12 ms·

Interesting article. I have not seen a lot of quantitative studies on society in general (that is probably personal bias, however). Is it wrong to say that a l

by pwnna 13y ago

Interesting article. I have not seen a lot of quantitative studies on society in general (that is probably personal bias, however). Is it wrong to say that a lot of the root cause of this is from capitalism? Is socialism a better solution for more complicated societies like the ones we have today?

craigyk 13y ago
My take is that it's all a continuum. more capitalist is probably better in fast growing/developing areas (note: not just countries) with a move toward more socialist as things equilibrate. The end-state of capitalism, barring major disruptions, is monopoly, which is essentially the economic equivalent of dictatorship. Also, things that didn't exist 3 decades ago might start to become more like a utility (internet), which to me indicates it should be treated more like a social good.
- pjhile 13y ago
  The end-state of capitalism is monopoly?
  - pwnna 13y ago
    It's not?
    - ams6110 13y ago
      Monopolies can arise, but typically are sustainable only when supported by governmental regulation and authorization.
      - bluthru 13y ago
        Explain Google.
        astine 13y ago
        Google is not a monopoly. It has numerous competitors and only really remains in the lead because it is perceived to be the highest in quality.
        patrickk 13y ago
        Power law distribution in search engine market share. It also explains why Coca Cola is the dominant cola to name another example. I particularly like Peter Thiel's explanation of the power law, used in relation to VCs fund performance: http://blakemasters.com/post/21869934240/peter-thiels-cs183-startup-class-7-notes-essay http://blakemasters.com/post/21869934240/peter-thiels-cs183-...
      - leot 13y ago
        Well, for one nothing lasts forever and there's no such thing as "the long run", so it's true that monopolies can't be sustainable. But the idea that they need a government to prop them up seems to lack a factual basis. De Beers seems to have lasted a pretty long time -- did they need the government in order to last as long as they have? Does the fact that they will collapse "eventually" (which, of course, all things must) make acceptable the massive rent that they've taken? Power is power. As soon as one actor gets it in one domain, it spreads to another domain. Even if we had some completely laissez-faire economy in which there were no monopolies, as soon as one arose it would begin to get the laws changed to favor its persistence. It would then look as though it was government regulation that was propping it up, but the causal force was the monopolist, not the government. The way to prevent this is to maximize the control of the people over the government, and make sure that no unaccountable-to-the-people entity gets too much power. I.e., the people must take an aggressive stance against rent-seeking monopolists in order to maximize competition, progress, and the overall growth of wealth.
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        >> The way to prevent this is to maximize the control of the people over the government Oh? How do we do that? We all know a civilized discussion is much more persuasive than cursing and raging, right? -I guess we need to write respectful, eloquent letters to our "representatives", and ask them to pretty-please be less corrupt and keep their campaign promises? >> make sure that no unaccountable-to-the-people entity gets too much power An entity that's not accountable to the people, huh? -Such as, the government itself? Or how much sway do you hold over the secret FISA "courts"? What about how your tax money is spent? >> the people must take an aggressive stance against rent-seeking monopolists Oh? What about the ultimate monopoly, the government? Or is there some other entity that decides what happens in a country, what's allowed and what's forbidden?
        leot 13y ago
        Let's see: what do we have in the world, in actual reality, when considering your comments? What do we know (from actual examples of things that really happen) when it comes to the potential for a government to be accountable to its citizens? In the actual world that we live in, do we have democracies that function pretty darn well? Yes (all of Scandinavia, Iceland, Switzerland). In other parts of the world, do we have corporate monopolies (or near-monopolies) with noxious outsized influence? Most definitely yes (e.g., retroactive copyright extensions in the U.S.). If you were to pick a country to be born into, where your household was picked completely at random, would you rather be born in the U.S. or in a country in Scandinavia? In which country do you believe you would find yourself most empowered viz. society and its governance?
      - craigyk 13y ago
        how naive. were it not for government, in the end monopolies would just resort to threats of violence to achieve the same result. as distasteful (and perhaps inevitable) regulatory capture is, at least it provides a non-violent outlet to squash the competition... until the revolution that is.
  - craigyk 13y ago
    In any specific area, as a general rule? I think so (there will be exceptions). Why is that supposition so strange?
    - dworin 13y ago
      Disagree. Absent large barriers to entry like economies of scale, network effects, or legal/regulatory hurdles, monopolies are fairly unstable in a capitalist system. The excessive profits that they bring in (monopoly rents) are a ripe target for new firms, who are easily able to enter the market and compete on price. Or technological change renders monopolies irrelevant from the outside.
      - craigyk 13y ago
        I think there are few areas where the barriers you mention do not exist. I also mention the scenario where technological change renders monopolies irrelevant and address it by stating that smart winners spend a lot of time dealing with these threats.
      - lgieron 13y ago
        As an excercise - pick a random company out of fortune500, assume you have solid industry expertise (say - you've got a team of a couple of top guys who worked in that industry) in their area and also a couple million dollars, and think how likely you are to create a company that can compete with them. I'd say, that for a big fraction of fortune 500 (which is itself a large fraction of global economy), you need even more than the experise and a couple millions, which makes them fairly safe in their current positions.
      - aboodman 13y ago
        One of the best strategies for creating long-term competitive advantage is to use the profits from your early lead to do something that is expensive to replicate. Here's an example close to my heart (and please note that I'm just a cog and this is not a statement on official strategy -- just my personal observation): In Google Chrome, we decided to do native beautiful polished UI on every platform - Windows, OS X, iOS, Android -- even Linux!! This is a very expensive way to build a piece of client-side software, and some might say the result is only a few percent better than what could be achieved using a cross-platform UI toolkit. But it's a very expensive couple percent to duplicate. Same thing with multiprocess. Only makes the software a little bit better, but again, extremely difficult to replicate. If you look closely, I believe you will see this strategy being used by the leaders of many industries that would at first glance appear to have low barriers to entry.
a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
The problem far predates capitalism. At various times wannabe elites in elite-saturated societies used to very often die in duels, or very stupid little wars for glory.
- pwnna 13y ago
  Yeah but those are all driven by competition, which is something that capitalism promotes. Is there something that promotes competition but also collaboration? I think another sibling comment is right, there needs to be a mix of both and is all down to trade offs.
  - icegreentea 13y ago
    Socialism says nothing about competition in the realm politics/power. Elites don't go after the money for the money, they go after the money as a means to power. You can add all the socialistic elements to society you want, as long as there are limited positions of meaningful power, you will likely get people competing over them. And at some point you've added as much socialism as you can, and now you're at communism. And now you have "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", and now you have people squabbling over who the hell is best at high-influence, high-prestige positions, cause they're all pretty sure that they are the best. And remember, capitalism -does- promote collaboration. A corporation is nothing but a huge collaboration. A collaboration that looks actually hilariously socialistic/communistic.
    - JabavuAdams 13y ago
      Human nature abhors a power vacuum?
6d0debc071 13y ago
Socialism and free market capitalism are extremes on a scale. Most Western societies these days include significant elements of both socialism and market-shaping forces. In terms of organising a society the extreme forms of socialism imply very strong central planning. Which run into significant problems because the central planners are never going to know the needs of the people as well as the people themselves, nor are they going to have the information available on all the industries that they're trying to oversee.
- minikites 13y ago
  Fun fact, central planning isn't necessarily less efficient: http://econweb.umd.edu/~murrell/Articles/Can%20Neoclassical%20Economics%20Underpin%20the%20Economic%20Reform.pdf http://econweb.umd.edu/~murrell/Articles/Can%20Neoclassical%... > One doubt about the evidence might lie in the comparability of estimates obtained from separate studies, although Table 1 addresses this issue by matching studies with similar methodologies. One study, Koopman (1989b), employs observations on both centrally planned and market economies, thus providing direct comparability. He uses observations for 1960-79 for Soviet republics and a matched sample of Canadian provinces, U.S. states, and Finland, and employs a translog functional form that allows for differences in technology between Soviet and non-Soviet regions. The average level of technical efficiency in Soviet agriculture is estimated at 93 percent, while it is 92 percent for agriculture in the market economies.
  - pwnna 13y ago
    Competent central planning would be great! However that would never work in real life...
    - ams6110 13y ago
      You'd be happy with a "competent" planner telling you where you could work, what you could earn, where you could live, how many kids you could have, etc?
      - 13y ago
minikites 13y ago
Nothing grows forever: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/peter-victor-deficit-growth http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/peter-victor-def... and http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-... I agree with you, I think capitalism is a transitional phase and the end-game will be something that can be sustained in perpetuity and with more humanity than capitalism.
JackFr 13y ago
For such a statement to be true or not, you've got to be more precise about what you mean by capitalism. At it's heart, capitalism is about 1) private ownership of the factors of production through limited liability and tradeable claims; and 2) a separation of management of the firm from ownership of the firm. I don't see that being replaced anytime soon. The idea that a top-down technocratic solution (of which I would consider socialism an enlightened example) would result in greater human thriving has not been borne out empirically, and in theory has problems that the information and feedback processes driving decision making are less efficient.
- duairc 13y ago
  Why is socialism a top-down technocratic solution? What is top-down about the abolition of private property and workers owning the means of production? Also, what is “human thriving”? I find that capitalists use vague terms like this to mean “good”, and when you push them for a definition, they give you a contrived one which makes capitalism look good, but no satisfying justification or explanation for why this is should be what the structure of society should be optimised for.
  - nickff 13y ago
    Abolition of property rights is usually down through coercive means by some agent of the state, hence it is top-down. "Human thriving" can be defined any number of ways, including wealth, health, liberty (positive or negative), freedom, happiness, environmental factors, etc. Most capitalists define thriving as improvement in some or all of these areas. You are correct that a vague definition of "thriving" can be self-serving, but it is hard to find any factor which socialist countries have made more progress in than less socialist countries. Even a socialist country (i.e. China or India) which frees its markets and creates property rights sees a substantial gain in the rate of improvement of the lives of its citizens in almost every aspect.
    - duairc 13y ago
      > Abolition of property rights is usually down through coercive means by some agent of the state, hence it is top-down. No it's not? Property rights themselves can only be enforced through some agent of the state, hence they are top down. Abolition of private property means abolition of the state. I mentioned this in another post in this thread, but take the example of a house you rent from a landlord. Under capitalism, it's not your house, even though you use it. It's the landlord's, because ultimately the landlord can use the coercive power of the state to remove you if you stop paying rent. If you abolish the state, then it simply becomes your house, and the landlord can no longer claim ownership over that which they do not use.
ams6110 13y ago
No system is perfect, because humans are not perfect, but capitalism has produced more and created a higher standard of living for more people than any other system we've tried. Socialism/communism has produced most of the worst humanitarian and economic situations that people have lived under. Edit: spelling
- minikites 13y ago
  So why Scandanavia is doing so well, both economically and socially? Happier population, more innovation, more equality (race and gender).
  - ceras 13y ago
    The problem with these types of discussions is that everyone has a different idea of what "socialism" and "capitalism" mean. Scandinavia can be very capitalistic. For example, they perform quite well on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom[1]. I consider this is a reasonable metric for how capitalistic a society is. Some people, as I believe you did, use socialism to describe strong social safety nets and social programs -- essentially strong wealth redistribution. That is separate from the capitalism I mentioned above; with these definitions, capitalism and socialism can work hand-in-hand, whereas they could not if you take socialism to mean what I would call "communism." [1] http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
  - patrickk 13y ago
    Social democracy isn't the same as socialism[1]. It's an interesting problem to grapple with: can you have a dynamic economy with a vibrant entrepreneurial sector, that encourages innovation and growth, and yet have a social floor below which no citizen will fall, therefore avoiding extreme inequality with people living in poverty? "...when you damp oscillations, you lose the high points as well as the low" [2] [1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_democracy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_democracy [2] PG in his essay Hackers and Painters, referring to big companies being conservative in designing products http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html
sparkie 13y ago
It should be pretty obvious by now that capitalism is not sustainable in the long term, because it encourages, or even forces the ever growing consumption of natural resources and the increasing environmental destruction. Products have limited lifetimes and little effort is made to recycle because it is (still) cheaper to obtain most raw materials. This will not be the case for our descendants in N generations, because we will have wasted a significant amount of the accessible natural resources. (And it will require a huge increase in energy use to recycle, which will probably come from more nuclear power as it is more Capitalist - renewable solutions can't be monopolized.) The increase in wealth over the past few centuries can be put mainly down to the discovery of natural resources, although some wealth is generated by human labour. Both of these are finite, so it's impossible to have infinite growth forever. Which brings us to the point that, for the wealth of an individual to grow in an economy with a finite amount of wealth, either more wealth must be created by increased human labour, or some people will lose wealth. My view is that while Capitalism does improve our lifestyles, it functions by taking loans from the earth, and passing the debt to our descendants. They have improved lifestyles in some areas, but certainly not all (Increased consumption doesn't increase happiness, overuse of antibiotics does not solve the problem of bacteria, and more pollution does not improve health, etc). It's hard to say whether socialism would work, because it hasn't been properly tried yet. Whatever system we come up with to organize people, it needs to be based around sustainability rather than "wealth creation". Perhaps we need to redefine what wealth really is. IMO, it's not "I own more than you", but is something internal - real happiness and physical health. We'll only be truly wealthy when all of us (and our descendants) are. Capitalism is not the root cause, because it's just an idea created by humans. The problem is us, and the solution is to change ourselves. Here's a recent keynote given by Alan Kay on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0R0tAOf7KI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0R0tAOf7KI
- waps 13y ago
  > It should be pretty obvious by now that capitalism is not sustainable in the long term, because it encourages, or even forces the ever growing consumption of natural resources and the increasing environmental destruction. The same is true of the universe and evolution. Especially evolution has the exact same problem. In practice though : 1) 4.1 billion years and counting 2) it has overcome every obstacle either humanity or anything else has thrown at it (same can be said for capitalism, and the same cannot be said for any form of collectivism, unless you want to call organisations like Christianity collectivist, which they sort-of are. Christianity is a lot younger than capitalism though) 3) it is always using exponential growth and competition everywhere > (And it will require a huge increase in energy use to recycle, which will probably come from more nuclear power as it is more Capitalist - renewable solutions can't be monopolized.) Aside from being "more capitalist" (?) nuclear power is also just plain "more". Furthermore, I'd argue that nuclear power plants are much more communist. They're the sort of thing where everything will be hammered down by regulation, including monopolies for the companies. And the argument about which is more sustainable renewable or nuclear, is not settled. Due to oil-based production of renewable generators, for which renewable power provides no alternative at all, consumption of non-renewable resources is going up, not down. > It's hard to say whether socialism would work, because it hasn't been properly tried yet. Whatever system we come up with to organize people, it needs to be based around sustainability rather than "wealth creation". No offence, but the last few attempts at socialism weren't exactly environmentally friendly, or sustainable. Nor were they anywhere near equal. Why would this time be different ?

by pwnna 13y ago

craigyk 13y ago

My take is that it's all a continuum. more capitalist is probably better in fast growing/developing areas (note: not just countries) with a move toward more socialist as things equilibrate. The end-state of capitalism, barring major disruptions, is monopoly, which is essentially the economic equivalent of dictatorship. Also, things that didn't exist 3 decades ago might start to become more like a utility (internet), which to me indicates it should be treated more like a social good.

pjhile 13y ago
The end-state of capitalism is monopoly?
- pwnna 13y ago
  It's not?
  - ams6110 13y ago
    Monopolies can arise, but typically are sustainable only when supported by governmental regulation and authorization.
    - bluthru 13y ago
      Explain Google.
      - astine 13y ago
        Google is not a monopoly. It has numerous competitors and only really remains in the lead because it is perceived to be the highest in quality.
      - patrickk 13y ago
        Power law distribution in search engine market share. It also explains why Coca Cola is the dominant cola to name another example. I particularly like Peter Thiel's explanation of the power law, used in relation to VCs fund performance: http://blakemasters.com/post/21869934240/peter-thiels-cs183-startup-class-7-notes-essay http://blakemasters.com/post/21869934240/peter-thiels-cs183-...
    - leot 13y ago
      Well, for one nothing lasts forever and there's no such thing as "the long run", so it's true that monopolies can't be sustainable. But the idea that they need a government to prop them up seems to lack a factual basis. De Beers seems to have lasted a pretty long time -- did they need the government in order to last as long as they have? Does the fact that they will collapse "eventually" (which, of course, all things must) make acceptable the massive rent that they've taken? Power is power. As soon as one actor gets it in one domain, it spreads to another domain. Even if we had some completely laissez-faire economy in which there were no monopolies, as soon as one arose it would begin to get the laws changed to favor its persistence. It would then look as though it was government regulation that was propping it up, but the causal force was the monopolist, not the government. The way to prevent this is to maximize the control of the people over the government, and make sure that no unaccountable-to-the-people entity gets too much power. I.e., the people must take an aggressive stance against rent-seeking monopolists in order to maximize competition, progress, and the overall growth of wealth.
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        >> The way to prevent this is to maximize the control of the people over the government Oh? How do we do that? We all know a civilized discussion is much more persuasive than cursing and raging, right? -I guess we need to write respectful, eloquent letters to our "representatives", and ask them to pretty-please be less corrupt and keep their campaign promises? >> make sure that no unaccountable-to-the-people entity gets too much power An entity that's not accountable to the people, huh? -Such as, the government itself? Or how much sway do you hold over the secret FISA "courts"? What about how your tax money is spent? >> the people must take an aggressive stance against rent-seeking monopolists Oh? What about the ultimate monopoly, the government? Or is there some other entity that decides what happens in a country, what's allowed and what's forbidden?
        leot 13y ago
        Let's see: what do we have in the world, in actual reality, when considering your comments? What do we know (from actual examples of things that really happen) when it comes to the potential for a government to be accountable to its citizens? In the actual world that we live in, do we have democracies that function pretty darn well? Yes (all of Scandinavia, Iceland, Switzerland). In other parts of the world, do we have corporate monopolies (or near-monopolies) with noxious outsized influence? Most definitely yes (e.g., retroactive copyright extensions in the U.S.). If you were to pick a country to be born into, where your household was picked completely at random, would you rather be born in the U.S. or in a country in Scandinavia? In which country do you believe you would find yourself most empowered viz. society and its governance?
    - craigyk 13y ago
      how naive. were it not for government, in the end monopolies would just resort to threats of violence to achieve the same result. as distasteful (and perhaps inevitable) regulatory capture is, at least it provides a non-violent outlet to squash the competition... until the revolution that is.
- craigyk 13y ago
  In any specific area, as a general rule? I think so (there will be exceptions). Why is that supposition so strange?
  - dworin 13y ago
    Disagree. Absent large barriers to entry like economies of scale, network effects, or legal/regulatory hurdles, monopolies are fairly unstable in a capitalist system. The excessive profits that they bring in (monopoly rents) are a ripe target for new firms, who are easily able to enter the market and compete on price. Or technological change renders monopolies irrelevant from the outside.
    - craigyk 13y ago
      I think there are few areas where the barriers you mention do not exist. I also mention the scenario where technological change renders monopolies irrelevant and address it by stating that smart winners spend a lot of time dealing with these threats.
    - lgieron 13y ago
      As an excercise - pick a random company out of fortune500, assume you have solid industry expertise (say - you've got a team of a couple of top guys who worked in that industry) in their area and also a couple million dollars, and think how likely you are to create a company that can compete with them. I'd say, that for a big fraction of fortune 500 (which is itself a large fraction of global economy), you need even more than the experise and a couple millions, which makes them fairly safe in their current positions.
    - aboodman 13y ago
      One of the best strategies for creating long-term competitive advantage is to use the profits from your early lead to do something that is expensive to replicate. Here's an example close to my heart (and please note that I'm just a cog and this is not a statement on official strategy -- just my personal observation): In Google Chrome, we decided to do native beautiful polished UI on every platform - Windows, OS X, iOS, Android -- even Linux!! This is a very expensive way to build a piece of client-side software, and some might say the result is only a few percent better than what could be achieved using a cross-platform UI toolkit. But it's a very expensive couple percent to duplicate. Same thing with multiprocess. Only makes the software a little bit better, but again, extremely difficult to replicate. If you look closely, I believe you will see this strategy being used by the leaders of many industries that would at first glance appear to have low barriers to entry.

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago

The problem far predates capitalism. At various times wannabe elites in elite-saturated societies used to very often die in duels, or very stupid little wars for glory.

pwnna 13y ago
Yeah but those are all driven by competition, which is something that capitalism promotes. Is there something that promotes competition but also collaboration? I think another sibling comment is right, there needs to be a mix of both and is all down to trade offs.
- icegreentea 13y ago
  Socialism says nothing about competition in the realm politics/power. Elites don't go after the money for the money, they go after the money as a means to power. You can add all the socialistic elements to society you want, as long as there are limited positions of meaningful power, you will likely get people competing over them. And at some point you've added as much socialism as you can, and now you're at communism. And now you have "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", and now you have people squabbling over who the hell is best at high-influence, high-prestige positions, cause they're all pretty sure that they are the best. And remember, capitalism -does- promote collaboration. A corporation is nothing but a huge collaboration. A collaboration that looks actually hilariously socialistic/communistic.
  - JabavuAdams 13y ago
    Human nature abhors a power vacuum?

6d0debc071 13y ago

Socialism and free market capitalism are extremes on a scale. Most Western societies these days include significant elements of both socialism and market-shaping forces. In terms of organising a society the extreme forms of socialism imply very strong central planning. Which run into significant problems because the central planners are never going to know the needs of the people as well as the people themselves, nor are they going to have the information available on all the industries that they're trying to oversee.

minikites 13y ago
Fun fact, central planning isn't necessarily less efficient: http://econweb.umd.edu/~murrell/Articles/Can%20Neoclassical%20Economics%20Underpin%20the%20Economic%20Reform.pdf http://econweb.umd.edu/~murrell/Articles/Can%20Neoclassical%... > One doubt about the evidence might lie in the comparability of estimates obtained from separate studies, although Table 1 addresses this issue by matching studies with similar methodologies. One study, Koopman (1989b), employs observations on both centrally planned and market economies, thus providing direct comparability. He uses observations for 1960-79 for Soviet republics and a matched sample of Canadian provinces, U.S. states, and Finland, and employs a translog functional form that allows for differences in technology between Soviet and non-Soviet regions. The average level of technical efficiency in Soviet agriculture is estimated at 93 percent, while it is 92 percent for agriculture in the market economies.
- pwnna 13y ago
  Competent central planning would be great! However that would never work in real life...
  - ams6110 13y ago
    You'd be happy with a "competent" planner telling you where you could work, what you could earn, where you could live, how many kids you could have, etc?
    - 13y ago

minikites 13y ago

Nothing grows forever: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/peter-victor-deficit-growth http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/peter-victor-def... and http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-... I agree with you, I think capitalism is a transitional phase and the end-game will be something that can be sustained in perpetuity and with more humanity than capitalism.

JackFr 13y ago

For such a statement to be true or not, you've got to be more precise about what you mean by capitalism. At it's heart, capitalism is about 1) private ownership of the factors of production through limited liability and tradeable claims; and 2) a separation of management of the firm from ownership of the firm. I don't see that being replaced anytime soon. The idea that a top-down technocratic solution (of which I would consider socialism an enlightened example) would result in greater human thriving has not been borne out empirically, and in theory has problems that the information and feedback processes driving decision making are less efficient.

duairc 13y ago
Why is socialism a top-down technocratic solution? What is top-down about the abolition of private property and workers owning the means of production? Also, what is “human thriving”? I find that capitalists use vague terms like this to mean “good”, and when you push them for a definition, they give you a contrived one which makes capitalism look good, but no satisfying justification or explanation for why this is should be what the structure of society should be optimised for.
- nickff 13y ago
  Abolition of property rights is usually down through coercive means by some agent of the state, hence it is top-down. "Human thriving" can be defined any number of ways, including wealth, health, liberty (positive or negative), freedom, happiness, environmental factors, etc. Most capitalists define thriving as improvement in some or all of these areas. You are correct that a vague definition of "thriving" can be self-serving, but it is hard to find any factor which socialist countries have made more progress in than less socialist countries. Even a socialist country (i.e. China or India) which frees its markets and creates property rights sees a substantial gain in the rate of improvement of the lives of its citizens in almost every aspect.
  - duairc 13y ago
    > Abolition of property rights is usually down through coercive means by some agent of the state, hence it is top-down. No it's not? Property rights themselves can only be enforced through some agent of the state, hence they are top down. Abolition of private property means abolition of the state. I mentioned this in another post in this thread, but take the example of a house you rent from a landlord. Under capitalism, it's not your house, even though you use it. It's the landlord's, because ultimately the landlord can use the coercive power of the state to remove you if you stop paying rent. If you abolish the state, then it simply becomes your house, and the landlord can no longer claim ownership over that which they do not use.

ams6110 13y ago

No system is perfect, because humans are not perfect, but capitalism has produced more and created a higher standard of living for more people than any other system we've tried. Socialism/communism has produced most of the worst humanitarian and economic situations that people have lived under. Edit: spelling

minikites 13y ago
So why Scandanavia is doing so well, both economically and socially? Happier population, more innovation, more equality (race and gender).
- ceras 13y ago
  The problem with these types of discussions is that everyone has a different idea of what "socialism" and "capitalism" mean. Scandinavia can be very capitalistic. For example, they perform quite well on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom[1]. I consider this is a reasonable metric for how capitalistic a society is. Some people, as I believe you did, use socialism to describe strong social safety nets and social programs -- essentially strong wealth redistribution. That is separate from the capitalism I mentioned above; with these definitions, capitalism and socialism can work hand-in-hand, whereas they could not if you take socialism to mean what I would call "communism." [1] http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
- patrickk 13y ago
  Social democracy isn't the same as socialism[1]. It's an interesting problem to grapple with: can you have a dynamic economy with a vibrant entrepreneurial sector, that encourages innovation and growth, and yet have a social floor below which no citizen will fall, therefore avoiding extreme inequality with people living in poverty? "...when you damp oscillations, you lose the high points as well as the low" [2] [1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_democracy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_democracy [2] PG in his essay Hackers and Painters, referring to big companies being conservative in designing products http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html

sparkie 13y ago

It should be pretty obvious by now that capitalism is not sustainable in the long term, because it encourages, or even forces the ever growing consumption of natural resources and the increasing environmental destruction. Products have limited lifetimes and little effort is made to recycle because it is (still) cheaper to obtain most raw materials. This will not be the case for our descendants in N generations, because we will have wasted a significant amount of the accessible natural resources. (And it will require a huge increase in energy use to recycle, which will probably come from more nuclear power as it is more Capitalist - renewable solutions can't be monopolized.) The increase in wealth over the past few centuries can be put mainly down to the discovery of natural resources, although some wealth is generated by human labour. Both of these are finite, so it's impossible to have infinite growth forever. Which brings us to the point that, for the wealth of an individual to grow in an economy with a finite amount of wealth, either more wealth must be created by increased human labour, or some people will lose wealth. My view is that while Capitalism does improve our lifestyles, it functions by taking loans from the earth, and passing the debt to our descendants. They have improved lifestyles in some areas, but certainly not all (Increased consumption doesn't increase happiness, overuse of antibiotics does not solve the problem of bacteria, and more pollution does not improve health, etc). It's hard to say whether socialism would work, because it hasn't been properly tried yet. Whatever system we come up with to organize people, it needs to be based around sustainability rather than "wealth creation". Perhaps we need to redefine what wealth really is. IMO, it's not "I own more than you", but is something internal - real happiness and physical health. We'll only be truly wealthy when all of us (and our descendants) are. Capitalism is not the root cause, because it's just an idea created by humans. The problem is us, and the solution is to change ourselves. Here's a recent keynote given by Alan Kay on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0R0tAOf7KI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0R0tAOf7KI

waps 13y ago
> It should be pretty obvious by now that capitalism is not sustainable in the long term, because it encourages, or even forces the ever growing consumption of natural resources and the increasing environmental destruction. The same is true of the universe and evolution. Especially evolution has the exact same problem. In practice though : 1) 4.1 billion years and counting 2) it has overcome every obstacle either humanity or anything else has thrown at it (same can be said for capitalism, and the same cannot be said for any form of collectivism, unless you want to call organisations like Christianity collectivist, which they sort-of are. Christianity is a lot younger than capitalism though) 3) it is always using exponential growth and competition everywhere > (And it will require a huge increase in energy use to recycle, which will probably come from more nuclear power as it is more Capitalist - renewable solutions can't be monopolized.) Aside from being "more capitalist" (?) nuclear power is also just plain "more". Furthermore, I'd argue that nuclear power plants are much more communist. They're the sort of thing where everything will be hammered down by regulation, including monopolies for the companies. And the argument about which is more sustainable renewable or nuclear, is not settled. Due to oil-based production of renewable generators, for which renewable power provides no alternative at all, consumption of non-renewable resources is going up, not down. > It's hard to say whether socialism would work, because it hasn't been properly tried yet. Whatever system we come up with to organize people, it needs to be based around sustainability rather than "wealth creation". No offence, but the last few attempts at socialism weren't exactly environmentally friendly, or sustainable. Nor were they anywhere near equal. Why would this time be different ?