The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
My problems with this line of reasoning:
So, really I'm not debating capitalism here, but just the way in which you presented your concern. Which, ironically, I think repeats some of same mistakes that are getting under your skin.
I think I just gave myself a migraine, so I'll take this comment off the air. Thanks. :)
"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
You bring in ethics and 'evil'. Colman did not. The fact that I agree with you and your response is 'off thread' - however brilliantly written (as usual).
Capitalism is mostly criticized (or derided) on this site for several good reasons. First, from the purely historical viewpoint, here we are. Even if I was a Rockefeller, I would not be happy/satisfied with the current state of the world. Can't really blame the Communists or the "Nobility" for it. Even the local dictators play a minor role. The capitalist plutocracy is driving this thing.
Second, from a theory-of-capitalism viewpoint, the idea is to pull a % return from the use of capital - no limit in time, only 'market limits' on portion size, no regard for extraneous concerns, no regard for the effect of private accumulation on the 'health' of the total system. (If you go back to Adam Smith, there are some constraints; but practice - again - shows more about the loss of those constraints than their use.)
Third - a kind-of strawman, but, again, historical - the accumulation of wealth is in a spiral cycle with concentration of influence. This can apply to any economic system, but here we are at the endpoint (where the past meets the future) of capitalistic hegemony. C. Wright Mills described this tendency over 50 years ago and predicted the current situation.
For me - I think that capitalism (small c) has a useful niche. It is a reasonable system for deployment of innovation, given a time limit for exclusive exploitation, plus application of regulations concerning environmental impact, health and safety, and such. It is OK - maybe optimal, maybe not - for trade in non-essential items (essential items = food (nutrition), water, health-care, shelter, underwear).
Beyond that, either strong regulation, socialism, or Chris' scheme.
In nature there are both packs and flocks. And they co-inhabit in all the space of any ecosystem.
You can't be me, I'm taken
by Oui - Dec 5 6 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Dec 617 comments
by Oui - Dec 612 comments
by Oui - Dec 56 comments
by Oui - Dec 41 comment
by Oui - Dec 21 comment
by Oui - Dec 154 comments
by Oui - Dec 16 comments
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Nov 2838 comments
by Oui - Nov 2713 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments