(April 19, 2017 at 4:19 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(April 19, 2017 at 2:13 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I think you have a one sided and not entirely accurate view of capitalism. Capitalism gone wrong, essentially. Well sure, if people align their interests (or have their interests aligned) with shitty things shitty things happen..but if we were chasing the dollar on a bunch of awesome things...wouldn't awesome things happen?
How, how will it do that? We know how capitalism can be employed to provide some of those things to some people...it's effectiveness is variable from place to place, time to time, and even within those places and times who has what is not uniform...but we can see that it does provide, and how.
How does socialism, in your view, provide those goods and services? I -also- think that all of those things should be available to all people, I think that capitalism is a good way to acquire the resources required to make it happen. People want more than they need. So long as what people want is monetized the proceeds can go, in whatever portion we accept, to what we need. So long as it's privately monetized, the state doesn't have to micromanage each process, it can focus on the shit they don't feel should be privately monetized.
Capitalism is short-term gain at the expense of long-term loss. But, yes, you are absolutely right (and, absolutely wrong at the same time!) Capitalism is better than socialism, in the short-term. As such, capitalism is, inevitably, destined to fall into the Tragedy of the Commons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
In capitalism, people have every incentive to cheat, to exploit their neighbors, close and far, to bend and break every rule, so long as they can get away with doing so! Socialism, at least, says that everyone is going to have a minimum and maximum (to insure the minimum) standard of living; as such, the temptation to cheat long-term or short-term is much less than it is with the "free markets".
(April 19, 2017 at 4:15 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I think you're thinking of communism, not socialism... but hey, I get it... the cold war era propaganda in the US worked really well!
Not quite -- in communism, there is little private property, but that is not what I am advocating here. I think that good socialism will retain private poverty with some private corporations. Still, the government would be the dominant factor in the economy, with private industry in service to the country as opposed to being in competition within and between sectors.
Neither capitalism or socialism are good or bad, what is bad is greed can create a monopoly out of BOTH. Un rules by selling his utopia that if you just obey him he will give you what you need. HE is a capitalist too. I only agree that we as a species need to think long term and not make the quick buck the default. In America one party and the top class, even though we have more checks on power, have been winning elections by selling the utopia that only the top know what they are doing.
It boils down to greed for power in both extremes and it always takes money to create that monopoly and maintain that monopoly.
Globally speaking both friend and foe think like a cheetah, everyone supports their economy thinking speed is the key and both friend and foe, open and closed societies depend upon a top class to compete in the global market. I only agree that you cant consume your way to prosperity and yes, the competition is at the top to exploit, not make things easier on workers. But that includes closed societies too. Un has far more people in poverty and still is rich and invests in the global market.
