Capitalism? Epic Fail

Unregulated capitalism == bad
Regulated capitalism == the best one can realistically hope for
 
Glaucus said:
Unregulated capitalism == bad
Regulated capitalism == the best one can realistically hope for
Click to expand...

but regulated capitalism can only last if it starves capitalists to the point that they can't muster to resources to overcome the government. Laws must be enforced and large companies must be broken up but then how does one country compete against another country and its corporations if that other country decides to let its companies become just a bit more powerful?

Ultimately the only restraint on capitalism is collapse. Regulated capitalism eventually becomes crony capitalism which inevitably becomes corruption which ultimately collapses.

Depending on how all the bits fall you can have a leveling of wealth which presents an opportunity for more people to participate in the economy leading to renewed growth or you can have a revolution (could go either way but s usually a bad thing to have to live through) or if the rich consolidate the wealth you can end up in a protracted feudalism (ending again in revolution - lords don't give up their power easily).

Because the system is run by humans and policed by humans and humans are at base competitive there can never really be a permanent stability. Over generations people will forget what certain rules are for or imagine that they can do better or figure out a way to cheat and all these accumulating defects will eventually show themselves and probably as a disaster.
 
Well, I think a good analogy to capitalism is a forest. The forest grows, it creates and supports life, and then one day lightning strikes and it all burns to the ground. But interestingly, this isn't a bad thing in the grand scheme of things. It's obviously bad for everything that burned, but good for everything else that survived as they now have fertile ground to take root in. The problem with this is in terms of human economics is that we don't really like the burn stage and we'd like to get rid of it. And you can, but then you have other trade offs. Without the burning you'll never again see that fertile soil or the growth associated with it. But things will be stable more or less even if a little bland.

I see unregulated capitalism as a system where a group in the forest is given gasoline, a lighter and a fire proof suite and are free to burn down the forest as they see fit, with little repercussions to themselves. Regulated capitalism keeps the forest more or less neutral so that no special group is protected, however the fires may still occur.

I suppose socialism is when the forest is fire resistant. Safe from most fire, but may never allow for new growth to take root.

Communism is when the forest is just a concrete place holder for trees.

As for corruption, no system is immune to that. I think the ideal system doesn't strive to remove corruption, but instead to distribute it as evenly as possible.
 
Interesting video. I agree with many of the points but tend to agree with Mike (quite like your forest analogy BTW) although it's a subject that I'm pretty open-minded about and also open to persuasion. :-)
 
Glaucus said:
Well, I think a good analogy to capitalism is a forest.
Click to expand...

Alright then, let's go with the forest.

In a forest there are tress of many ages. There are saplings struggling in the lower stories, large old growth monsters in the sunshine. From time to time a big tree falls and dies. The saplings get their day in the sun and grow to replace the lost giant.

From time to time small fires break out and take down dead wood and burn through the underbrush but seeds are awakened by the heat and many trees manage to survive. There is recycling and replacement but the forest goes on.

Now let's bring in some business interests that figure they can do better. They plant all new trees in tight little rows. They suppress all fires so as to maximize growth and minimize losses. The forest becomes much more boring but it is more productive (at least of the "desired" product). Everything goes well for decades but meanwhile pests are spreading through the monocrop and there isn't enough variety slow down the spread. All trees are susceptible because all the trees are the same type of tree. Yields begin to falter, trees start dying and while there is more dead wood standing there is also much more detritus on the ground built up over years. One day there is a lightening strike and between the standing fuel and the ground level fuel the fire rages so intensely and quickly that a vast area is not only burned but sterilized. The heat burns out even the roots in the soil.

After it's over there are no viable seeds to pop up their heads, the soil has no roots to bind it. Much of it blows away in the wind and washes away in the rain. There will be no forest here again for a century, large parts of it won't come back for millennia.

An economy that grows like the original forest is resilient but is looked upon as inefficient. It could serve the "owners" so much better. The owners will always strive for the fire suppressed monoculture because their returns are so much better in the short term (and in the long term we are all dead).

However, foresters HAVE finally learned that regular controlled burns are good even if they seem to impact yields in the near term. It takes discipline though and in a forest the trees don't get to vote.
 
Forgive my obtuseness, but what's the bigger picture you're trying to portray here? If by forest management you mean regulations, then I would argue that regulation != management. I see regulations NOT as an attempt to improve efficiency or quality but to limit disasters due to extreme stupidity or malicious intent - and nothing else. There's nothing about regulations that would require corporate bailouts or government take overs or even protectionism - failures and collapse would still be allowed. In fact I would say regulations and a social safety net are separate issues. So that is why I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you introduced the idea of managing the forest, unless you were making a statement about a socialist system which doesn't bother with regulation at all, instead just taking control - often siting improved efficiency as justification.

EDIT: Thinking about it some more, I wonder if you were talking about a corporation managing the forest. In that case I would argue that this is a different analogy to mine, as I was talking about a complete economy. I would say that the economy is the forest and corporations are individual lots in the forest. In other words, the forest is made of lots, of various sizes. Each lot would be different, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Some might burn while others rot from disease, but the overall diversity would protect the entire forest. Regulations would ensure that one lot of the forest doesn't intentionally or mindlessly create calamity for any other lot. Weather the trees are in pretty rows or genetically modified to resist decease would be up to the individual lot owner, but no lot owner would be allowed to organize their lot in such a way that creates hazard for any other lot.
 
Glaucus said:
Forgive my obtuseness, but what's the bigger picture you're trying to portray here?
Click to expand...

The forest is the economy. Don't worry too much about which institution is represented by the managers (for the moment). The managers see how to make the system more productive is the point. They change things.

A king with a line of descent who wishes to protect his legacy would make changes that would preserve the stability if he was wise (i.e. not many but maybe a few more controlled burns, maybe some cloud catching, minor things but hopefully preserve the functioning system in a robust way for future kings).

A body of people who would directly benefit from short term high yields and who are too short sited or simply don't care about how the system works after they die would push for a monocropped fire suppressed regime as we once saw with real forests.

A government might also push for that sort of management because it would make voters happy for four years plus voters would like fire suppression because it's one less thing to worry about and each government will promise them that they are even better at fire suppression than the guys who are in power now.

The way you shape the forest or economy depends on the timescale you think on and how greedy you are.

You can even think of it like vehicle maintenance. If your fluids are old you should change them if you care about your car long term - or you just leave it if you don't want to / can't afford to expend the resources now or you figure you'll sell the car next month. It's about replacing bits as they get close to expiring so everything keeps on going or trying to coax broken rotten bits to keep on going until something important snaps and bricks your motor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top