5 ms·
You don't have to provide a fix to a discovered problem. Discovering and pointing out a problem is valuable in and of itself. If you force every problem discove
by Frost1x 5y ago
You don't have to provide a fix to a discovered problem. Discovering and pointing out a problem is valuable in and of itself. If you force every problem discovery process to provide a fix, you create disincentive to the discovery process itself.
It is nice to have a solution when you identify a problem but you also can't just ignore a problem because you don't have a clear solution. Recognize the problem helps others to suggest solutions to the problem. If you can provide iron clad proof no alternative solution exists, then do that. Passing around the burden of proof merely to prop up a position that clearly also doesn't help the problem helps no one. Let's all carry the burden of proof.
I for one think part of the issue is with indefinite capital accumulation. We adhere fundamentally to property ownership and that your property is yours forever. This results in pockets of wealth that create many of the problems we currently see in capitalism as practiced in the US. Competitive forces designed to keep things in place can be countered when enough wealth is amassed. Law and regulation can be bought and manipulated. Public opinion can also be fairly well manipulated.
Clear out mass inheritance options, set forth ways to cap off mass wealth accumulation and redistribute it to society beyond a point that increases as often as say, minimum wage increases. If wealth wants a higher ceiling, they need to make sure the bottom isn't left behind. Provide progressive tax rates beyond those limits that discourage hoarding wealth and using it counterproductively, if we believe we reward success through wealth.
Just some starter ideas, not a claimed solution for the situation at large. Retroactively applying principles may not even be possible without core restructuring in culture and law. Capitalism is great, it's the best system we've seen so far, but what is going on now isn't great and it's not healthy for society. It doesn't necessarily have to be wiped clear but it needs some restructuring or bandaids attached to resolve some very real fundamental issues we have, otherwise we're going to have a society focused on exploitation acquiring value over the actual value creation we praise capitalism for.
- simonh 5y agoOh I fully accept this is an actual problem, these people are vile and need to be fought vigorously and resolutely. I just don't see what that has to do with capitalism, or actually the economic system at all really. Do powerful leaders and managers in non-capitalist systems not engage in lobbying and not promote the interests of their industry? Do they not engage in unsavoury practices when doing so? How does the system act to prevent that? On the contrary all the attempts at non-capitalist systems I'm aware of are based on a system of central planning and the allocation of resources on a bureaucratic or political basis. Fundamentally capitalism is based on freedom of ownership (of property and capital), freedom of labour (to work for or hire others) and freedom of association (to form companies). Planned economies by necessity restrict or eliminate some or all of these freedoms, but those restrictions never stop at economic activities. After all almost everything has some economic dimension. In practice this has always seemed to end up with highly coercive, opaque bureaucratic systems in which factional lobbying and influence peddling isn't just a flaw, it becomes the system.