Is Capitalism Dead?

Post Reply New Topic

Capitalism would try to entice you with a great many objects and items you do not really need. But as always the illusion of need would be planted in your brain.

I am not very materialistic, either.

Nowhere is this materialistic worshipping of money more evident than in hip-hop music videos featured on BET. It is blatantly crass and shamelessly crunk.

Close enough.

Capitalism would not. Advertisers would. It is quite possible to have capitalism without materialism, and the societies that have seen that have had the best results. Japan for a long time in the post-war years had a capitalist system, but a set of values that included thriftiness. They had absurdly high and persistent levels of economic growth that astounded all observers. The Protestant work ethic (closely tied to the beginnings of capitalism) also included thriftiness and saving, and was very successful in building large economies without the crass commercialism and materialism seen today.

People can live very nicely on berries and roots in a cave but to provide intelligent and curieous people with time and tools to explore the universe and the world around them demands much more than bare living. Plato had lots of ideas but many of them were very wrong and it takes a good deal of sophisticated scientific activity to discover why. But perhaps you consider this as useless luxury.

Beware the ad hominem

I did but it was years ago so I've forgotten a lot of details but in general I feel pretty confident about my understanding. If you see some error in my statements please let me know.

I would have to agree, although I don't see how you could have capitalism w/o materialism. If no one wanted to buy stuff, if no one was made to feel as though they did not have enough stuff to keep up with the Joneses ...

Actually yes it is. I for one am proud of the strides humanity has taken in science but that doesn't mean they were necessary or that because capitalism has created things considered "good" all things created by capitalism are also "good" or even (arguably) the majority of them.


[edit]


Its true that capitalism in and of itself doesn't need materialism or commercialism and it has been implemented without those things in the past but in modern times it is the rule rather than the exception that where capitalism goes those things quickly follow and are difficult to prevent.

What inevitable? Primitivism? We either must grow and improve, or we must accept that at one point everything we have will go away.


And I am not sure that your criticism really has some super-powerful solution.


I think the major reason for his concern is that at least you do not seem to have a solid background for addressing your opposition, thus your arguments at least seem overly simplistic rather than having nuances as would be expected of a person versed in the subject. This is not to say that you are wrong, only that this does not seem to be your area of expertise.

I agree I'm only saying that capitalism has a built in flaw that can and will eventually lead to economic collapse.



If I had a solution I would have mentioned that first. I'll be the first to admit that even though I can see the flaws I don't know of a better solution.



You're right it's not my area of expertise I never claimed it was (though sometimes when I speak my self confidence shows through lending it a flair that I shouldn't give... it's a character flaw I'm still working on) that's why I'm counting on others with greater experience with the subject to correct me if I'm wrong I'm just positing my ideas and opinions for the examination of the masses.

It's just that your arguments seemed rather strange. I have never heard of someone versed in economics advocating a barter system, as the transaction costs are just way too high to make a workable system. The assumption that society is going to collapse and capitalism won't be able to function in the absence of government seems unlikely as well as pointless, besides some (like AG) would probably claim that capitalism works best in the absence of government. Finally capitalism does not necessarily require an expanding supply of resources, or even economic growth, any more than some other system would. I did not mean to personally attack you and apologize if I offended, I just really did not know what to make of many of your comments.

I wasn't really advocating the barter system I was simply arguing against the assertion that capitalism was the "best" system ever created. The one who stated that eventually said that they were basing that statement solely on efficiency which I would immediately concede but as for most other points (age, functionality without advanced civilization, ability to coexist with any other economic system, etc) it does win out. Of course in an advanced civilization it is far too unwieldy on the large scale to be usable as a primary economy but nevertheless it does have a simple timeless nature to it that is the basis of all other systems and I believe it will never truly go away.

As for capitalism failing if the government does.. well that actually happens so I'm not sure what your talking about. The money we use in transactions is a representation of physical assets owned by the government so if it goes under those assets are lost and the money has no value.

But yes in a system where the money has intrinsic value (such as gold and silver coins) it can function quite well without a government.

The main problem I was hinting at and forgive me for not being clear is that capitalism causes growth which is great but how do you make it stop when it has exceeded sustainability? You can't and economic collapse follows. Capitalism itself would survive but it would still have been the direct cause of the collapse and the subsequent horrors.

Not just efficiency, but that is one major benefit to capitalism.


No it isn't. Currently, money is simply issued as fiat currency. \


What causes any system to stop when it has exceeded sustainability? I'm really not sure what you're getting at. How does economic collapse follow from capitalism? I've heard of Marxists making such claims, based largely on a misunderstanding of the business cycle.

Because capitalism is one of the only systems in use that both by its very nature attempts to exceed sustainability and has no limiting factor preventing it from doing so nor does it have anyone in a position of authority to do it manually.

We're all just passengers on a bus headed for a cliff with no driver, nothing to make it stop on its own and the controls locked. Even if we see it coming all we can do is stick our heads out the windows and scream.

You just save more money. It's very simple.

Or you invest in better infrastructure. You could also spend more money on education. There are a number of things money can be spent on other than the generic consumer goods that are associated with "materialism."

Well... honestly, I just think you are saying "societies can have a problem with X" as there is nothing about your argument that makes capitalism very very different from other societies.


Then what's the point of bringing up problems with "capitalism" if they are problems with any form of advanced society?


Not really, the money we use has been disconnected from the gold standard for years, the reason current money is valuable is due to convention. In any case, a sudden change in the workings of a system will usually have negative impacts.


At what point do you know that growth had exceeded sustainability? I mean, I don't think that any system devised has a much better strategy than the capitalistic one of supply and demand.


There is only one system that is really in use, nor is there some absolute measure of sustainability. In any case, there are limiting factors, supply and demand. If supply goes down, the price goes up, people start looking for alternatives.

Either that, or we all start investing in alternatives. Supply and demand is a driver, it has controls, and the only thing that might cause a self-destructive problem like the one you speak of seems to be catastrophe, where the effects are too rapid for any transactions or price adjustments to effectively be made, however, for most resources, supply and demand can take control somewhat effectively, by driving up the prices(and reducing quantity sold) when there is less of a given resource, and thus spurring on alternatives while prices are high.