everyone, not just a few elites.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lubricus on Friday April 18 2014, @07:41AM
I think the Piketty's point is that Capitalism is broken because:
Capitalism is supposed to encourage progress by rewarding work / innovation.
However, if the rate of return on investments is greater than the rate of economic growth, then those with capitol will continue to get wealthier, and the incentive to work is diminished.
Speaking only about the US for a moment, many people work, and many people work hard, but the chances of them being as rich as a Koch, Walton, or Hilton is essentially zero.
... sorry about the typos
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @07:04PM
as rich as a Koch, Walton, or Hilton
The Koch brothers are still involved in mergers and acquisitions, so what they do actually has economic value in a perverse sort of way.
The Walton heirs in Bentonville produce nothing that I can discern.
They simply wait for the chance to cash their large checks (which are the result of WalMart employees being on food stamps and other gov't assistance).
People who are against gov't handouts should be in favor of a requirement that workers be paid a living wage.
https://www.15now.org/ [15now.org]
NB The Walton family's worth just went over $149 million.
That's ONE family with more than the cumulative wealth of 49 percent of Americans.
Paris Hilton sitting on her ass waiting for a check to arrive is my favorite example of Capitalism.
If we would return to a pre-Reagan system of taxation where income from investment was NOT treated differently than wages, THAT would be a start on the road to economic and political health in the USA.
A transaction fee on stock sales wold be another idea to consider.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by urza9814 on Friday April 18 2014, @10:53PM
That doesn't create value, it merely transfers it. From the workers to the Koch Brothers' pockets generally.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 19 2014, @01:49AM
My use of quote marks in the subject line expresses my opinion of so many of these notions.
There are those who would say the the Gordon Gecko model of "clearing out the dead wood" has value.
You and I, not being graduates of the Chicago School of Economics, would disagree with that characterization.
Corporate / One Percenter justification of greed and mean-spiritedness is everywhere these days.
You know what they say: Figures don't lie but liars can figure.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @10:11AM
Who are these people? Madonna and Bono I know but these peeps-with-one-name remain elusive.
(Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Friday April 18 2014, @10:26AM
Cameron is Davina Cameron, UK Prime Minister, and one of 9 men with the ability to launch nuclear missiles. Osborne is David Osborne, the UK chancellor, who comes up with (or who's staff come up with) the budget for the UK.
(Score: 1) by rufty on Friday April 18 2014, @10:29AM
Capitalism is ok as dynamic system, but it trends towards a steady-state of oligarchy and eventually monopoly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @12:15PM
Our system of govt is a lot like a software project. It grows with time adding and removing features. Not all who work on it care if it works for everybody but only for them. There's basically zero testing. It's full of rampant bugs. It's slow, kludgey and untenable and it's user interface is really insufferable but what it's can do it does very well which is support an economy. It's actually a lot like craigslist. The economy of capitalism really isn't a model but more of a definition of how people naturally tend toward bartering for goods. Our government allows this with murderous efficiency but when things need to be controlled like energy or finance companies there's really no good part of the system for that and what little exists gets removed as quickly as it was added.
Short answer. Yes as long as money is made then capitalism working.
Did you mean to ask if capitalism works for me most people? Because that's a much different question.
(Score: 1) by klondike0 on Friday April 18 2014, @01:06PM
I'm reading Picketty's book, Capitalism in the 21st century, and am finding it a breath of fresh air in a stale debate. He explains his methods, the quality of data used, the questions that led him to other questions, and how ironic the title is when it is written in 2013 and can't possibly encompass all of this century.
One thing he posits is how monetary systems are political -- you can't separate them.
I think the question the OP should be asking is "Is our political system broken, and how does that effect our economic system?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @05:04PM
As an economic system, capitalism can work, but has it's flaws. As a political system, Plutocracy, it's a crappy system for the vast majority of the people.
If instead of the functioning Plutocracy in the U.S., we had something more like Democracy with a Government that serves the people and regulates it Capitalist Economy, then the answer is, yes Capitalism can work for the majority of people. When we have a Plutocratic Government that serves the Capitalists, then the answer is, it only works for the very wealthy humans and the very wealthy corporations but not for the vast majority of the population.
I do know which one I'd prefer. Unfortunately for me, it is not the same one that the Plutocrats who actually control the Government prefer.
(Score: 1) by codemachine on Monday April 21 2014, @05:24PM
Here is what appeared on the footer of this story page for me:
Seems like it is at least a little relevant to this discussion.