4 ms·

My point being that Capitalism has only been a thing for less 300 years, and what we have now isn't even capitalism. It's a warped perversion of it thanks to th

My point being that Capitalism has only been a thing for less 300 years, and what we have now isn't even capitalism. It's a warped perversion of it thanks to the inflated influence of ideologues like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, and the politicians that bought into their narrow-minded dogma hook, line and sinker. The worst damage they and their ilk did was to convince the entire political spectrum from the centre-left to the far right that there is no alternative to free market fundamentalism. I don't have a tried and tested alternative for you, but the idea that there are no alternatives is ludicrous to me. We just need to be actually looking for these alternatives, which the corporate world has no interest in doing and the politicians in their pockets merely continue the theatrics of fixing a system that blatantly isn't working for anyone but the amassers of capital. And before anyone loses their shit because I'm criticising the plutocracy we have allowed to be built in our names, nor I'm not a communist; no do I wish for a communist system.

Karunamon 8y ago
If your criticism of capitalism is that it's not pure and not perfect, it's a non-sequitur since there are no pure and perfect ideologies, not in economics and not in government. I'm reminded of that comic with the cats on trial. Capitalism sucks in many ways, but it sucks a hell of a lot less than the alternatives we've tried. Same with democracy.
- ionised 8y ago
  I'm not going to stop criticising something just because I don't have a tried and tested alternative ready to go. That makes no sense. > Capitalism sucks in many ways, but it sucks a hell of a lot less than the alternatives we've tried. Same with democracy. And that's fine, but I'm not so narrow-minded as to accept that there are no alternatives. History is replete with people patching up broken systems in futility; all because they could see no other way than the status quo.
microcolonel 8y ago
So much said, and still no alternatives suggested. The reason we are convinced that there is no better alternative to moderately-regulated free markets is that this belief is so well supported, and so poorly refuted. I have to conclude, after listening to thousands of thoroughly convincing accounts and arguments favouring moderately-regulated free markets; and not being presented with any alternatives in practice or theory which appear to be capable of replicating the incentives which have taken us from 95% living in extreme poverty about 150 years ago, to ~5% today (it's actually getting hard to measure); that, in practice, moderately-regulated free markets tend to produce what can be described as miracles, while high-ratio or total redistribution tends to bring great societies to their knees, and divide people into people whose job it is to suffer unimaginable horrors, and people whose job it is to enjoy the fruits of those victims' remaining breaths of productivity.

Karunamon 8y ago

If your criticism of capitalism is that it's not pure and not perfect, it's a non-sequitur since there are no pure and perfect ideologies, not in economics and not in government. I'm reminded of that comic with the cats on trial. Capitalism sucks in many ways, but it sucks a hell of a lot less than the alternatives we've tried. Same with democracy.

ionised 8y ago
I'm not going to stop criticising something just because I don't have a tried and tested alternative ready to go. That makes no sense. > Capitalism sucks in many ways, but it sucks a hell of a lot less than the alternatives we've tried. Same with democracy. And that's fine, but I'm not so narrow-minded as to accept that there are no alternatives. History is replete with people patching up broken systems in futility; all because they could see no other way than the status quo.

microcolonel 8y ago

So much said, and still no alternatives suggested. The reason we are convinced that there is no better alternative to moderately-regulated free markets is that this belief is so well supported, and so poorly refuted. I have to conclude, after listening to thousands of thoroughly convincing accounts and arguments favouring moderately-regulated free markets; and not being presented with any alternatives in practice or theory which appear to be capable of replicating the incentives which have taken us from 95% living in extreme poverty about 150 years ago, to ~5% today (it's actually getting hard to measure); that, in practice, moderately-regulated free markets tend to produce what can be described as miracles, while high-ratio or total redistribution tends to bring great societies to their knees, and divide people into people whose job it is to suffer unimaginable horrors, and people whose job it is to enjoy the fruits of those victims' remaining breaths of productivity.