6 ms·

The title implies Capitalism is broken. It's not. Capitalism has provided more benefits to more people than any other economic system in history. American Capit

The title implies Capitalism is broken. It's not. Capitalism has provided more benefits to more people than any other economic system in history. American Capitalism has produced the telephone, the automobile, the personal computer, the cell phone, the internet, and made us one of the richest countries in the world. A better title would be, Tweaks that can make American Capitalism Better.

Retra 8y ago
If my car has a broken headlight, my car is still broken and I still fix it, even if it has been providing value and even if it still does so. The implication is only that it isn't living up to its promises, not that it is not worth keeping. (Besides, the title refers to American Capitalism.)
neuronic 8y ago
> Capitalism has provided more benefits to more people than any other economic system in history. Stop spinning this as an argument that capitalism is not broken. It's merely less broken than alternative systems and evidently only works in conjunction with heavy regulation. Historic examples of (nearly) unregulated capitalism exist and they are horrifying.
standardUser 8y ago
How many people need to be working for sub-poverty wages before we can say American capitalism isn't perfect? How many inches do the oceans need to rise? How many people need to file bankruptcy due to medical bills? No wonder we can't fix our problems if people insist on pretending their aren't any.
- francisofascii 8y ago
  "The first step in solving a problem is recognizing there is one" — Will Mcavoy
- chasd00 8y ago
  I don't believe anyone has claimed American capitalism is perfect only that it's better than the known alternatives.
kadendogthing 8y ago
Why does capitalism get the credit for industrial and scientific breakthroughs? That's begging the question, no? There is absolutely zero proof that these things are inclusive of one another, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Especially when the current capitalistic system is not reasonably sharing the benefits of these breakthroughs?
- merpnderp 8y ago
  What is reasonable? And more to the point, what non-capitalist system has ever been more reasonable?
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    >What is reasonable? I think not having a continual decline in purchasing power and living standards despite increases in productivity and consistent technological breakthroughs is pretty reasonable.
    - merpnderp 8y ago
      Is that reasonable when heath-care costs, at 20% of the economy, are increasing at 10+% a year? The economy is not growing even close to fast enough to offset this. Our productivity is not increasing even close to fast enough.
      - kadendogthing 8y ago
        >Is that reasonable when heath-care costs, at 20% of the economy, are increasing at 10+% a year? Yes. One, because cash flow one way doesn't justify cash flow another way. Regardless of other costs. So I'm not sure how one relates to the other. Purchasing power and real wages don't necessarily mean you have more money to spend freely. It's a way of looking at how average workers are getting their slice of the pie, so to speak. Two, because the fundamental reason these costs are increasing are also because of the economic system that is hoarding wealth -- the product of productivity -- into one class tier. This class tier has almost no real input or contribution to productivity and technological advancements, yet are quite literally the only ones benefiting from it. Continuing, there is absolutely no reason for healthcare costs to have increased as much as they have. Not at current spending levels. I wish people would understand this. There is no fundamental, principle reason why healthcare costs go up except greed and the system we have chosen to implement. Price increases happen because you have private companies that have continually increased prices -- and in some cases taken drugs that used to be free and now charge thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, for products and services. A lot of which are funded directly by federal grants, and none of which the public receives returns on. Our ineffectual government (when it comes to regulatory matters) has done nothing to curtail this. https://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02/US_health_spending_is_much_greater_for_all_categories_of_care_blog_main_horizontal.jpg https://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02... and https://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02/US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_expected_1_blog_main_horizontal.jpg https://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02... We have every ounce of data telling us "this system is wrong, it is not functioning by any metric" Yet a large portion of the populace doesn't care or continues to adhere to the mantra. It's not religious, it's an economic cult sprinkled with political astrology. Capitalism has its place. But it needs to be put back in its place, so to speak.
clavalle 8y ago
Ok. We found a good move. But did we find the best move? Or, somewhat more weakly, can we find a better move? Don't let the good be the enemy of the better.
- jimmy1 8y ago
  Don't let someone's opinion or conceptualization of "better" be the enemy of what's good.
- m000z0rz 8y ago
  Isn't that exactly what joshuaheard said, though?
  - chobeat 8y ago
    No because capitalism, even on paper, will still imply poverty as a structural element. Without poverty and exploitation, the system cannot sustain itself. This without considering waste: Capitalism, being competitive at every scale, implies that to give feedback to the system, you have to waste. Waste resources, waste time, waste lives. The more waste, the better the outcome. If it works by different assumptions, it stops being capitalism. So if you aim to remove these elements, you're aiming at destroying capitalism.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      One definition of capitalism is simply the re-investment of profits into improvements - better tools, for example. That in no way implies poverty as a structural element.
      - claudiawerner 8y ago
        I believe what GP is trying to say is that capitalism necessarily creates such an element, since they view it as a class structure society.
        8y ago
grecy 8y ago
For a long time America has been by far the richest country in the world, without a credible second place (though maybe China is that now) And yet for decades the quality of life of hundreds of millions of Americans is lower than that of people in other, poorer developed countries. Why is that? What's the point in having the richest country if it doesn't have the best conditions for those living in it? Is it worthwhile just being rich for the sake of being rich, even if you get no benefit from it?
- refurb 8y ago
  Depending on how you measure how "rich" a country is, the US often isn't #1 and there are plenty that are a close #2 (Japan, Western Europe). And yes, the quality of life for many Americans is lower than developing countries, but that's because the developing countries have become richer.
- vxNsr 8y ago
  > And yet for decades the quality of life of hundreds of millions of Americans is lower than that of people in other, poorer developed countries. This statement is wildly ignorant or intentionally misleading, you are claiming that at the very least 2/3 of all americans have a quality of life worse than other poorer countries. this is simply a false unsubstantiated statement.
  - magduf 8y ago
    No, it's completely true. Most Americans do not have a better quality of life than most Swedes, most Danes, or most Germans.
    - lotsofpulp 8y ago
      I think part of many Americans' quality of life definition is the possibility to hit it big and end up in the top 10% and have an even better life than most Swedes/Danes/Germans. Temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
    - RPLong 8y ago
pranjalv123 8y ago
Capitalism provides more benefits than feudalism, which in turn provided more benefits than a pre-feudal barter economy. But that doesn't mean that there is no economic system that would provide still more benefits than capitalism.
- joshuaheard 8y ago
  Capitalism isn't perfect, but it is the best system we have.
underbluewaters 8y ago
Capitalism has ignored negative externalities for a long time, and now the bill is nearly due. The environment is devastated, climate change will disrupt the ecosystem services we take for granted, and inequality is giving rise to political turmoil. A better title would be, How to save Capitalism before it's too late.
apta 8y ago
> Capitalism has provided more benefits to more people than any other economic system in history. Provably false. One example is the Islamic economic system. It was famously noted that there were no more people who accepted charity during the rule of Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz, because poverty was basically eliminated.

Retra 8y ago

If my car has a broken headlight, my car is still broken and I still fix it, even if it has been providing value and even if it still does so. The implication is only that it isn't living up to its promises, not that it is not worth keeping. (Besides, the title refers to American Capitalism.)

neuronic 8y ago

> Capitalism has provided more benefits to more people than any other economic system in history. Stop spinning this as an argument that capitalism is not broken. It's merely less broken than alternative systems and evidently only works in conjunction with heavy regulation. Historic examples of (nearly) unregulated capitalism exist and they are horrifying.

standardUser 8y ago

How many people need to be working for sub-poverty wages before we can say American capitalism isn't perfect? How many inches do the oceans need to rise? How many people need to file bankruptcy due to medical bills? No wonder we can't fix our problems if people insist on pretending their aren't any.

francisofascii 8y ago
"The first step in solving a problem is recognizing there is one" — Will Mcavoy
chasd00 8y ago
I don't believe anyone has claimed American capitalism is perfect only that it's better than the known alternatives.

kadendogthing 8y ago

Why does capitalism get the credit for industrial and scientific breakthroughs? That's begging the question, no? There is absolutely zero proof that these things are inclusive of one another, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Especially when the current capitalistic system is not reasonably sharing the benefits of these breakthroughs?

merpnderp 8y ago
What is reasonable? And more to the point, what non-capitalist system has ever been more reasonable?
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  >What is reasonable? I think not having a continual decline in purchasing power and living standards despite increases in productivity and consistent technological breakthroughs is pretty reasonable.
  - merpnderp 8y ago
    Is that reasonable when heath-care costs, at 20% of the economy, are increasing at 10+% a year? The economy is not growing even close to fast enough to offset this. Our productivity is not increasing even close to fast enough.
    - kadendogthing 8y ago
      >Is that reasonable when heath-care costs, at 20% of the economy, are increasing at 10+% a year? Yes. One, because cash flow one way doesn't justify cash flow another way. Regardless of other costs. So I'm not sure how one relates to the other. Purchasing power and real wages don't necessarily mean you have more money to spend freely. It's a way of looking at how average workers are getting their slice of the pie, so to speak. Two, because the fundamental reason these costs are increasing are also because of the economic system that is hoarding wealth -- the product of productivity -- into one class tier. This class tier has almost no real input or contribution to productivity and technological advancements, yet are quite literally the only ones benefiting from it. Continuing, there is absolutely no reason for healthcare costs to have increased as much as they have. Not at current spending levels. I wish people would understand this. There is no fundamental, principle reason why healthcare costs go up except greed and the system we have chosen to implement. Price increases happen because you have private companies that have continually increased prices -- and in some cases taken drugs that used to be free and now charge thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, for products and services. A lot of which are funded directly by federal grants, and none of which the public receives returns on. Our ineffectual government (when it comes to regulatory matters) has done nothing to curtail this. https://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02/US_health_spending_is_much_greater_for_all_categories_of_care_blog_main_horizontal.jpg https://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02... and https://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02/US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_expected_1_blog_main_horizontal.jpg https://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02... We have every ounce of data telling us "this system is wrong, it is not functioning by any metric" Yet a large portion of the populace doesn't care or continues to adhere to the mantra. It's not religious, it's an economic cult sprinkled with political astrology. Capitalism has its place. But it needs to be put back in its place, so to speak.

clavalle 8y ago

Ok. We found a good move. But did we find the best move? Or, somewhat more weakly, can we find a better move? Don't let the good be the enemy of the better.

jimmy1 8y ago
Don't let someone's opinion or conceptualization of "better" be the enemy of what's good.
m000z0rz 8y ago
Isn't that exactly what joshuaheard said, though?
- chobeat 8y ago
  No because capitalism, even on paper, will still imply poverty as a structural element. Without poverty and exploitation, the system cannot sustain itself. This without considering waste: Capitalism, being competitive at every scale, implies that to give feedback to the system, you have to waste. Waste resources, waste time, waste lives. The more waste, the better the outcome. If it works by different assumptions, it stops being capitalism. So if you aim to remove these elements, you're aiming at destroying capitalism.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    One definition of capitalism is simply the re-investment of profits into improvements - better tools, for example. That in no way implies poverty as a structural element.
    - claudiawerner 8y ago
      I believe what GP is trying to say is that capitalism necessarily creates such an element, since they view it as a class structure society.
      - 8y ago

grecy 8y ago

For a long time America has been by far the richest country in the world, without a credible second place (though maybe China is that now) And yet for decades the quality of life of hundreds of millions of Americans is lower than that of people in other, poorer developed countries. Why is that? What's the point in having the richest country if it doesn't have the best conditions for those living in it? Is it worthwhile just being rich for the sake of being rich, even if you get no benefit from it?

refurb 8y ago
Depending on how you measure how "rich" a country is, the US often isn't #1 and there are plenty that are a close #2 (Japan, Western Europe). And yes, the quality of life for many Americans is lower than developing countries, but that's because the developing countries have become richer.
vxNsr 8y ago
> And yet for decades the quality of life of hundreds of millions of Americans is lower than that of people in other, poorer developed countries. This statement is wildly ignorant or intentionally misleading, you are claiming that at the very least 2/3 of all americans have a quality of life worse than other poorer countries. this is simply a false unsubstantiated statement.
- magduf 8y ago
  No, it's completely true. Most Americans do not have a better quality of life than most Swedes, most Danes, or most Germans.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    I think part of many Americans' quality of life definition is the possibility to hit it big and end up in the top 10% and have an even better life than most Swedes/Danes/Germans. Temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
  - RPLong 8y ago

pranjalv123 8y ago

Capitalism provides more benefits than feudalism, which in turn provided more benefits than a pre-feudal barter economy. But that doesn't mean that there is no economic system that would provide still more benefits than capitalism.

joshuaheard 8y ago
Capitalism isn't perfect, but it is the best system we have.

underbluewaters 8y ago

Capitalism has ignored negative externalities for a long time, and now the bill is nearly due. The environment is devastated, climate change will disrupt the ecosystem services we take for granted, and inequality is giving rise to political turmoil. A better title would be, How to save Capitalism before it's too late.

apta 8y ago

> Capitalism has provided more benefits to more people than any other economic system in history. Provably false. One example is the Islamic economic system. It was famously noted that there were no more people who accepted charity during the rule of Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz, because poverty was basically eliminated.