4 ms·

Never quite followed the plethora of "Capitalism isn't working" articles. And the alternative is?? There always seems to be some political agenda involved.

by esaym 11y ago

xndjcjdjf 11y ago
It's a Goldman Sachs analyst pointing out anomalies in global capital flow. Where are seeing an agenda?
saiya-jin 11y ago
there is no alternative, not a better one at least, not now. look at other possibilities - ie central planning is a major fail over longer time (I lived in one of those systems, no thank you). IMHO what fails in all other systems is to take into account human nature, and not some ideal working guy that never actually lived. people are lazy, care more about themselves rather than company good, some are plain evil etc. very few work on themselves unless they see the carrot at the end of the stick (bonus?). in capitalism it's cash, which can get you quite far in life, so most are chasing it (even you probably are - if your employer stopped paying you today, would you come in tomorrow?). this chase can easily ruin your life, makes people do regretful decisions but overall, it pushes mankind far beyond (and much faster) that it would achieve without this perpetual force. I'll claim one thing, feel free to disagree - capitalism ain't often the best system for a single person, but (if all internal mechanisms work) it's probably best for the advancement of mankind. and these days, we need to advance to not destroy ourselves (for that, we already have capability)
- convivialdingo 11y ago
  I'd agree with this. (I also briefly lived in a socialist paradise myself.) I'm not a fan of capitalism, but everything else has historically been worse. The only pre-capitalist system that may have worked well was distributism, but that was under an aristocratic rule. I think the modern fair market issues we have in all 1st world nations isn't a feature of capitalism - it's the failure to reign in plutocratic tendencies. Democratic nations have a tendency to ignore oligarchs as they initially grow industry and produce lots of growth. Long term though, they tend to become parasites on the budget and political vampires.
kartan 11y ago
I agree that the statement is wrong. For me is something more like "the way we try to apply capitalism is not working". But as some people only accepts "capitalism" as their way of applying it, the dialogue gets confusing. "Capitalism is not working" can be translated as "the way some people defines Capitalism is not working". And I agree with that as much as the numbers indicate a growth slowdown or even recession in all major economies. I don't think that most people advocates for abandoning capitalism, but to improve how we do things in a way that helps everyone instead of a selected few. Better public education, better health care, better work conditions is still capitalism but just of a different kind.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Indeed, anyone who uses the word should also provide their definition of it.
duaneb 11y ago
I don't think that's the take away of the article. It's pointing out that Goldman Sachs may be open to recognizing that there are inefficiencies in our market, and that it's not benefiting from some attributes of capitalism as a result. Anyone who seriously claims that capitalism inherently doesn't work is typically talking about something much more specific, like cultural/social interactions with capitalism, or (again) efficiency concerns.
- ancap 11y ago
  I'm not sure why this should come to surprise anyone. The big banks have always been in favor of government intervention in the market. They don't want a free market because 1) it's very possible that parts of their business would be considered fraudulent (fractional reserve banking) in a free market and they would be liable. 2) their existence is maintained by government programs: Federal Reserve, FDIC, bailouts, etc. 3) more regulations create bigger barriers for competitors, squeezing out the small guys from the market.
  - soared 11y ago
    1 is assuming every consumer is totally informed and can understand the things a bank is doing. IMO no laymen could understand financial structures and whatnot, even if they had all the information. I don't have data to back it up (though neither did you) but "Big banks have always been in favor of government intervention" sounds untrue.
lmm 11y ago
It's pretty meaningless to say it's a political agenda - when you're talking at national scale everything is political.
wfo 11y ago
The alternative is mixed capitalism and socialism since living in a purely capitalist or socialist state is a horrible dystopia. The alternative is adjusting the proportions of capitalism and socialism we use to create our economic system.

Never quite followed the plethora of "Capitalism isn't working" articles. And the alternative is?? There always seems to be some political agenda involved.

by esaym 11y ago

Never quite followed the plethora of "Capitalism isn't working" articles. And the alternative is?? There always seems to be some political agenda involved.

xndjcjdjf 11y ago

It's a Goldman Sachs analyst pointing out anomalies in global capital flow. Where are seeing an agenda?

saiya-jin 11y ago

there is no alternative, not a better one at least, not now. look at other possibilities - ie central planning is a major fail over longer time (I lived in one of those systems, no thank you). IMHO what fails in all other systems is to take into account human nature, and not some ideal working guy that never actually lived. people are lazy, care more about themselves rather than company good, some are plain evil etc. very few work on themselves unless they see the carrot at the end of the stick (bonus?). in capitalism it's cash, which can get you quite far in life, so most are chasing it (even you probably are - if your employer stopped paying you today, would you come in tomorrow?). this chase can easily ruin your life, makes people do regretful decisions but overall, it pushes mankind far beyond (and much faster) that it would achieve without this perpetual force. I'll claim one thing, feel free to disagree - capitalism ain't often the best system for a single person, but (if all internal mechanisms work) it's probably best for the advancement of mankind. and these days, we need to advance to not destroy ourselves (for that, we already have capability)

convivialdingo 11y ago
I'd agree with this. (I also briefly lived in a socialist paradise myself.) I'm not a fan of capitalism, but everything else has historically been worse. The only pre-capitalist system that may have worked well was distributism, but that was under an aristocratic rule. I think the modern fair market issues we have in all 1st world nations isn't a feature of capitalism - it's the failure to reign in plutocratic tendencies. Democratic nations have a tendency to ignore oligarchs as they initially grow industry and produce lots of growth. Long term though, they tend to become parasites on the budget and political vampires.

kartan 11y ago

I agree that the statement is wrong. For me is something more like "the way we try to apply capitalism is not working". But as some people only accepts "capitalism" as their way of applying it, the dialogue gets confusing. "Capitalism is not working" can be translated as "the way some people defines Capitalism is not working". And I agree with that as much as the numbers indicate a growth slowdown or even recession in all major economies. I don't think that most people advocates for abandoning capitalism, but to improve how we do things in a way that helps everyone instead of a selected few. Better public education, better health care, better work conditions is still capitalism but just of a different kind.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Indeed, anyone who uses the word should also provide their definition of it.

duaneb 11y ago

I don't think that's the take away of the article. It's pointing out that Goldman Sachs may be open to recognizing that there are inefficiencies in our market, and that it's not benefiting from some attributes of capitalism as a result. Anyone who seriously claims that capitalism inherently doesn't work is typically talking about something much more specific, like cultural/social interactions with capitalism, or (again) efficiency concerns.

ancap 11y ago
I'm not sure why this should come to surprise anyone. The big banks have always been in favor of government intervention in the market. They don't want a free market because 1) it's very possible that parts of their business would be considered fraudulent (fractional reserve banking) in a free market and they would be liable. 2) their existence is maintained by government programs: Federal Reserve, FDIC, bailouts, etc. 3) more regulations create bigger barriers for competitors, squeezing out the small guys from the market.
- soared 11y ago
  1 is assuming every consumer is totally informed and can understand the things a bank is doing. IMO no laymen could understand financial structures and whatnot, even if they had all the information. I don't have data to back it up (though neither did you) but "Big banks have always been in favor of government intervention" sounds untrue.

lmm 11y ago

It's pretty meaningless to say it's a political agenda - when you're talking at national scale everything is political.

wfo 11y ago

The alternative is mixed capitalism and socialism since living in a purely capitalist or socialist state is a horrible dystopia. The alternative is adjusting the proportions of capitalism and socialism we use to create our economic system.