[Closed] Capitalism: dead or alive? Discuss...

the black market has always been bigger.. the middle class law abiding delusion isn't as popular as the middle classes mistakenly believe..

In 300 years time, capitalism will be viewed as a historical oddity (in a similar way to how we view feudalism now).

I think capitalism will always with us, because it's probably the most fairest system we can come up with in practice, as opposed to theory.

I think the issue here is possibly the word capitalism means different things to different people. Black markets and public sectors are both viable in capitalist and non capitalist systems.

Wiki's take on it is -

There is no consensus on the precise definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category.[2] There is general agreement that elements of capitalism include private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit, competitive markets, and wage labor.[3][4] The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.

So it would appear that any alternative has by default to exclude those elements.

double post but the photos work in the second one

it's probably the most fairest system we can come up with in practice, as opposed to theory.

Words fail me
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
a billionairres yacht
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
you lack some serious imagination if you cannot come up with something fairer

So it would appear that any alternative has by default to exclude those elements.

you lack some serious imagination if you cannot come up with something fairer

Note I said in 'practice' as opposed to 'theory'. Anyone can imagine systems that sound fairer. They don't appear to work so well in practice.

what like the way ALL capitalist societies exclude ALL elements of socialism/communism as they dont have any form of state ownership?

Err no. Where have I said that you can't have state ownership?
I'd also remind you that I also said -
[i]I think the issue here is possibly the word capitalism means different things to different people[/i]

(Possibly) in 10 year time, history will record the recent period as a failure of capital[b]ists[/b] rather than a failure of capital[b]ism.[/b]

It will also be written correctly to recognise that most European economies are mixed and a long way from either free-market or command economies.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
I'd say capitalism is pretty much alive and kicking 😀

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
I'd say capitalism is pretty much alive and kicking

I know the article's a long one but if you read it, it's saying entirely the opposite. Through hard work and entrepreneurialism, the poor are getting richer and we, the rich, are going to get relatively poorer...

So in a weird way, unregulated capitalism could lead to something closer to the socialist ideal...

The point of the post was to get away from the usual knee-jerk, polarised, belief-led discussion. Ho hum

A quick glimse at global GINI coefficients will also show that the problems of inequality are not simply an issue of capitalism. Ho hum

I said in 'practice' as opposed to 'theory'

Whatever you want to say about the comparative discrepancies disaprity is a design feature of capitalism. We get huge winners Bill gates for example or branson and huge loosers - the vast majority].
To argue capitalism is a fair system is to grossly representative capitalism and its goals...Everyone may be better off under capitalism but thats another debate. You cannot argue the results are the fairest we can come up with not least because every single country in the world regulates capitalism , mainly because it[ the market] is unfair.

First, I don't think capitalism is fair. However I think it's the fairest basis that we appear to be able to put into operation.
Off the top of my head the country that represents that is most diametrically opposed to the basics concepts of capitalism as laid out above would appear to be North Korea. And even within that, and despite it being outlawed, people reverted to capitalism i.e the ability to trade privately, to avoid starvation. "Nothing to Envy" by Barbara Demick is a great read on the wonders of such a place.
If you could hold up some countries which ban the right to private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit, competitive markets, and wage labor (sic) which are the envy of the rest of the world I'd love to hear about them.

You cannot argue the results are the fairest we can come up with not least because every single country in the world regulates capitalism , mainly because it[ the market] is unfair.

Well that might stand up as an argument if the only things that countries regulate are capitalism. But countries regulate pretty much everything from unfair markets, to unfair speeding, to unfair killing of other citizens. Mostly for the pretty obvious reasons that humans can be arses. The nicer countries even give the citizens the rights to change these laws.
If your alternatives to capitalism involve imagining ambitious people will never be arses then it's pretty much failed at conception. Likewise anyone who thinks that unregulated markets solve problems is also equally deluded.

Brooes - Yes you are probably right, my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. In the UK though (discounting global capitalism)I think my comment is justified.

JY

Everyone may be better off under capitalism but thats another debate. Y

But surely, that is actually the REAL debate and one that is interesting because it goes to the root of the problem.

We get huge winners Bill gates for example or branson and huge loosers - the vast majority].

Hence to re-quote Laurence Summers in this weeks FT:

Why has the top 1 per cent of the population done so well relative to the rest? The answer probably lies substantially in changing technology and globalisation. When George Eastman revolutionised photography, he did very well and, because he needed a large number of Americans to carry out his vision, the city of Rochester had a thriving middle class for two generations. By contrast, when Steve Jobs revolutionised personal computing, he and the shareholders in Apple (who are spread all over the world) did very well [b]but a much smaller benefit flowed to middle-class American workers both because production was outsourced and because the production of computers and software was not terribly labour intensive.[/b]

This is the key question to consider IMHO - the implications are very profound

Brooes - Yes you are probably right, my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. In the UK though (discounting global capitalism)I think my comment is justified.

Missed the tongue in cheekness! 😳

All that's happening in the west I suspect is that, having had overall rising wealth since the industrial revolution, we're going back to long term trend and the rest of the world will start to catch up.

The reason for the growing inequality within the west is simply that the rich are better placed (information, power and connections) to keep hold of the wealth they've accumulated whilst the rest of us stand still.