| Hooray for capitalism! on 11:51 - Feb 26 with 1460 views | Guthrum |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 11:27 - Feb 26 by leitrimblue |
Yer exactly, its about how we define working.
This system definitely isn't working for the planet or the majority of its occupants. Though its all going swimmingly for a tiny percentage of elite billionaires.
I would define a working system as 1 in which all occupants have fair and equal access to all the resources needed to live a successful life.
From what I can tell this system last existed in Northern Europe about 6000 years ago with Mesolithic hunter gatherers.
It's been a steady downhill decline ever since that with more and more of those resources being under the ownership of smaller and smaller elite groupings. |
Tho a lot of that comes down to a tiny human population spread out across a resource-rich environment (except during cold spells).
Plus civilisation has done a lot to reduce predation and disease. |  |
|  |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 11:53 - Feb 26 with 1447 views | NthQldITFC |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 11:41 - Feb 26 by lowhouseblue |
"Also hunter-gatherers always look so much happier to me, for some reason."
it's because, in order to agree to be filmed, the anthropologists bribed them with mars bars. |
Have you accepted that we can't keep going on as we are yet? |  |
| |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 11:58 - Feb 26 with 1436 views | NthQldITFC |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 11:33 - Feb 26 by lowhouseblue |
there must be some re-enactment community where you could go and live as a mesolithic hunter gatherer from 6000 years ago? it doesn't sound better than capitalism to me, but whatever floats your hollowed out tree trunk i guess. |
No-ones advocating a return to hunting/gathering from a starting point of 8 billion ravenous consumers - you miss the point if you think that - it's an illustration of the origins of a flawed system which has run out of space, yet we still cling on to idiotic measures of 'success' like GDP and individual wealth because people are too scared to let go. | |
| |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 11:59 - Feb 26 with 1421 views | J2BLUE |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 11:41 - Feb 26 by lowhouseblue |
"Also hunter-gatherers always look so much happier to me, for some reason."
it's because, in order to agree to be filmed, the anthropologists bribed them with mars bars. |
This is possibly post of the decade so far.
Superb. |  |
| |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 12:08 - Feb 26 with 1378 views | leitrimblue |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 11:33 - Feb 26 by lowhouseblue |
there must be some re-enactment community where you could go and live as a mesolithic hunter gatherer from 6000 years ago? it doesn't sound better than capitalism to me, but whatever floats your hollowed out tree trunk i guess. |
I'm lucky enough to be 1 of the few that the system bizarrely works for. The more we expand and grow the more we build shared infrastructure or private developments the more my services are needed and I can charge even more.
That doesn't mean I can't see the obvious failings of this system or wish it worked better for everyone else in society.
A system where everyone as equal access to all the resources needed for a successful life doesn't sound better then a system where a small group of elites control the majority of resources? |  | | |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 12:15 - Feb 26 with 1348 views | leitrimblue |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 11:37 - Feb 26 by NthQldITFC |
Yes, farming and staying in one place enabled the practice of stockpiling and the suspicion that your neighbour was pinching your crops.
When we moved about a bit, all you owned was all you could carry and there was plenty to go around.
This is the modus operandi that the human race grew up in and that's why I think it's ballocks when people put the lazy argument that it's human nature to pile up wealth to protect your family - it's not, it's a learned habit which is now killing us, and a habit we need to kick.
Also hunter-gatherers always look so much happier to me, for some reason. |
Yer, your first 2 paragraphs are spot on.
Though the appearance of happiness may be more linked to hunter gatherers identifying key materials such as peyote, psilocybin mushrooms, henbane etc  | | | |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 12:17 - Feb 26 with 1343 views | jayessess |
Putting aside the hunter-gatherer debate, one of the strengths of capitalism is that it's a system that, relative to other forms of political economy, disperses decision-making. Whilst there are obvious concentration of power, there's fundamentally no one body saying make this, do this, use this. Different actors make decisions according to their perceived interests.
Great for developing new ways to make money. Great for allowing some sections of society around the world a substantial degree of freedom in determining their own life course.
But awful when you need to plan human activity over the longer term so as to prevent broader harm to our environment. The problem is not that BP have dropped their efforts to greenwash the fundamental activity their company is engaged in. It's that BP (and it's self-interest as a company) was ever allowed to play a determining role in whether large parts of the planet remain liveable. |  |
| |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 12:20 - Feb 26 with 1331 views | leitrimblue |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 11:51 - Feb 26 by Guthrum |
Tho a lot of that comes down to a tiny human population spread out across a resource-rich environment (except during cold spells).
Plus civilisation has done a lot to reduce predation and disease. |
Of course, a hunter gatherer system is probably not going to work for the enormous populations we have now.
But the concept of everyone in the system having equal access to all the materials needed for a successful life I feel us 1 that we could do with paying more attention to. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Hooray for capitalism! on 12:26 - Feb 26 with 1285 views | lowhouseblue |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 12:08 - Feb 26 by leitrimblue |
I'm lucky enough to be 1 of the few that the system bizarrely works for. The more we expand and grow the more we build shared infrastructure or private developments the more my services are needed and I can charge even more.
That doesn't mean I can't see the obvious failings of this system or wish it worked better for everyone else in society.
A system where everyone as equal access to all the resources needed for a successful life doesn't sound better then a system where a small group of elites control the majority of resources? |
reduced inequality is a very good objective. but "a system where everyone has equal access to all the resources needed for a successful life" doesn't really mean anything. since a key 'resource' determining 'successful lives' is human effort and skill and ingenuity just outcomes have to be about what people contribute as well as what they 'access'. you're then back into all the traditional debates. through incentives and rewards for effort and ingenuity, capitalism has been spectacularly successful in creating 'resources' that wouldn't otherwise exist. no one can have 'access' to stuff until it has been created. you need both sides of the story. [Post edited 26 Feb 12:45]
|  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 12:58 - Feb 26 with 1210 views | Guthrum |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 12:20 - Feb 26 by leitrimblue |
Of course, a hunter gatherer system is probably not going to work for the enormous populations we have now.
But the concept of everyone in the system having equal access to all the materials needed for a successful life I feel us 1 that we could do with paying more attention to. |
Indeed. | |
| |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 12:59 - Feb 26 with 1206 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 12:20 - Feb 26 by leitrimblue |
Of course, a hunter gatherer system is probably not going to work for the enormous populations we have now.
But the concept of everyone in the system having equal access to all the materials needed for a successful life I feel us 1 that we could do with paying more attention to. |
Even just making it fairer within the current system (fairer taxation on wealth, etc) would be an improvement. |  |
| |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 13:14 - Feb 26 with 1147 views | leitrimblue |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 12:26 - Feb 26 by lowhouseblue |
reduced inequality is a very good objective. but "a system where everyone has equal access to all the resources needed for a successful life" doesn't really mean anything. since a key 'resource' determining 'successful lives' is human effort and skill and ingenuity just outcomes have to be about what people contribute as well as what they 'access'. you're then back into all the traditional debates. through incentives and rewards for effort and ingenuity, capitalism has been spectacularly successful in creating 'resources' that wouldn't otherwise exist. no one can have 'access' to stuff until it has been created. you need both sides of the story. [Post edited 26 Feb 12:45]
|
'Equal access to all the resources needed for a successful life' is a well known qoute from an anthropologist working with hunter gatherer groups from the 1970,s.
'Since a key resource determining successful lives is human effort and skill and ingenuity just outcomes have to be what people contribute as well as what they access'
So are you suggesting that those that are more successful in a capitalist system are always so because they have put in more effort or have more skill and ingenuity then those that are less successful? | | | |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 13:27 - Feb 26 with 1094 views | lowhouseblue |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 13:14 - Feb 26 by leitrimblue |
'Equal access to all the resources needed for a successful life' is a well known qoute from an anthropologist working with hunter gatherer groups from the 1970,s.
'Since a key resource determining successful lives is human effort and skill and ingenuity just outcomes have to be what people contribute as well as what they access'
So are you suggesting that those that are more successful in a capitalist system are always so because they have put in more effort or have more skill and ingenuity then those that are less successful? |
"a well known quote from an anthropologist working with hunter gatherer groups from the 1970,s."
well quite. it's referring to a situation in which resources didn't need to be created - you just went out and gathered what was already there. not really relevant to complex societies.
no, capitalism is full of failures and people often don't get fair outcomes. but, it is still a system which is uniquely effective in harnessing effort, skill, ingenuity, entrepreneurialism,
and ambition. as such it creates 'resources' that hunter gathers could never have dreamed of.
correcting any mismatch between individual merit and success is an essential objective, but it needs to be done without undermining the creation of resources. equally, the creation of resources needs to be based on the real environmental cost of fossil fuels. so capitalism certainly needs good policy interventions to produce the outcomes we want. but aphorisms derived from hunter gathers don't really work. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 13:51 - Feb 26 with 1046 views | baxterbasics |
Talk of binning capitalism and replacing it with some alternative is airy fairy utopian foolishness. It remains the least bad system of distributing resources for a reason.
Most of us a wired to not only survive and self-preserve, but to acquire as much security and resource as we can. We may be compassionate enough to want others to thrive too, but unless you are a Ghandi or Mother Theresa outlier, you will put you and your immediate kin first.
This drive harnessed appropriately will produce better collective outcomes compared to any system that removes individual effort, enterprise, and responsibility. Putting distribution of resources entirely in the hands of an authority and not allowing competition or private accumulation leads to disastrous outcomes, even when that authority has good intentions. Unless every member of society is fully on board (not feasible) it requires harsh enforcement and suppression. Greed in itself might not be morally good, but it can be made useful in the right conditions and limitations.
Absolute equality of outcomes for all is not a desirable or achievable goal, there has to be room and acceptance of inequality. But there can still be checks and balances of course which remains the challenge for most of the free world - how to put a ceiling on excess and a safety net under failure with minimal interference on individual freedom. Lets discuss that and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. |  |
| |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 14:36 - Feb 26 with 987 views | Guthrum |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 13:51 - Feb 26 by baxterbasics |
Talk of binning capitalism and replacing it with some alternative is airy fairy utopian foolishness. It remains the least bad system of distributing resources for a reason.
Most of us a wired to not only survive and self-preserve, but to acquire as much security and resource as we can. We may be compassionate enough to want others to thrive too, but unless you are a Ghandi or Mother Theresa outlier, you will put you and your immediate kin first.
This drive harnessed appropriately will produce better collective outcomes compared to any system that removes individual effort, enterprise, and responsibility. Putting distribution of resources entirely in the hands of an authority and not allowing competition or private accumulation leads to disastrous outcomes, even when that authority has good intentions. Unless every member of society is fully on board (not feasible) it requires harsh enforcement and suppression. Greed in itself might not be morally good, but it can be made useful in the right conditions and limitations.
Absolute equality of outcomes for all is not a desirable or achievable goal, there has to be room and acceptance of inequality. But there can still be checks and balances of course which remains the challenge for most of the free world - how to put a ceiling on excess and a safety net under failure with minimal interference on individual freedom. Lets discuss that and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. |
Altho as a challenge to that, look at Wartime rationing. Entirely top-down, but successfully conserved food supplies while at the same time delivering a better diet for the populace than before or since (it was carefully designed by some brilliant young nutritionists). Sometimes the authorities do know best.
In reality, everything is a balance. Too little governmental input is as bad as too much, ask the citizens of Somalia and North Korea.
I don't think it's entirely a matter of saintly altruism, either. More whether one is trying to survive as a person, a family unit or a society. I think we've moved the needle too far towards the former end and a correction is needed. After all, without the framework of a stable society to work in, it's much harder for enterprise and individual effort to succeed. | |
| |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 15:04 - Feb 26 with 931 views | baxterbasics |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 14:36 - Feb 26 by Guthrum |
Altho as a challenge to that, look at Wartime rationing. Entirely top-down, but successfully conserved food supplies while at the same time delivering a better diet for the populace than before or since (it was carefully designed by some brilliant young nutritionists). Sometimes the authorities do know best.
In reality, everything is a balance. Too little governmental input is as bad as too much, ask the citizens of Somalia and North Korea.
I don't think it's entirely a matter of saintly altruism, either. More whether one is trying to survive as a person, a family unit or a society. I think we've moved the needle too far towards the former end and a correction is needed. After all, without the framework of a stable society to work in, it's much harder for enterprise and individual effort to succeed. |
That's an interesting example with the wartime thing. In a war footing like that I would suggest people are more open to accept that level of government control as the whole apparatus of state works to counter a singular threat. The resource of food was becoming so limited that it was clear the only solution was that level of control. Indeed as the covid period proved, many people seem to welcome sacrificing a level of individual freedom in favour of security, especially when a threat appears to be on the doorstep. Again, it's a balance to be debated and agreed on in a democracy. Not sure it works permanently or in the case of say climate change where those most at risk are strangers in remote lands.
That's the thing isn't it? Beyond 'number one' most people (not all) care strongly about the welfare of immediate family, maybe extended family, close friends. A smaller proportion will care about the interests of their neighbour, those in the next town, maybe in some aspects their country and ethnic or national group. The more remote you get, the fewer the numbers interested in cooperation. "We should take care of our own first" etc. | |
| |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 15:12 - Feb 26 with 897 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 09:40 - Feb 26 by Trequartista |
There is scope to fix things within a capitalist system if the will is there. I'm not advocating a free market with no intervention, but changing to communism or something is going to make things a damn sight worse.
I mean socialism on paper is brilliant. I used to think why wouldn't anyone want it. You want to be compassionate for others rather than selfish right? But it doesn't work with human beings. We're wired to look after ourselves and our families. You have to face reality. |
Where did you get that second to last sentence from. That is the myth at the heart if it all. There is no such thing as society don't you know. [Post edited 26 Feb 15:35]
|  |
| |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 15:23 - Feb 26 with 870 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 10:24 - Feb 26 by baxterbasics |
Normal procedure for me here would be to insert my defence of capitalism.
Instead I will just note how quickly the big-boy corporations have realigned their priorities now that Mr T is back at the helm.
Obviously Musk and X was no surprise as he was already onboard. I'm looking at the likes of Zuckerberg, Bezos and co, promptly dropping their facade of being liberal champions and guardians against right-wing disinformation. Google and Nasa scaling back focus on diversity and referring to the Gulf of America. Then as per this thread, the energy giants deciding carbon emissions and fossil fuels 'aint so bad after all.
Just proves how paper thin 'corporate responsibility' really is when challenged by a new world view at the top of the power-food-chain.
Face it, in the short/medium term at least, the progress you want to see will only happen when individuals force it en-masse via their behaviour and upwards demand pressure, or someone else takes charge that is willing to force it through unpopular means. |
Blimey, the latest recruit for revolution, things must be bad. | |
| |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 15:28 - Feb 26 with 845 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 11:41 - Feb 26 by lowhouseblue |
"Also hunter-gatherers always look so much happier to me, for some reason."
it's because, in order to agree to be filmed, the anthropologists bribed them with mars bars. |
Try telling me things weren't better then.
 | |
| |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 15:34 - Feb 26 with 817 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 13:51 - Feb 26 by baxterbasics |
Talk of binning capitalism and replacing it with some alternative is airy fairy utopian foolishness. It remains the least bad system of distributing resources for a reason.
Most of us a wired to not only survive and self-preserve, but to acquire as much security and resource as we can. We may be compassionate enough to want others to thrive too, but unless you are a Ghandi or Mother Theresa outlier, you will put you and your immediate kin first.
This drive harnessed appropriately will produce better collective outcomes compared to any system that removes individual effort, enterprise, and responsibility. Putting distribution of resources entirely in the hands of an authority and not allowing competition or private accumulation leads to disastrous outcomes, even when that authority has good intentions. Unless every member of society is fully on board (not feasible) it requires harsh enforcement and suppression. Greed in itself might not be morally good, but it can be made useful in the right conditions and limitations.
Absolute equality of outcomes for all is not a desirable or achievable goal, there has to be room and acceptance of inequality. But there can still be checks and balances of course which remains the challenge for most of the free world - how to put a ceiling on excess and a safety net under failure with minimal interference on individual freedom. Lets discuss that and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. |
"Most of us a wired to not only survive and self-preserve, but to acquire as much security and resource as we can."
And some of us have always known that this is best achieved through cooperation and community. | |
| |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 16:39 - Feb 26 with 716 views | NthQldITFC |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 15:34 - Feb 26 by BanksterDebtSlave |
"Most of us a wired to not only survive and self-preserve, but to acquire as much security and resource as we can."
And some of us have always known that this is best achieved through cooperation and community. |
To break that down a bit:
"to acquire as much security as we can." - through cooperation and community.
"to acquire as much resource as we" need - if you do the 'can' bit here, you undermine the security bit above because you create unnecessary imbalances and stresses and in the worst cases wars. | |
| |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 18:15 - Feb 26 with 632 views | CoachRob |
| Hooray for capitalism! on 11:58 - Feb 26 by NthQldITFC |
No-ones advocating a return to hunting/gathering from a starting point of 8 billion ravenous consumers - you miss the point if you think that - it's an illustration of the origins of a flawed system which has run out of space, yet we still cling on to idiotic measures of 'success' like GDP and individual wealth because people are too scared to let go. |
Props to you for mentioning Kate Raworth, I think her module at Oxford is the only one economics students look forward to taking, she is one of those people that makes learning fun, and is the only one that will teach them anything useful.
I think Lowhouse is a lost cause at this point. I've tried several different ways to explain biophysical limits, but this is a world away from the stylised economic system that is taught on economics courses.
Just reading down the thread you get the sense that people haven't quite got the idea of climate and ecological breakdown, the scale of it, the impacts, what is going to be physically possible. It seems to me people assume you can just select a system: communism, socialism, capitalism, whatever and it will just do its thing.
As you point out, systems with lots of hockey stick graphs tend to be inherently unstable and prone to collapse. A system with 'exponential' traits can simply not survive such a change. The people tasked with understanding capitalism have no idea how it works and can barely describe what it is, that level of ignorance is not a great starting place for a stable world. The idea that capitalism will carry on unabated in our changing environment with a few tweaks is delusional nonsense. As Kevin Anderson (Climate Scientist at Manchester) says, "There are no non-radical futures" Bit of a mentor for us younger "commie climate hoax pushing lefty loons" is Kevin.
In my world the Armed Forces were presented with an analysis of what an shutdown of the Atlantic Sub-Polar Gyre would mean for Britain, actuaries realising just how bad climate change will be for their industry/humanity and we had Ben Franta (Climate Litigation Lab Oxford) give a talk today about how states are now filing lawsuits against fossil fuel interests as capitalism literally eats itself. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
