5 ms·

Capitalism itself isn't the problem it's our refusal to change market forces to force companies and individuals to pay for the disposal of the stuff when we no

Capitalism itself isn't the problem it's our refusal to change market forces to force companies and individuals to pay for the disposal of the stuff when we no longer have a use for it. This could easily be done if we had the political will power. all the solutions to this exist currently we just aren't taking advantage of them.

Gibbon1 8y ago
If I were dictator the dump would charge the manufacturer full sales price to dispose of a major appliance that is less than five years old.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Capitalism itself isn't the problem it's our refusal to change market forces to force companies and individuals to pay for the disposal of the stuff when we no longer have a use for it. The absence of government intervention in to “change market forces” beyond it's intervention to establish the basic property model that characterizes capitalism is the central feature of capitalism as an economic system. It's true that modern “capitalist” states all intervene in this way to a significant extent, but that's because capitalism in its pure form was abandoned, almost universally, in the early-to-mid-20th century in favor of mixed economies in developed countries. But the philosophy of capitalism is still a potent force, and resists further intervention and motivates rollbacks of existing interventions.
- vlehto 8y ago
  The problem with arguing about capitalism is that it has multiple overlapping definitions. You have one definition that any system that has private trade is capitalist. One definition that says any system that has any market intervention is not capitalist. One that claims any system that has private ownership of means of production is capitalist. One where you are not capitalist if you claim to be communist (looking at you China). And then the ones which include also "industrial production" in the equation in one form or another. Whatever you mean by "industrial". I don't know about defenders of current western way of life, but the opponents typically don't declare their definitions of capitalism in beforehand. So it's incredibly unlikely to have any solid argument against them.
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Those solutions are not Capitalist, government intervention to prevent profit by nefarious means - employment rights, environmental concerns, health - are counter-Capitalist. If it were capitalism the market would be making those things unprofitable. The market has poor morals.
Ericson2314 8y ago
Even if we had all the perfect excise taxes, there's no theoretical reason planned obselessence would take place in other ways. (E.g. company buys your trash and recycles it into new thing they sell you at profit.) The imperative to get more revenue always points towards rent seeking. I'm not even sure how to theoretically separate planned obeselessence from other forms of rent seeking. The left is derrided for wanting to abolish private property, but the irony is capitalism itself tends towards concentrating ownership away from all from most of us.
- Ericson2314 8y ago
  I wonder how often incandescent lightbulbs are/were recycled. That is probably as closest example in reality to my planned obselessence + recycling example. (Certainly glass and iron are relatively easy to recycle, not sure about tungsten.)
hinkley 8y ago
Coming out of World War Two we had a serious glut of manufacturing capacity. Planned obsolescence gave us a bottomless pit to throw that capacity at. If instead we’d had a glut of skilled labor, we’d have had people making intricate customizations to durable goods to adapt them to the owners. But... not only didn’t we have that glut of skilled labor, but skilled labor is beneath a lot of people. It’s déclassé. And I’m starting to think that if we don’t get over that we’re going to be in for a world of hurt, not just from overconsumption but also from underemployment.

Gibbon1 8y ago

If I were dictator the dump would charge the manufacturer full sales price to dispose of a major appliance that is less than five years old.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Capitalism itself isn't the problem it's our refusal to change market forces to force companies and individuals to pay for the disposal of the stuff when we no longer have a use for it. The absence of government intervention in to “change market forces” beyond it's intervention to establish the basic property model that characterizes capitalism is the central feature of capitalism as an economic system. It's true that modern “capitalist” states all intervene in this way to a significant extent, but that's because capitalism in its pure form was abandoned, almost universally, in the early-to-mid-20th century in favor of mixed economies in developed countries. But the philosophy of capitalism is still a potent force, and resists further intervention and motivates rollbacks of existing interventions.

vlehto 8y ago
The problem with arguing about capitalism is that it has multiple overlapping definitions. You have one definition that any system that has private trade is capitalist. One definition that says any system that has any market intervention is not capitalist. One that claims any system that has private ownership of means of production is capitalist. One where you are not capitalist if you claim to be communist (looking at you China). And then the ones which include also "industrial production" in the equation in one form or another. Whatever you mean by "industrial". I don't know about defenders of current western way of life, but the opponents typically don't declare their definitions of capitalism in beforehand. So it's incredibly unlikely to have any solid argument against them.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

Those solutions are not Capitalist, government intervention to prevent profit by nefarious means - employment rights, environmental concerns, health - are counter-Capitalist. If it were capitalism the market would be making those things unprofitable. The market has poor morals.

Ericson2314 8y ago

Even if we had all the perfect excise taxes, there's no theoretical reason planned obselessence would take place in other ways. (E.g. company buys your trash and recycles it into new thing they sell you at profit.) The imperative to get more revenue always points towards rent seeking. I'm not even sure how to theoretically separate planned obeselessence from other forms of rent seeking. The left is derrided for wanting to abolish private property, but the irony is capitalism itself tends towards concentrating ownership away from all from most of us.

Ericson2314 8y ago
I wonder how often incandescent lightbulbs are/were recycled. That is probably as closest example in reality to my planned obselessence + recycling example. (Certainly glass and iron are relatively easy to recycle, not sure about tungsten.)

hinkley 8y ago

Coming out of World War Two we had a serious glut of manufacturing capacity. Planned obsolescence gave us a bottomless pit to throw that capacity at. If instead we’d had a glut of skilled labor, we’d have had people making intricate customizations to durable goods to adapt them to the owners. But... not only didn’t we have that glut of skilled labor, but skilled labor is beneath a lot of people. It’s déclassé. And I’m starting to think that if we don’t get over that we’re going to be in for a world of hurt, not just from overconsumption but also from underemployment.