Marx was completely wrong because he based his entire ideology on a flawed axiom - the labor theory of value - and should be treated with the same level of intellectual respect as phrenologists and astrologers.
> Marx was completely wrong because he based his entire ideology on a flawed axiom - the labor theory of value - and should be treated with the same level of intellectual respect as phrenologists and astronomers.
what about people who confuse astrology and astronomy?
"Marx was completely wrong" is quite a statement -- you must have read all 2000 or so pages to be able to say this?
The labor theory of value is, indeed, rather silly. Marx did say a lot of other stuff, however. He was a crappy economist, but a great (IMHO) sociologist and philosopher.
One of his many points was that (market and non market) economies are socially embedded and created, generally to support power grabs by certain classes. Market economies have the extra advantage that they allow class structure (the relation between groups of people who are powerful and groups who are screwed-over) to appear scientifically necessary, as inevitable as the orbit of the planets once we know the differential equations and the initial conditions. But really, the economies mask a power struggle that was out in the open during feudal times (e.g. when the Norman lord showed up and said you will farm for us and give up your weapons, or we will kill you now).
When a person can't see this social context for markets, Marx would say such a person was blinded by "commodity fetishism" and a misguided belief in powers of commodity relations (and that such a belief is no more rational than the belief that a blessed doll can inflict misery on your enemies.)
That's a pretty bold statement. How do you know for certain that the labor theory of value is flawed? Has it every actually been seriously tried?
Further, you're implicitly saying that the "free market" view is the correct one. How can you possibly know this? Because it manages to work? Of course it does! Any programmer should know that when you're livelihood depends on it you can make any old garbage hang together long enough to get your next meal. I'm not saying "free market" hypothesis are "any old garbage", but rather that something simply not catastrophically failing doesn't mean it's the best answer or even a good one.
You hold pretty strong beliefs for something that can't possibly be proven one way or the other.
> I'd be interested to hear what other economic structures you think are better.
I never indicated I knew if there were better economic structures; perhaps it is yet to be invented, instead of impossible to fathom. An open-mind which considers a new approach is a first step.
I think it is better that we don't attempt to "protect" Capitalism ideology (as you have just done), rather, attempt to refine and always course-correct to something more mature and more stable.
I think it is better that we don't attempt to "protect" Capitalism ideology (as you have just done), rather, attempt to refine and always course-correct to something more mature and more stable.
At what point did I 'protect' capitalism?
You said it's beneath us as a society and I said that what we have isn't capitalism.
The problem is that I don't think you've actually studied capitalism as a moral/economic philosophy (but I could be wrong) so saying "we need to find something more mature and stable" doesn't really have any significance.
You didn't make a sign or wave a $ symbol flag. When you say you "haven't heard a better argument", I read "won't hear a better argument". Perhaps you don't mean it that way, in which case, apologies first.
Perhaps your studies and intellectual investment would be of less worth if someone were to dare point out any alternative possibilities.
When there is talk about a resource-based economy or singularity government, would-be opposers jump in quickly to shoot an idea down rather than see value.
> The problem is that I don't think you've actually studied capitalism as a moral/economic philosophy (but I could be wrong) so saying "we need to find something more mature and stable" doesn't really have any significance.
You are right. I have not studied Capitalism or any other type of economic framework. But would it matter? If you've committed to the idea of our "finest form" of economy, than like any religious person, your opinions are hopeless to evolve.
We see millions suffer across the world as our "best" economical structure fuels its fire on the backs of the uncountable. If everyone were to embrace Capitalism as most modern nations have, Capitalism would have no "grease bin", so to speak.
I am sure the people of developing countries share a different opinion than you. Are they wrong?
You are right. I have not studied Capitalism or any other type of economic framework. But would it matter? If you've committed to the idea of our "finest form" of economy, than like any religious person, your opinions are hopeless to evolve.
I clearly said I haven't heard a better argument; not that I won't accept any. I used to think a mixed economy was the best economic system (the best of socialism and capitalism). Then I read Wealth of Nations and a bunch of essays from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. As I said, since reading those I haven't heard a better argument.
Maybe I should point out that at this point, I think your an asshole. But I digress...
I am sure the people of developing countries share a different opinion than you. Are they wrong?
Again, you have failed to do any research. Just Google "free market africa"
I fail to see how you can bring yourself to argue an opinion that is not grounded in any research. Even if you argued Marxism after reading Das Kapital, at least you would be informed.
> Maybe I should point out that at this point, I think your an asshole. But I digress...
Sigh.
You've come here to fight me, yet there is a well-authored video which highlights the points I am making.
They aren't mine, but I understand the logic and outcomes in which the author is illustrating. It is with this my eyes open a little more, I learn a bit more and offer my open-mind to ideas not yet in bloom.
The results you want me to find on Google reinforce your point, finds the best practice, but not any alternative.
I will take your advice about the quality publications you have recommended; Wealth of Nations, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, etc.
Yet, still, I will be an asshole simply because I wish to see your research as only that.
You're looking for me to bring a wealth of academia and research to the table to match your high knowledge of economics. That isn't going to happen.
I've never insisted that I know more or less than the average person.
I continue to explain that I am encouraged to see those who wish to seek out more evolved ways of thinking are doing just that -- thinking.
Likewise, I do not know a lot about the human body. Yet, I would be extremely happy to hear about a process that would eventually conquer cancer.
It seems you want clarification to my personal conclusion that "Capitalism is beneath us as a society.".
I say this because in the framework of Capitalism, there must always be an element of misfortune; which isn't just a byproduct, but a prerequisite to it's success.
You're looking for me to bring a wealth of academia and research to the table to match your high knowledge of economics. That isn't going to happen.
I do not have a high knowledge of economics. I just graduated high school. I'm not asking you to bring any superior academic knowledge to this discussion. I simply want you to do some bare minimum research. You are remaining willfully ignorant in your understanding of economic systems. You have admitted that you have not studied any of this in any detail (whether rigorously or in passing).
Likewise, I do not know a lot about the human body. Yet, I would be extremely happy to hear about a process that would eventually conquer cancer.
As would I, but I wouldn't get into an argument with someone about cancer research because I have never studied cancer in any depth.
I say this because in the framework of Capitalism, there must always be an element of misfortune; which isn't just a byproduct, but a prerequisite to it's success.
That is simply not true. The core principal of capitalism is that people engage in mutually beneficial transactions without the threat of physical harm. This is the core idea of the free market.
Please go read some literature on this. And I don't mean that in a negative way. You seem genuinely open to new ideas but you seemingly are not willing to seek those new ideas.
And whoever is downmodding every reply I post, please explain why. We are engaging in a discussion. The downmod does not exist to express your disagreement with me. You do that in your replies.
As would I, but I wouldn't get into an argument with someone about cancer research because I have never studied cancer in any depth.
Except I'm not arguing. You've created an argument out of a thought, which is, to strive for stability and equality. All I've stated thus far is that Capitalism is a stepping stone to something better. No matter how many times I repeat this, you are asserting an argument.
That is simply not true. The core principal of capitalism is that people engage in mutually beneficial transactions without the threat of physical harm. This is the core idea of the free market.
Now, here comes the argument.
The core idea of the free market is religion.
I've read a lot about, and at one time considered myself a Libertarian. I've heard about the "promise land" of free markets for some time. For a while I was hypnotized by that ideal, but we humans operate on incentives. Some people call it greed, but I don't want to demonize a population.
Capitalism isn't evil, it's a cloak.
The promise of success keeps us all herding towards the door of opportunity, but only a few pass almost regardless of intelligence, morals, motivations or intentions.
When your insurance refuses coverage, it isn't because there's an evil asshole lurking to ensure you don't get what you deserve.
Company A announces incentives for employers for saving the company money. Those who aren't on-board get reviews, get fired. The workers who respond to incentives deny your claim. You're now fucked, to put it lightly. Company A is now full of incentive-driven bias.
This is just 1 course of Capitalism. You don't need me to dig up research or some book about societal structure and how it applies to Capitalism. You see it everyday.
Please go read some literature on this. And I don't mean that in a negative way. You seem genuinely open to new ideas but you seemingly are not willing to seek those new ideas.
I plan to. And yes, I am very open and very willing to seek new ideas and support those with more knowledge and more ability to drive these efforts. However, I am not willing to listen to steadfast, obstinate reasoning for future consideration.
I appreciate that there are those (like yourself) that don't put up with the hearsay and nonsensical banter, but I'm not your target. I'm just voting for innovation.
All I've stated thus far is that Capitalism is a stepping stone to something better.
That is in itself an argument. You are asserting that capitalism is not an ideal system but you are not backing up that assertion.
The core idea of the free market is religion.
What does this mean? And you don't even back up this claim.
but we humans operate on incentives.
Yes. The entire point of the free market is that people act in their own self interest.
I can't semantically parse the rest of your text. Can you try restating it?
Capitalism isn't evil, it's a cloak.
The promise of success keeps us all herding towards the door of opportunity, but only a few pass almost regardless of intelligence, morals, motivations or intentions.
When your insurance refuses coverage, it isn't because there's an evil asshole lurking to ensure you don't get what you deserve.
Company A announces incentives for employers for saving the company money. Those who aren't on-board get reviews, get fired. The workers who respond to incentives deny your claim. You're now fucked, to put it lightly. Company A is now full of incentive-driven bias.
This is just 1 course of Capitalism. You don't need me to dig up research or some book about societal structure and how it applies to Capitalism. You see it everyday.
>That is in itself an argument. You are asserting that capitalism is not an ideal system but you are not backing up that assertion.
I'm not sure he was asserting as much as hoping or maybe suggesting. You sound like you're getting close to asserting that it is an ideal system though. Care to back that up?
Neither claim could be backed up without trying different systems, but surely you have more optimism than to think what we have now is the best we can ever do.
What we have now is not the best we can do, but what we have isn't capitalism. So to claim that capitalism is the "beneath us as a society" means nothing because it's never been tried here.
EDIT: And, if you've read the comments above, it's clear that, by his own admission, tomlin has never studied any economic system.
I'd be interested to know what would need to happen for us to have a system that meets your definition of "capitalism". As far as I know the purest for that was ever attempted was in Chile under Pinochet. The "Chicago Boys" were given pretty much free reign, they tried to make the system just as Milton Friedman taught them and it was failing pretty spectacularly until they "slid the scale a little more toward socialism", if you will.
Well first of all, it's not my definition of capitalism. It's Adam Smith's.
When people think of 'capitalism' they usually think of anarchy and large mega-corporations that destroy the environment and do whatever the hell they want.
There is regulation under capitalism. The government exists to protect private property, life, and to prosecute those who commit fraud.
The recent financial crisis was primarily caused by millions of homeowners defaulting on their loans.
I guess a first step we could take would be to 1) stop teaching kids that home ownership is necessary to be 'American', 2) stop giving out government-financed loans to first-time homeowners (through Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac) and 3) to shift regulation from capping what banks and mutual funds can do to making sure they aren't committing fraud.
I'm not an economist but I think it's clear that the fact that the government (under Reagan ironically), made it its mission to put American's in homes. Great. But of course what happened was that many of these people that were initially given loans through this program defaulted on them.
>The recent financial crisis was primarily caused by millions of homeowners defaulting on their loans.
Uh, that's a pretty simplistic view. The government-financed loans were an enabler, but people were using over-the-counter CDS' to short those loans (i.e. more than one "insurance policy" could exist per loan and it would be hard to even know who all had them unless the loan defaulted), rating agencies get paid by those they rate so they gave artificially good ratings, etc., etc. It was a perfect storm but to put the blame on those "darn irresponsible poor people" is so simplistic as to be absurd.
>shift regulation from capping what banks and mutual funds can do to making sure they aren't committing fraud.
There are many reason for the regulation on banks and mutual funds. It's not to make the country more socialist, it's to prevent short term focused bankers/fund managers from accidentally destroying the whole economy or pissing away thousands of people's retirement.
>The government exists to protect private property, life, and to prosecute those who commit fraud.
What about dealing with monopolies? If you believe in free market capitalism then you must know about elasticity of markets. Monopolies artificially destroy elasticity in whatever space they're in.
In my opinion what the US government needs to do before anything else is start breaking down monopolies. "Too big to fail" is a big red flag that someone didn't do their job.
At the heart of it all, you want me to prove that Capitalism isn't the best economic model because you fancy this extremely primitive means of sharing resources. That's fine.
You seem rigid and embarrassingly religious when it comes to the idea of market innovation. When you say, You are asserting that capitalism is not an ideal system but you are not backing up that assertion., you're essentially saying that evolution in markets/systems doesn't exist. You want me to prove that evolution exists.
Research and opinion is almost always temporary; as our world changes everyday, so does the research. Have ideas, not beliefs and allow them to evolve.
At the heart of it all, you want me to prove that Capitalism isn't the best economic model because you fancy this extremely primitive means of sharing resources. That's fine.
My god. Are you aware that you are the one with a near-religious anti-capitalist opinion? Just read the statement above. You're already convinced of the inviability of capitalism and so no argument will convince you otherwise.
You're an idiot. Not because we disagree about whether capitalism is a viable economic system or not, but because you continue to argue with me over it and by your own admission you are ignorant and continue to remain ignorant about these matters. Your opinions about economics are purely emotional and based on hearsay.
I have never said whether or not I think pure capitalism is the ideal economic system. My point all along has been that for you to say it is "beneath us as a society" is an empty statement because you haven't studied this at all.
"We need something better." How can you say that when you don't even understand a single economic school of thought?
I'm done too. This is really frustrating. I don't care if you agree or disagree with me about the viability of pure capitalism, but I can't even have an intelligent discussion with you.
Most ideas won't make it past the "economic calculation" litmus test. If a system cannot do economic calculation, than it's impossible to implement or only get by imitating the price structure of existing free market systems.
You could dismiss capitalism by merely saying it's an ideology. Yet, capitalism's strength is not so much that its supporter exists, but that it works and exists. It's a natural and a spontaneous formation in society.
In North Korea, people make by with black markets. The problem there is that the government wiped out people saving by inflating the currency in an effort to revive their failing state factories.
All the other system I ever heard of requires central planning, and some kind of authority. It doesn't relies on some kind of spontaneous cooperation that happen in western society. It relies on iron fists and lot of policing.
What are you merely doing is blaming distinct structures of society together as "capitalism", as if western nations adopt a pure version. It is not. It is a cacophonous mixture of all kind. Street gangs, the institution of statism, regulatory frameworks, and the system of laws and rules all works to create an emergent society. All of these system and institution are all moving parts, each creating its own disincentives and incentives, some perverse, and some positive. Organizations itself doesn't stay the same, it grows, and dies, based on the incentive system placed within that organizations. For example, gangs become more violent to increase its power and earn more money. The public got tired and told the police to curb it or lose their jobs. The gangs eventually become more discreet dues to its leadership and memberships getting decimated. The police evolve special gangs unit to catch them now that it is expected of them to stop gangsters.
Some are feudal-like, some are socialist, some are anarchist/voluntary, and some are statist/coercive.
So some part of western society have some capitalism. It doesn't tell us that capitalism itself is a failure just because of recent economic crisis that pervades western nations. You didn't consider the democratic system of government, the nature of our regulatory system, and the kind of incentive structure it imparts on human actors.
While parts of his story resonate and it fun to to hear people explain phenomena based on different ideologies, I've never heard an alternative to capitalism that sounded credible at a large scale. (Most any system could work at a small scale.)
All the successful large scale nations (the US, the UK, China, Germany, Japan, etc) are some mix of socialist and capitalist organization, and probably pretty close to 60%/40% in one direction or the other. In a socialist nation, there are usually at least small local produce markets etc; in a "capitalist" nation like the US there are a huge amount of services and regulations that are socialist (the cops, some welfare, etc, etc). In a middle country like Japan or Germany, the government works very closely with the firms to try to effect non-market driven policy and outcomes that have society-wide benefits as their rationale.
And... every society is an immensely complex machine, and probably can't be boiled down to an ideology (something Marx never understood, hence his inability to actually propose an alternative besides a utopian vision, and his inability to be a very effective political actor.)
And notice that that the US, UK, Germany, and Japan are all in dire economic straits right now.
Also, the police force not a socialist institution. To sustain a free market requires the state-sanctioned protection of life and property. The police force is a very 'capitalist' institution.
Regarding the police, I know that there is a least a subset of libertarian capitalists that would disagree with you. They seem to dislike the police and strongly prefer gun rights for protection of self and property.
>They seem to dislike the police and strongly prefer gun rights for protection of self and property.
The Wild West huh? Well, we know how that turns out: professional pistoleros rob at will, and honest citizens flee to towns that have a police force. Back to square one.
Well, China is doing pretty OK and they are to the socialist side of the continuum.
And, as long as we are trading isolated examples to prove general theories, what country is on the capitalist side of the spectrum and doing notably well? For bonus points, find me a nation that bet the farm on innovative securities and is doing especially well.
Don't get me wrong, I love markets and entrepeneurship (sp?); I just tend toward the Rockefeller Republican / Conservative Democrat zone, in which we believe that (1) the important thing is the details of governance (tax policy details, not debates about whether taxes are good) and (2) that "society" is more fundamental than "the market."
My point was not to prove a general theory by isolated example - simply to provide a counterpoint.
I think it's more fruitful to compare the economic/moral philosophies of these systems than to compare examples of them. Primarily because no isolated example is a paragon of its stated parent philosophy and (more practically) because a Marxist country doesn't exist and a capitalist country doesn't exist to compare.
And I'm genuinely curious how you separate tax policy debate from whether taxes are good. I don't think any socioeconomic system says all taxes are bad, but they do differ on what it is moral to tax for.
That most countries employ various mixes of policies generally fits with my thinking about how things should work. Bugs in the systems should be addressed through incremental changes.
While I think countries shouldn't be run by strict adherence to the rules of an -ism, people who subscribe to an -ism are useful because they help frame and suggest solutions to the bugs in the current organization of society. The problem with the -ism folks is that they are hard to disprove because society will never reflect a pure enough implementation of their ideas. Where things get dicey is when politicians buy too strongly into a particular -ism and aren't able to employ other tools when necessary.
That most countries employ various mixes of policies generally fits with my thinking about how things should work. Bugs in the systems should be addressed through incremental changes
Why not radical changes?
Where things get dicey is when politicians buy too strongly into a particular -ism and aren't able to employ other tools when necessary.
How do we know what kind of idealism that politicians are employing? Why not think that they're just a bunch of self-interested politicians who wants the vote?
How do you know which tools are suited to which problems? How do you know if they're suited to any problems at all?
I think the motivation for radical changes is based on the idea that we are stuck in a "local maxima" (of some "goodness of society" function) that gradual change can only optimize to some limited degree and that large change is required to put us on a different part of the curve that can be maximized to a greater degree.
But I've never seen a proposed (or implemented) radical reorganization that I believed would put us on a path some global maxima (or better local maxima). Taken a step further, I don't believe that we are stuck in a local maxima and think we can make significant positive change using gradual reform.
That's a fair question. I think most -isms simplify complex systemic issues by applying a particular framing. Since this abstracts away aspects of the issue that don't fit frame but might still be important, -isms may fail to address the critical problems (or even acknowledge problems that some people care about).
This isn't a very specific argument, but it's hard to argue against -isms as a general idea.
I can see what you are talking about. But I think your opinions on -isms preclude the idea that there truly is an objectively best way to view the world (which optimizes fairness without making exceptions for specific cases). I'm not convinced that one doesn't exist but I definitely agree with what you are saying.
In 2007, before the financial crisis and before becoming Chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel investigating the Troubled Assets Relief Program, Dr. Elizabeth Warren gave a very interesting talk at UC Berkeley titled "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class."
At the time I thought it was a little alarmist, but in view of recent developments I recommend watching it (58 minutes, sorry). It speaks directly to the point about wages and how middle class households employ revolving credit to make up the the difference. The graphs and data are interesting.
Oh greed! The inhumanity! More regulations. Less free markets! Markets are inefficient!
Oh please, every inefficient market is an entrepreneur dream. That what HN entrepreneur types want to exploit. Get the damn monopolies out of the way and let entrepreneurs eliminate the inefficiency. Or rather, don't expect efficient market everywhere. There will alway be some inefficiency. For example, the browser market was stagnant for a while. However, it didn't take a government to remedy it. It took a non-profit enterprise, who against all odd, brought firefox to the masses.
Anybody who believes in the efficient market hypothesis did not realize the functions of entrepreneurship and the uncertainty inherent in market. In other words, it's a strawman designed to make free marketeers look like naive believer in the magic of capitalism.
Regulations? Heard of regulatory capture, much? There are good regulations and then there are bad regulations. It's not about regulators being asleep at the wheel, it's about regulators sleeping with bankers. When that happens, the regulations will be modified to fit what the bankers like, not whether it is healthy for the economy.
Don't give me the bollocks about how the world should be more humane, responsible, and just. Everybody wants the world to be more humane, responsible, and just.
Discuss or debate with the strongest supporters of capitalism and come back, then wow me with your socialist insight instead of attacking the weakest version of capitalism.
As it stand, the youtube video is pathetically weak. Free marketeers will pick apart the video like no tomorrow.
The great irony is that the crisis is one of Statism, not Capitalism. And to "solve" the crisis with more Statism will only make life radically worse. But it looks like that's where things are headed. It's always hard to watch governments repeating the same mistakes from the last century - sigh.
49 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 97.4 ms ] threadwhat about people who confuse astrology and astronomy?
The labor theory of value is, indeed, rather silly. Marx did say a lot of other stuff, however. He was a crappy economist, but a great (IMHO) sociologist and philosopher.
One of his many points was that (market and non market) economies are socially embedded and created, generally to support power grabs by certain classes. Market economies have the extra advantage that they allow class structure (the relation between groups of people who are powerful and groups who are screwed-over) to appear scientifically necessary, as inevitable as the orbit of the planets once we know the differential equations and the initial conditions. But really, the economies mask a power struggle that was out in the open during feudal times (e.g. when the Norman lord showed up and said you will farm for us and give up your weapons, or we will kill you now).
When a person can't see this social context for markets, Marx would say such a person was blinded by "commodity fetishism" and a misguided belief in powers of commodity relations (and that such a belief is no more rational than the belief that a blessed doll can inflict misery on your enemies.)
Further, you're implicitly saying that the "free market" view is the correct one. How can you possibly know this? Because it manages to work? Of course it does! Any programmer should know that when you're livelihood depends on it you can make any old garbage hang together long enough to get your next meal. I'm not saying "free market" hypothesis are "any old garbage", but rather that something simply not catastrophically failing doesn't mean it's the best answer or even a good one.
You hold pretty strong beliefs for something that can't possibly be proven one way or the other.
That we should look at other methodologies of our economic structure. An excellent viewpoint and debate starter.
The Anti-Capitalism ideology isn't Socialism or Marxism or Communism. Capitalism isn't working the way society sees it.
Capitalism is beneath us as a society.
I haven't heard a better argument than capitalism.
Also, you should note that in America we don't have a capitalist economy - we have a mixed economy.
I never indicated I knew if there were better economic structures; perhaps it is yet to be invented, instead of impossible to fathom. An open-mind which considers a new approach is a first step.
I think it is better that we don't attempt to "protect" Capitalism ideology (as you have just done), rather, attempt to refine and always course-correct to something more mature and more stable.
Isn't that a fair thing to say?
At what point did I 'protect' capitalism?
You said it's beneath us as a society and I said that what we have isn't capitalism.
The problem is that I don't think you've actually studied capitalism as a moral/economic philosophy (but I could be wrong) so saying "we need to find something more mature and stable" doesn't really have any significance.
You didn't make a sign or wave a $ symbol flag. When you say you "haven't heard a better argument", I read "won't hear a better argument". Perhaps you don't mean it that way, in which case, apologies first.
Perhaps your studies and intellectual investment would be of less worth if someone were to dare point out any alternative possibilities.
When there is talk about a resource-based economy or singularity government, would-be opposers jump in quickly to shoot an idea down rather than see value.
> The problem is that I don't think you've actually studied capitalism as a moral/economic philosophy (but I could be wrong) so saying "we need to find something more mature and stable" doesn't really have any significance.
You are right. I have not studied Capitalism or any other type of economic framework. But would it matter? If you've committed to the idea of our "finest form" of economy, than like any religious person, your opinions are hopeless to evolve.
We see millions suffer across the world as our "best" economical structure fuels its fire on the backs of the uncountable. If everyone were to embrace Capitalism as most modern nations have, Capitalism would have no "grease bin", so to speak.
I am sure the people of developing countries share a different opinion than you. Are they wrong?
You are right. I have not studied Capitalism or any other type of economic framework. But would it matter? If you've committed to the idea of our "finest form" of economy, than like any religious person, your opinions are hopeless to evolve.
I clearly said I haven't heard a better argument; not that I won't accept any. I used to think a mixed economy was the best economic system (the best of socialism and capitalism). Then I read Wealth of Nations and a bunch of essays from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. As I said, since reading those I haven't heard a better argument.
Maybe I should point out that at this point, I think your an asshole. But I digress...
I am sure the people of developing countries share a different opinion than you. Are they wrong?
Again, you have failed to do any research. Just Google "free market africa"
This is the first hit: http://www.unu.edu/africa/papers/development/Stambuli3.pdf You should read it.
I fail to see how you can bring yourself to argue an opinion that is not grounded in any research. Even if you argued Marxism after reading Das Kapital, at least you would be informed.
Sigh.
You've come here to fight me, yet there is a well-authored video which highlights the points I am making.
They aren't mine, but I understand the logic and outcomes in which the author is illustrating. It is with this my eyes open a little more, I learn a bit more and offer my open-mind to ideas not yet in bloom.
The results you want me to find on Google reinforce your point, finds the best practice, but not any alternative.
I will take your advice about the quality publications you have recommended; Wealth of Nations, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, etc.
Yet, still, I will be an asshole simply because I wish to see your research as only that.
Man, what are you talking about? Are you just trolling? I can't tell if you're being serious.
Yet there is a well-authored video which highlights the points I am making.
You're not making any points as far as I can tell. Please explain to me what points you are making.
I will take your advice about the quality publications you have recommended; Wealth of Nations, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, etc.
Are you serious? Wealth of Nations is by Adam Smith.
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal contains essays by Alan Greenspan.
I would appreciate it if you would let me know if we are indeed having a serious discussion.
I've never insisted that I know more or less than the average person.
I continue to explain that I am encouraged to see those who wish to seek out more evolved ways of thinking are doing just that -- thinking.
Likewise, I do not know a lot about the human body. Yet, I would be extremely happy to hear about a process that would eventually conquer cancer.
It seems you want clarification to my personal conclusion that "Capitalism is beneath us as a society.".
I say this because in the framework of Capitalism, there must always be an element of misfortune; which isn't just a byproduct, but a prerequisite to it's success.
I do not have a high knowledge of economics. I just graduated high school. I'm not asking you to bring any superior academic knowledge to this discussion. I simply want you to do some bare minimum research. You are remaining willfully ignorant in your understanding of economic systems. You have admitted that you have not studied any of this in any detail (whether rigorously or in passing).
Likewise, I do not know a lot about the human body. Yet, I would be extremely happy to hear about a process that would eventually conquer cancer.
As would I, but I wouldn't get into an argument with someone about cancer research because I have never studied cancer in any depth.
I say this because in the framework of Capitalism, there must always be an element of misfortune; which isn't just a byproduct, but a prerequisite to it's success.
That is simply not true. The core principal of capitalism is that people engage in mutually beneficial transactions without the threat of physical harm. This is the core idea of the free market.
Please go read some literature on this. And I don't mean that in a negative way. You seem genuinely open to new ideas but you seemingly are not willing to seek those new ideas.
And whoever is downmodding every reply I post, please explain why. We are engaging in a discussion. The downmod does not exist to express your disagreement with me. You do that in your replies.
Except I'm not arguing. You've created an argument out of a thought, which is, to strive for stability and equality. All I've stated thus far is that Capitalism is a stepping stone to something better. No matter how many times I repeat this, you are asserting an argument.
That is simply not true. The core principal of capitalism is that people engage in mutually beneficial transactions without the threat of physical harm. This is the core idea of the free market.
Now, here comes the argument.
The core idea of the free market is religion.
I've read a lot about, and at one time considered myself a Libertarian. I've heard about the "promise land" of free markets for some time. For a while I was hypnotized by that ideal, but we humans operate on incentives. Some people call it greed, but I don't want to demonize a population.
Capitalism isn't evil, it's a cloak.
The promise of success keeps us all herding towards the door of opportunity, but only a few pass almost regardless of intelligence, morals, motivations or intentions.
When your insurance refuses coverage, it isn't because there's an evil asshole lurking to ensure you don't get what you deserve.
Company A announces incentives for employers for saving the company money. Those who aren't on-board get reviews, get fired. The workers who respond to incentives deny your claim. You're now fucked, to put it lightly. Company A is now full of incentive-driven bias.
This is just 1 course of Capitalism. You don't need me to dig up research or some book about societal structure and how it applies to Capitalism. You see it everyday.
Please go read some literature on this. And I don't mean that in a negative way. You seem genuinely open to new ideas but you seemingly are not willing to seek those new ideas.
I plan to. And yes, I am very open and very willing to seek new ideas and support those with more knowledge and more ability to drive these efforts. However, I am not willing to listen to steadfast, obstinate reasoning for future consideration.
I appreciate that there are those (like yourself) that don't put up with the hearsay and nonsensical banter, but I'm not your target. I'm just voting for innovation.
That is in itself an argument. You are asserting that capitalism is not an ideal system but you are not backing up that assertion.
The core idea of the free market is religion.
What does this mean? And you don't even back up this claim.
but we humans operate on incentives.
Yes. The entire point of the free market is that people act in their own self interest.
I can't semantically parse the rest of your text. Can you try restating it?
Capitalism isn't evil, it's a cloak. The promise of success keeps us all herding towards the door of opportunity, but only a few pass almost regardless of intelligence, morals, motivations or intentions. When your insurance refuses coverage, it isn't because there's an evil asshole lurking to ensure you don't get what you deserve. Company A announces incentives for employers for saving the company money. Those who aren't on-board get reviews, get fired. The workers who respond to incentives deny your claim. You're now fucked, to put it lightly. Company A is now full of incentive-driven bias. This is just 1 course of Capitalism. You don't need me to dig up research or some book about societal structure and how it applies to Capitalism. You see it everyday.
I don't understand any of this.
I'm not sure he was asserting as much as hoping or maybe suggesting. You sound like you're getting close to asserting that it is an ideal system though. Care to back that up?
Neither claim could be backed up without trying different systems, but surely you have more optimism than to think what we have now is the best we can ever do.
What we have now is not the best we can do, but what we have isn't capitalism. So to claim that capitalism is the "beneath us as a society" means nothing because it's never been tried here.
EDIT: And, if you've read the comments above, it's clear that, by his own admission, tomlin has never studied any economic system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
When people think of 'capitalism' they usually think of anarchy and large mega-corporations that destroy the environment and do whatever the hell they want. There is regulation under capitalism. The government exists to protect private property, life, and to prosecute those who commit fraud.
The recent financial crisis was primarily caused by millions of homeowners defaulting on their loans.
I guess a first step we could take would be to 1) stop teaching kids that home ownership is necessary to be 'American', 2) stop giving out government-financed loans to first-time homeowners (through Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac) and 3) to shift regulation from capping what banks and mutual funds can do to making sure they aren't committing fraud.
I'm not an economist but I think it's clear that the fact that the government (under Reagan ironically), made it its mission to put American's in homes. Great. But of course what happened was that many of these people that were initially given loans through this program defaulted on them.
Uh, that's a pretty simplistic view. The government-financed loans were an enabler, but people were using over-the-counter CDS' to short those loans (i.e. more than one "insurance policy" could exist per loan and it would be hard to even know who all had them unless the loan defaulted), rating agencies get paid by those they rate so they gave artificially good ratings, etc., etc. It was a perfect storm but to put the blame on those "darn irresponsible poor people" is so simplistic as to be absurd.
>shift regulation from capping what banks and mutual funds can do to making sure they aren't committing fraud.
There are many reason for the regulation on banks and mutual funds. It's not to make the country more socialist, it's to prevent short term focused bankers/fund managers from accidentally destroying the whole economy or pissing away thousands of people's retirement.
>The government exists to protect private property, life, and to prosecute those who commit fraud.
What about dealing with monopolies? If you believe in free market capitalism then you must know about elasticity of markets. Monopolies artificially destroy elasticity in whatever space they're in.
In my opinion what the US government needs to do before anything else is start breaking down monopolies. "Too big to fail" is a big red flag that someone didn't do their job.
Yeah I know. But it seems like we're on the same page about what happened.
Where do you see monopolies?
At the heart of it all, you want me to prove that Capitalism isn't the best economic model because you fancy this extremely primitive means of sharing resources. That's fine.
You seem rigid and embarrassingly religious when it comes to the idea of market innovation. When you say, You are asserting that capitalism is not an ideal system but you are not backing up that assertion., you're essentially saying that evolution in markets/systems doesn't exist. You want me to prove that evolution exists.
Research and opinion is almost always temporary; as our world changes everyday, so does the research. Have ideas, not beliefs and allow them to evolve.
My god. Are you aware that you are the one with a near-religious anti-capitalist opinion? Just read the statement above. You're already convinced of the inviability of capitalism and so no argument will convince you otherwise.
You're an idiot. Not because we disagree about whether capitalism is a viable economic system or not, but because you continue to argue with me over it and by your own admission you are ignorant and continue to remain ignorant about these matters. Your opinions about economics are purely emotional and based on hearsay.
I have never said whether or not I think pure capitalism is the ideal economic system. My point all along has been that for you to say it is "beneath us as a society" is an empty statement because you haven't studied this at all.
"We need something better." How can you say that when you don't even understand a single economic school of thought?
I'm done too. This is really frustrating. I don't care if you agree or disagree with me about the viability of pure capitalism, but I can't even have an intelligent discussion with you.
You could dismiss capitalism by merely saying it's an ideology. Yet, capitalism's strength is not so much that its supporter exists, but that it works and exists. It's a natural and a spontaneous formation in society.
In North Korea, people make by with black markets. The problem there is that the government wiped out people saving by inflating the currency in an effort to revive their failing state factories.
All the other system I ever heard of requires central planning, and some kind of authority. It doesn't relies on some kind of spontaneous cooperation that happen in western society. It relies on iron fists and lot of policing.
What are you merely doing is blaming distinct structures of society together as "capitalism", as if western nations adopt a pure version. It is not. It is a cacophonous mixture of all kind. Street gangs, the institution of statism, regulatory frameworks, and the system of laws and rules all works to create an emergent society. All of these system and institution are all moving parts, each creating its own disincentives and incentives, some perverse, and some positive. Organizations itself doesn't stay the same, it grows, and dies, based on the incentive system placed within that organizations. For example, gangs become more violent to increase its power and earn more money. The public got tired and told the police to curb it or lose their jobs. The gangs eventually become more discreet dues to its leadership and memberships getting decimated. The police evolve special gangs unit to catch them now that it is expected of them to stop gangsters.
Some are feudal-like, some are socialist, some are anarchist/voluntary, and some are statist/coercive.
So some part of western society have some capitalism. It doesn't tell us that capitalism itself is a failure just because of recent economic crisis that pervades western nations. You didn't consider the democratic system of government, the nature of our regulatory system, and the kind of incentive structure it imparts on human actors.
And... every society is an immensely complex machine, and probably can't be boiled down to an ideology (something Marx never understood, hence his inability to actually propose an alternative besides a utopian vision, and his inability to be a very effective political actor.)
Also, the police force not a socialist institution. To sustain a free market requires the state-sanctioned protection of life and property. The police force is a very 'capitalist' institution.
The Wild West huh? Well, we know how that turns out: professional pistoleros rob at will, and honest citizens flee to towns that have a police force. Back to square one.
These same libertarians would use examples of the wild west as "not so wild west". Their historical interpretation is a bit different than yours.
Seriously? Are you are claiming that socialism has very little or no need for police?
This whole statement seems a little... shoddy.
Similarly, in a socialist nation, people eat hamburgers. This does not imply that hamburgers eat people in a capitalist nation.
And, as long as we are trading isolated examples to prove general theories, what country is on the capitalist side of the spectrum and doing notably well? For bonus points, find me a nation that bet the farm on innovative securities and is doing especially well.
Don't get me wrong, I love markets and entrepeneurship (sp?); I just tend toward the Rockefeller Republican / Conservative Democrat zone, in which we believe that (1) the important thing is the details of governance (tax policy details, not debates about whether taxes are good) and (2) that "society" is more fundamental than "the market."
My point was not to prove a general theory by isolated example - simply to provide a counterpoint.
I think it's more fruitful to compare the economic/moral philosophies of these systems than to compare examples of them. Primarily because no isolated example is a paragon of its stated parent philosophy and (more practically) because a Marxist country doesn't exist and a capitalist country doesn't exist to compare.
And I'm genuinely curious how you separate tax policy debate from whether taxes are good. I don't think any socioeconomic system says all taxes are bad, but they do differ on what it is moral to tax for.
While I think countries shouldn't be run by strict adherence to the rules of an -ism, people who subscribe to an -ism are useful because they help frame and suggest solutions to the bugs in the current organization of society. The problem with the -ism folks is that they are hard to disprove because society will never reflect a pure enough implementation of their ideas. Where things get dicey is when politicians buy too strongly into a particular -ism and aren't able to employ other tools when necessary.
Why not radical changes?
Where things get dicey is when politicians buy too strongly into a particular -ism and aren't able to employ other tools when necessary.
How do we know what kind of idealism that politicians are employing? Why not think that they're just a bunch of self-interested politicians who wants the vote?
How do you know which tools are suited to which problems? How do you know if they're suited to any problems at all?
I think the motivation for radical changes is based on the idea that we are stuck in a "local maxima" (of some "goodness of society" function) that gradual change can only optimize to some limited degree and that large change is required to put us on a different part of the curve that can be maximized to a greater degree.
But I've never seen a proposed (or implemented) radical reorganization that I believed would put us on a path some global maxima (or better local maxima). Taken a step further, I don't believe that we are stuck in a local maxima and think we can make significant positive change using gradual reform.
You assume that -isms are inherently wrong. Why?
This isn't a very specific argument, but it's hard to argue against -isms as a general idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
At the time I thought it was a little alarmist, but in view of recent developments I recommend watching it (58 minutes, sorry). It speaks directly to the point about wages and how middle class households employ revolving credit to make up the the difference. The graphs and data are interesting.
Oh please, every inefficient market is an entrepreneur dream. That what HN entrepreneur types want to exploit. Get the damn monopolies out of the way and let entrepreneurs eliminate the inefficiency. Or rather, don't expect efficient market everywhere. There will alway be some inefficiency. For example, the browser market was stagnant for a while. However, it didn't take a government to remedy it. It took a non-profit enterprise, who against all odd, brought firefox to the masses.
Anybody who believes in the efficient market hypothesis did not realize the functions of entrepreneurship and the uncertainty inherent in market. In other words, it's a strawman designed to make free marketeers look like naive believer in the magic of capitalism.
Regulations? Heard of regulatory capture, much? There are good regulations and then there are bad regulations. It's not about regulators being asleep at the wheel, it's about regulators sleeping with bankers. When that happens, the regulations will be modified to fit what the bankers like, not whether it is healthy for the economy.
Don't give me the bollocks about how the world should be more humane, responsible, and just. Everybody wants the world to be more humane, responsible, and just.
Discuss or debate with the strongest supporters of capitalism and come back, then wow me with your socialist insight instead of attacking the weakest version of capitalism.
As it stand, the youtube video is pathetically weak. Free marketeers will pick apart the video like no tomorrow.