Capitalism, the theory is so simple

Another is that capitalism is the most efficient system.

If it were not, we would be the United Soviet Socialist States of America, by now, and the rest of the world would consist of soviet states, too. The appeal of socialism failed, not because it did not have enough supporters in positions of influence, but because socialism simply did not work. The world shook off its spell when the desire to have a decent standard of living became stronger than the desire to wage class war.
You cannot name one scrap of evidence to the contrary, either.     emund.w

Jay Hanson about says it best, “Economics is the publishing of political agendas that are hidden within known-false assumptions. If one accepts these assumptions, then one accepts the hidden agendas. This brilliant method for subliminal programming has been very effective in instilling libertarian ideals into university students for half a century.” LC I think we have peeled away the fiction that capitalism is the only route to freedom, or that tyranny can’t accept private property and capitalism.  That lie has been exposed.  Another is that capitalism is the most efficient system.  Capitalism requires growth, which means one must produce items that are quickly consumed and discarded.  Capitalism is most efficient at permitting us to extract materials and ultimately convert them into trash.  It is the maximal entropy principle, which cast a skeptical eye on the claim of efficiency.  The other is the whole idea of a free market.  Such does not exist, and frankly I doubt it can exist.  Our economy centrally requires the monetary power of the federal government, and without that the system probably can’t function.  If we do reach a future where the nation-state and its power of revenue and money supply, it most likely can only happen with some oligopoly of corporate and financial powers.  In that case the free market will have ceased to really be free. Another falsehood is that if you lower taxes on the rich you can increase employment.  The empirical data against that thesis is overwhelming. LC

You continue to confuse capitalism with free enterprise.  Capitalism simply describes the use of public markets for the efficient allocation of capital I.e. a way to allocate money where most needed.  It does not demand growth to operate.
The notion that we need the “money power of the government” is simply a fiction.  We need government to provide the those benefits that are enumerated in the Constitution but private enterprise ceases to exist when the public sector replaces the private sector as the source of economic growth i.e. when it owns a nations means of production.  Such a system is indistinguishable from communism and has failed everywhere it has been implemented.  Your support of that end is why you continue to be branded as a Marxist.  That is not name calling, that is the descriptive name for an economy where all economic planning and all job formation is done by the by the state irrespective of supply and demand factors.  It is the opposite of free enterprise. Billb
The theory is simple indeed. In order to create suistainable system we have to find out, to investigate, to learn how real people are and create the rules for the real people. And this task is not simple anymore. Every individual’s world picture and behaviour is in accordance with his unique life experience, the information he or she has gathered in his lifetime, the model of the world everyone has developed. How can we hope for common, harmonized, coordinated behaviour if we have so different conceptions, perceptions and insights about the world? Create unique, obligatory  for all the behavioral rules? Who will determine the line between dictatorship  and freedom?
IMO there is only one way, one solution – to distribute knowledge possibly close to reality. This is called scientific approach. I.V

Another falsehood is that capitalism requires growth. Owners of capital
could do well with a steady stream of profit income. It doesn’t need to
increase for them to be happy, rich, and powerful capitalists. The
supposed “need” for growth is due to our assumption that we should consume more and more to keep all workers busy even when worker productivity soars and allows us to produce too much.

Capitalism includes unearned income, which could end wage-dependence and thus end the assumed need for growth. Taxing the rich and transferring that money to the poor could increase demand and jobs, but why not just share the unearned income so we can stay home, since most of our labor is not really needed? That could allow an immediate and deep lowering of consumption, as we must to survive for long. Barry

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote:
The US economy has evolved into a casino type of economy with major banks and financial-equity firms making billion$ and when things go really bad they have the clout to make withdrawals from their ATM machine called the US government.
It is not going to happen of course that BIG MONEY is going to open itself up to finance the average lot who are not employable.  Yet it is clearly the case that with automation making more inroads and outsourcing still a problem that more and more Americans are going to be faced with permanent unemployment or under employment.  This is a part of why I think people need to start taking control over their sources of basic needs, such as food.  This recession we are in is probably the new normal, and we might in a couple of decades look upon
it as a better time.

Either we can fix the system by persuading the rich and the experts to fix it, or we can give-up on fighting Goliath to finally have our cows stolen by gangs. And, while we inspect our independent navels many others will continue to toast the planet and our cows will die. We can watch from our holes. Maybe the warlords  will leave us alone if we are impecuniously
toasted.

Unemployment should be expected as productivity rises, so expect permanent recession and consider how we might adjust to circumstances … http://home.earthlink.net/~durable/
Barry

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203430404577092682864215896.html

We are once again facing one of those rare turning points in history when dangerous challenges and limitless  opportunities cry out for clear, long-term thinking. The disruptive threats now facing the planet are extraordinary: climate change, water scarcity, poverty, disease, growing income inequality, urbanization, massive economic volatility and more. Businesses cannot be asked to do the job of governments, but companies and investors will ultimately mobilize most of the capital needed to overcome the unprecedented challenges we now face.

Before the crisis and since, we and others have called for a more responsible form of capitalism, what we call sustainable capitalism: a framework that seeks to maximize long-term economic value by reforming markets to address real needs while integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics throughout the decision-making process.

Such sustainable capitalism applies to the entire investment value chain-from entrepreneurial ventures to large public companies, seed-capital providers to institutional
investors, employees to CEOs, activists to policy makers. It transcends borders, industries, asset classes and stakeholders.

Those who advocate sustainable capitalism are often challenged to spell out why sustainability adds value. Yet the question that should be asked instead is: “Why does an
absence of sustainability not damage companies, investors and society at large?”Eleanor B.

Also worth listening to: | http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12474

There are three potentially very dangerous forms of social existence.  These are: organized religion, the nation state, and the corporation.  Atheism argues for the ultimate end to religion, but assume for the moment that this is not possible.  By this it means churches will exist no matter what. The same is true of nations and corporations.  In all three cases they need to be carefully watched and their influence checked.  History is filled with the horrors meted out by all three of these social entities, and in particular when two of these go out of control and function together.  However it might be going too far to argue for the complete abolition of either of these.  In order to keep these in check it requires an active citizenry who are educated and not gullible to forms of persuasion.  This is a tall order. LC

The ultimate end to religion for the moment and in a foreseeable future is not possible because the human nature needs the sense and purpose or goal. Something higher than our daily existence. Science will not gain the masses until it will uncover to people the global, cosmic meaning of our existence, our significance, the possibilities and the responsibility before the future generations and more – for the humankind on a big scale. For the only place (known to us) in a whole Universe where its matter is trying to get conscious of itself. I.V.

 

About basicrulesoflife

Year 1935. Interests: Contemporary society problems, quality of life, happiness, understanding and changing ourselves - everything based on scientific evidence. Artificial Intelligence Foundation Latvia, http://www.artificialintelligence.lv Editor.
This entry was posted in All Posts, Economics and Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s