5 ms·

The Problem Is Capitalism

Gatsky 7y ago
Ok, so this makes a lot of sense, but let's get real - the chance of a wholesale change to economic fundamentals is very close to zero. Look at who is getting elected lately. Mitigating Capitalism's greater evils seems like the only feasible option. The two things that stand out are stopping the incredible concentration of wealth in single entities (eg Saudi Arabia), and preventing perverse economic incentives (see American Health system).
- senectus1 7y ago
  Saudi Arabia isn't a single entity. Just like "America" isn't. But yes... we do need to deal with the 1% issue that is overbalancing the system
  - Gatsky 7y ago
    "Saudi Arabia is an autocratic absolute monarchy." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Politics
perfunctory 7y ago
> I have never been an enthusiast for state communism "state communism" is an oxymoron. Communism, by definition, implies the absence of the state.
senectus1 7y ago
While I tentatively agree that its a problem, viewing Earth as our only finite resource is not entirely correct either. Capitalism will be what pushes us to the infinite resources of space.... then I imagine it'll run into new problems that no one has yet realized they need to solve problems for. I'd rather have a reliable, tried and tested capitalism (devil we know) to deal with the the new issues Space will present than some fledgling new system.
- paulryanrogers 7y ago
  Space is almost certainly permanently inhospitable to what we call life. Apart from far flung oasises like Earth. Which would likely require entire star systems worth of resources and eons of time to send anything tangible between them.
  - mreome 7y ago
    I would generally agree with your second point; without a fundamental change in our understanding of physics, interstellar travel is unlikely. But I don’t really follow the logic of your first point, earth is just one of many bodies in space. What exactly would make orbital habitats, Lunar or Martian colonies, Martian terraforming, etc, fundamentally impossible? Also, in regards to "what we call life", I would note we are already familiar with organisms that can survive in space (tardigrades), and our rapidly growing knowledge of biology and genetics opens a future in which we may be able to apply biological changes that would allow us to thrive in a wider range of environments.
aeternus 7y ago
There are plenty of towns and villages where people can live in the economic conditions of the 1800s or 1900s. Almost no one chooses to do so. Economic growth is overall strongly correlated with human prosperity, higher life-expectancies, and higher standard of living. If we ever do run low on a natural resource, capitalism softens the blow by gradually increasing prices, thereby increasing incentives for finding an alternative.
- paulryanrogers 7y ago
  ... Until there are no more alternatives
StreamBright 7y ago
Well there is a simple counter for this issue with the continuous growth requirement. Expand to space.
- majewsky 7y ago
  A constant growth rate requires exponential growth. Expansion into space is O(t^3) because you're limited by the speed of light in each of 3 spatial dimensions. Therefore, while expansion into space could buy us some more time, it's not a sustainable solution either.
  - StreamBright 7y ago
    I am not sure how this is relevant. Operate a large interstellar empire with slower than light space travel. The limits that article is alking about are there because Earth has its limits. Most of those limits are related to production of products and energy. If you could solve these outside of Earth (not even outside of the solar system) you are already in a much better position.
ultrablack 7y ago
This man, is a complete nutcase. Japan and China didnt build their wealth on slavery. Neither did the arabic countries. Even though they got as many slaves as the americas (look it up). They still have modern slavery btw. The author belong to a group og greedy envious people. We should tax the 1%... Are you in IT? then chances are high that you yourself belong to the top 1% richest persons in the world. Now, consider how much you think rich people should pat more, then donate a proportional amount from your own income...
ghevshoo 7y ago
> Capitalism’s failures arise from two of its defining elements. The first is perpetual growth. It's not just perpetual, but exponential. However it has nothing to do with capitalism. How do free markets and private ownership over the means of production demand perpetual growth? It's our monetary system which demands this growth. Bitcoiners have been harping about this for years, but that message tends to get lost in zealotry. As long as you have a debt-based monetary system and a central bank that targets 2% inflation per year, you can happily have a communist economy that requires the same exponential growth. And similarly that would not be the fault of communism.
- _nalply 7y ago
  The perpetual growth per se is not a defining element of capitalism but a consequence of something else: The ongoing struggle to compete for profit.

Ok, so this makes a lot of sense, but let's get real - the chance of a wholesale change to economic fundamentals is very close to zero. Look at who is getting elected lately. Mitigating Capitalism's greater evils seems like the only feasible option. The two things that stand out are stopping the incredible concentration of wealth in single entities (eg Saudi Arabia), and preventing perverse economic incentives (see American Health system).

senectus1 7y ago
Saudi Arabia isn't a single entity. Just like "America" isn't. But yes... we do need to deal with the 1% issue that is overbalancing the system
- Gatsky 7y ago
  "Saudi Arabia is an autocratic absolute monarchy." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Politics

perfunctory 7y ago

> I have never been an enthusiast for state communism "state communism" is an oxymoron. Communism, by definition, implies the absence of the state.

senectus1 7y ago

While I tentatively agree that its a problem, viewing Earth as our only finite resource is not entirely correct either. Capitalism will be what pushes us to the infinite resources of space.... then I imagine it'll run into new problems that no one has yet realized they need to solve problems for. I'd rather have a reliable, tried and tested capitalism (devil we know) to deal with the the new issues Space will present than some fledgling new system.

paulryanrogers 7y ago
Space is almost certainly permanently inhospitable to what we call life. Apart from far flung oasises like Earth. Which would likely require entire star systems worth of resources and eons of time to send anything tangible between them.
- mreome 7y ago
  I would generally agree with your second point; without a fundamental change in our understanding of physics, interstellar travel is unlikely. But I don’t really follow the logic of your first point, earth is just one of many bodies in space. What exactly would make orbital habitats, Lunar or Martian colonies, Martian terraforming, etc, fundamentally impossible? Also, in regards to "what we call life", I would note we are already familiar with organisms that can survive in space (tardigrades), and our rapidly growing knowledge of biology and genetics opens a future in which we may be able to apply biological changes that would allow us to thrive in a wider range of environments.

aeternus 7y ago

There are plenty of towns and villages where people can live in the economic conditions of the 1800s or 1900s. Almost no one chooses to do so. Economic growth is overall strongly correlated with human prosperity, higher life-expectancies, and higher standard of living. If we ever do run low on a natural resource, capitalism softens the blow by gradually increasing prices, thereby increasing incentives for finding an alternative.

paulryanrogers 7y ago
... Until there are no more alternatives

StreamBright 7y ago

Well there is a simple counter for this issue with the continuous growth requirement. Expand to space.

majewsky 7y ago
A constant growth rate requires exponential growth. Expansion into space is O(t^3) because you're limited by the speed of light in each of 3 spatial dimensions. Therefore, while expansion into space could buy us some more time, it's not a sustainable solution either.
- StreamBright 7y ago
  I am not sure how this is relevant. Operate a large interstellar empire with slower than light space travel. The limits that article is alking about are there because Earth has its limits. Most of those limits are related to production of products and energy. If you could solve these outside of Earth (not even outside of the solar system) you are already in a much better position.

ultrablack 7y ago

This man, is a complete nutcase. Japan and China didnt build their wealth on slavery. Neither did the arabic countries. Even though they got as many slaves as the americas (look it up). They still have modern slavery btw. The author belong to a group og greedy envious people. We should tax the 1%... Are you in IT? then chances are high that you yourself belong to the top 1% richest persons in the world. Now, consider how much you think rich people should pat more, then donate a proportional amount from your own income...

ghevshoo 7y ago

> Capitalism’s failures arise from two of its defining elements. The first is perpetual growth. It's not just perpetual, but exponential. However it has nothing to do with capitalism. How do free markets and private ownership over the means of production demand perpetual growth? It's our monetary system which demands this growth. Bitcoiners have been harping about this for years, but that message tends to get lost in zealotry. As long as you have a debt-based monetary system and a central bank that targets 2% inflation per year, you can happily have a communist economy that requires the same exponential growth. And similarly that would not be the fault of communism.

_nalply 7y ago
The perpetual growth per se is not a defining element of capitalism but a consequence of something else: The ongoing struggle to compete for profit.