3 ms·

The problem that's being brought up is that Capitalize focuses on serving selfish, individual, needs. Those may or may not also been good for society as a whol

by Osiris 13y ago

The problem that's being brought up is that Capitalize focuses on serving selfish, individual, needs. Those may or may not also been good for society as a whole. We, the people, have entered into a social contract that is enforced through government to allow us to co-exist. Given that situation, there are some things/processes/services that are good for society as a whole but don't really make sense individually. For example, vaccines are really good for society in that they reduce disease, thus freeing up resources for other individual medical needs. However, a single person wouldn't take a vaccine because it only benefits them in at least 80% of the population also takes it. Here is a situation in which a societal good is underserved in pure capitalism. Often I see people arguing that "pure" capitalism solves all problems, but that's clearly not the case. It's a very good system, but outside influence can be needed to optimize social welfare over individual welfare.

kamaal 13y ago
Note, the soviet style centrally planned economy didn't work too well for them. In the absence of market indicators you are left at the judgement of a few bureaucrats. I'm not saying capitalism is panacea, but its best of other worst options. Market indicators are not perfect, but they get close.
- Osiris 13y ago
  Who said anything about centrally planned economies?
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  Ignoring for the moment that you're engaging in a false dichotomy, central planning actually worked very well for Russia in the 20th century. Russia had fewer (if any) recessions compared to Europe and the US and faster economic growth. Now you might say that it is easy to have fast economic growth when you're playing catch up. However, plenty of third world countries demonstrate that it is not easy, and Russia managed to grow faster than capitalist economies with the same starting point. It's true that the results are not as clear for other centrally planned economies. The point is that it's not as simple as "market good, central planning bad".

by Osiris 13y ago

kamaal 13y ago

Note, the soviet style centrally planned economy didn't work too well for them. In the absence of market indicators you are left at the judgement of a few bureaucrats. I'm not saying capitalism is panacea, but its best of other worst options. Market indicators are not perfect, but they get close.

Osiris 13y ago
Who said anything about centrally planned economies?
nhaehnle 13y ago
Ignoring for the moment that you're engaging in a false dichotomy, central planning actually worked very well for Russia in the 20th century. Russia had fewer (if any) recessions compared to Europe and the US and faster economic growth. Now you might say that it is easy to have fast economic growth when you're playing catch up. However, plenty of third world countries demonstrate that it is not easy, and Russia managed to grow faster than capitalist economies with the same starting point. It's true that the results are not as clear for other centrally planned economies. The point is that it's not as simple as "market good, central planning bad".