Display:
Even with all the hand wringing by the pundit class (see Krugman, for example) there has been no shift in the fundamental view of how societies should be run.

All we see are suggestions that we should go from an under regulated "free market" to a more regulated one. The basic assumption, that market capitalism is the only possible economic system, is never addressed.

Capitalism, by its very nature, tends toward monopoly or oligopoly. Even Adam Smith understood and warned against this. It can't be eliminated, or even protected against effectively. The concentration of firms leads to a concentration of wealth which leads to these firms having excessive political influence. The influence leads to protective legislation designed to further limit competition. This is fatal to a true democracy.

One can go back to the days of the Manchester textile firms, or to the railroad boom in the US in the late 19th Century, or to the present concentration in oil, media and pharmaceuticals to see that nothing changes, even after cycles of populism and "trust busters".

Now that the world is also facing over population and resource shortages, the appropriateness of a capitalist model, which depends upon constant growth and the exploiting of natural resources, cannot continue. The lack of discussion of alternatives will be seen in the future as another instance of "why didn't anyone see this coming?"

To beat my own drum again:
After Capitalism, What?
 

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Mon Nov 24th, 2008 at 09:24:34 AM EST
Capitalism may well be the best system we know of in times of rapid growth -particularly if starting from a point where most people have very little to lose. It sure is ill suited to times of stable or declining output.

So, since eternal rapid growth cannot happen, there needs to be another system.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Mon Nov 24th, 2008 at 09:56:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually I think capitalism is only suited to conditions where raw materials are essentially "unlimited".

Capitalism works by having many firms fail which is a huge waste of resources. This is Schumpeter's "creative destruction", which may yield better products and firms through competition, but does not factor in the waste that occurs during the process.

Some 250 million computers are discarded each year, for example. Now there have been improvements that occurred at a rapid rate because of the turbulence in this field. Compare this to the days when IBM had a monopoly on mainframes and new models came out once a decade.

So I'm not suggesting holding back innovation, but the present system has gone too far. That's why we need to have so free ranging discussions and get away from the mindset which only allows for a "market-based" economy.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Mon Nov 24th, 2008 at 10:16:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, yes, you are right, I should have worded it.
But to me, rapid growth pretty much requires that resources are essentially unlimited.

Take a colony of bacteria. Capitalism is fine for the very start of the colony. Long before reaching the edges of the Petri dish, it must change.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Mon Nov 24th, 2008 at 10:33:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series