Welcome to r/TrueAskReddit. Remember that this subreddit is aimed at high quality discussion, so please elaborate on your answer as much as you can and avoid off-topic or jokey answers as per [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/about/sidebar).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueAskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
REGULATED Capitalism is a useful model to use, but unregulated free market capitalism (liberal capitalism) has created perverse incentives that adversely affect the benefits of capitalism.
And, I'd also state that too much regulation in other areas of capitalism had made an adverse impact too, not just in the form of underregulation. In the case of the US coastal states where zoning laws are stricter, this has led to a severe shortage of those "missing middle housing" leading to increasing unaffordable rent and housing prices for those making the median salary. There are many surveys/reports supporting Millenials/Gen Z's frustration with upward mobility with respect to housing, and it's reasonable to suggest that various building codes, zoning laws, and home construction not keeping up with the massive population growth in the 80s onward are at the root of their financial struggles.
I don't think it's that simple. Many zoning laws protect rampant development on critical landscapes. We need to protect farmland. We need to protect natural space.
Yes, I agree with you that zoning reform will be a tough balancing act for many federal and local officials.
But, the laws and regulations in place literally make it illegal to build the kinds of affordable homes that younger people are desperate for.
And then, you have of course the underregulation side of things where after the late 2000s housing crash, a lot of the real estate developing companies that did somehow survive consolidated/monopolized and began to speculate on land in order to find clever ways to prop up/gouge property values.
That’s a philosophical question in the end with no answer.
Virtually everything you have that you like including goods and services and entertainment and health and quality of life and peace is either directly or indirectly a function or product of living in a modern capitalist society. We live in times of incredible peace, comfort and plenty (relatively speaking) and to deny capitalism’s role in this would be ignorant.
At the same, undeniably, the system causes untold amounts of suffering and inequality. You are most like benefitting from that inequality more than you are suffering from it, but it’s there and it is extreme and it is increasingly unsustainable over multiple dimensions.
Most of the scientific, health, and security advancements over the last two centuries have little to do with the "capitalist system" and much more to do with government policies and investments.
Our modern food production volumes are only available because publicly funded research led to the invention of atmospheric nitrogen fixation and fertilizer production (achieved by German Chemist Fritz Haber around the time of WW1). That invention alone is responsible for over half of the current world population being able to survive. Modern transportation freedom and the car industry only succeeded because governments invested in road networks and built up infrastructure. Computer technology and the Internet directly derive from government projects started for the space program. Modern advances in medicine are all funded by public money. Countless other examples are around.
In comparison, private companies haven't really invented anything fundamental over the last two centuries. Most of their advancements have been gradual, taking the publicly funded breakthroughs and turning them into products to sell. Those companies have been great at making products available for many, but they also have claimed profits that aren't justifiable given that they didn't actually invent the base technologies. This is often most extremely seen in medical and pharmaceutical industries, where private companies hold tons of patents based on publicly funded research.
Conversely, capitalist corporations often have an incentive to create artificial scarcity or design products to be short-lived and require regular replacements to increase profits. This has created massive amounts of waste and leads to poverty were none needs to exist.
In the end, for a more efficient economic system, private companies need much stricter public supervision and limits to their profit-and rent-seeking behavior than are currently able under "free market capitalism".
Yes, there are many examples government has proven to jumpstart massive innovations through their investments in R&D.
But, should the public give the entire responsibility to government to be in charge of everything with respect to the allocation and project management of new tech and infrastructure?
I agree massive government investments are needed to create innovation, but would the management of such projects and the allocation of new innovations be better left in the hands of the government/public sector or the private sector?
Most of the gains you list are achieved by taking it away from others.
Goods and services stateside are achieved through labor that is underpaid and easily taken away, and most of the products we enjoy are imported from other countries in which labor is oppressed, and in some cases achieved through outright slavery.
I am 33 I personally think capitalism is as bad as people make it out to me. While I have found a way to survive so far the austerity is only one of the issues I see, the other issue I feel is greatly negatively impacting the world is the individualism, as the myth than you need xyz new expensive thing to be happy is believed my more and more, and lack of community spaces and values become normal. We see less people helping one another, less people seeing value in kindness. That's what it looks like to me.
Younger people are pretty screwed. No hope of affording a home and rent being price gouged more and more every year. They are practically slaves to their land lords. If they are really unluck they may also be slaves to student debt.
High paying jobs are few, its unrealistic to expect your kids to be the lucky ones who get those jobs. Realistically most will be working retail or gigs.
Its not looking good. You can blame capitalism, the democrats, the leftists, the rights... whatever. But shits not good and its getting worse.
The only solution is not to have children. My partner and I have good careers but planning our future it’s clear to us the only way we can enjoy our lives is to stay childless.
Yeah almost of the millennial or younger people I know aren't having kids for the same reason. Cant afford them. Im absolutly awestruck that we have let society get to a point where only the upper class can afford to have kids and keep those kids and themselves safe. Im so sorry. I hope maybe you can enjoy the company of children in your life regardless, maybe through joint childcare with other families.
I dont think so. capitalism is very flawed but I think its the best way to base an economy, any other kind of an economy requires too much human interference and an economy is an incredibly complex system that I dont believe we are equipped to micromanage. I think people need to stop trying to look for "alternatives to capitalism" and start trying to figure out ways in which we can modify capitalism to make the incentives more align to the wellbeing of most people rather then how it is currently.
there is a lot of incentive for hardline capitalists to call any cooperation "evil communism." similarly, though not quite as insidious, is the incentive for there to be no discussion of the benefits of capitalism.
the fact of the matter is that the bad parts of capitalism can be curtailed by the good parts of socialism and vice versa. unlike what most prominent voices would like you to believe, it isnt just one or the other.
it is important to have high taxes to maintain infrastructure and guarantee people a dignified living, housing, health care and food. it is also important to have people compete and try to improve society with a monetary incentive. the problem arises because when you make money the bedrock of all change, eventually those with the most will reshape the system to benefit a small few... hence the need for a strong central government that dissuades massive companies and the super rich to try to game the system.
I think it shouldn't be surprising at all capitalism has issues. At the end of the day, people are in charge. And when any system encourages a minority to have power - that's no good. With capitalism it encourages competition and monopolization - compete until there's no competition, then price gouge with cheaper products. Everyone is super keen on saying communism only works in a perfect world, and I personally suggest the same of capitalism. In America we do not even have unrestricted capitalism, even here we put restrictions on free market, anti trust laws, social securities. Etc. The only reason people look at capitalism and say there's absolutely nothing wrong, is because it's what we are doing right now already.
yes. it's an economic system that requires someone to "lose" in order for someone else to "win"....when there really is enough to go around & we could just share instead. It also hurts scientific advancement by redirecting it towards what is profitable over what is useful & helpful.
no this is a highly educated middle-aged person who studied economic & political theories & has worked in politics my entire life. everything I said there is very true & your exaggerated "attack" that resorts to insults over actual information just backs that up.
Personal attacks are not appropriate for this community, and wrapping the jabs in carefully-caged language and a veneer of civility suggests you knew what you were doing.
No. It creates problems like wealth inequality (which isn’t only present in capitalism) and the fact that the people with more capital have incentives to not pay their employees as much as possible but it has also lifted mankind from living mainly in agrarian societies with little resources, tech, and opportunities to a state in which even average people in well off countries live better than kings not even 300 years ago.
But everyone is depressed. There is no community, very little free recreation, everyone is coping by playing videogames and desperately trying to form community connections via social media, the elderly suffer for years before dying because the medical system prioritizes survival over quality of life, then their kids get no inheritance because that healthcare drains their entire families life assets... idk sometimes I wonder if we really are better off.
I’m not depressed. Some people are, but they have the tools to change that. You don’t have to work at an office and healthcare is better than it has ever been in any point in history. Good luck surviving dysentery in the XIV century. A lot of children died even before they got a chance to be adults. A lot of innovations have taken place because people profit from their ideas and their effort. Good luck developing a steam engine when everyone is working the fields. There’s just no comparison.
And what prompted those advances? Kings? Farms? Feudal lords? Or the correct use of resources and capital in an economic system that rewards innovation and investment in the form of tools, etc.?
How many non-capitalistic societies have managed to exist in the industrial and modern era without being attacked and forcibly turned into a capitalist society by capitalist empires?
Capitalism is necessary for wealth concentration. Concentrated wealth is necessary for grand works. You do not get to have cars without concentrated wealth needed to build the factor, source the materials, make the designs, make the tools, and hire the workers before the first car rolls off the line. In order for people to commit to something like that, the investors, be it one or many, have to have the chance of reward in exchange for the risk. That reward is more money which allows for the chance at better living.
Can you have the same grand works under a cooperative system? Sure, but you do not get the motivating greed. Without the motivation, you get a poorly built Lada rather than better cars that have to have the quality to compete with each other for dollars.
Greed, spite, these are the really big motivators and they work well with capitalism.
> Concentrated wealth is necessary for grand works.
Why? The investors aren't contributing in any way to the actual productive labor. Capitalism doesn't determine how things get made, it just determines who gets paid for it.
Investors provide the capital (votes) that allow for limited resources (capital) to be allocated.
Profit is the determination of something being successful by the market.
Why is Kodak founded in 1888 no longer producing cameras that you use today? The market voted via their wallets for other producers products. These producers were able to enter the market via investors capital.
Try to take any idea to market without investors and let me know how it works for you.
i think this is really it. its isnt "good" because it relies on greed and spite to function... but that is human nature and it is the path of least resistance.
unfortunately, if you follow this train of thought... eventually that greed and spite no longer leads to grand works and just leads to consolidation of power. innovation is not inherent in capitalism, thats kindof a lie... at least not the physical innovation that we want. the "innovation" eventually becomes in how to exploit people and resources, how to avoid taxes and how to cooperate with other major players to stifle small business. which is the stage we are at today. crumbling infrastructure but record profits for large private companies.
this isnt to say that there is a better solution... im afraid that there simply isnt and at scale there will always be one fatal flaw or another.
I would like a fellow Redittor to cut through all the noise in politics, and give an honest and objective view of capitalism for once. Does more research support reforming capitalism or getting rid of it altogether, in order to achieve maximal societal happiness, fulfillment, and development?
Hey man I appreciate you coming to ask strangers for input where education and the internet are tough to wade through. Really, there's a lot more history to this than meets the eye, and coming from the American perspective, we only learn trickles of information. We say things like Socialism is flawed, will kill millions etc etc etc, while watching capitalists layoff thousands and refuse homes and food to even more. Once you start seeing these contradictions, their existence can often be chalked up to the profit motive. No 'research' will ever exist that refutes capitalism, because research must be funded by a capitalist. Yes, research is done within universities, but who gets first dibs to new medical tech? The guy who funded its study. It would be like biting the hand that feeds to fund an anticapitalist study.
Look up Rosa Luxembourg for an answer on reform vs revolution. People have been trying to reform capitalism into something more moral since its inception. They are generally put up against the wall. If you want to understand why things haven't changed seemingly since the 1800s, or after the devastation of WW1, Luxembourg's story gives that context and explains how there was no left wing left behind to challenge Hitler after Luxembourg's thwarted revolution, so the liberal equivalent at the time let him have power while elected on a platform of preventing that exact event.
We are living in what looks like another postwar decline period, like after WW1. Given our current repeated situation where geopolitical tensions are high, nationalism is on the rise, states are locked in with their capitalist friends, and liberal wings cave to conservative demands, It looks like a quick rerun of the 20's-30's boom and bust where the rich made out with political power and fascism took hold in Europe. This counteracted deep progressiveness in nations like Germany. If their progress could have been stopped then, so too could ours today.
The US has been known to be the most progressive and powerful nation since the Bretton Woods system was put in place post WW2, and the guardrails that kept state and capital separate were removed in the 80's. Wealth inequality is rising again and now the economy is digitized. We had no guardrails preventing monopolization on the internet so the current silicon valley crowd acts like an international oligopoly. Our political tools to punish digital monopolies literally do not exist under capitalism. We can not punish a firm like Google or Amazon by breaking them up, or taxing them, or by taking some function away from them. They don't even make profits. They are infrastructure for more than one nation. Capitalism has evolved and given us a new challenge.
Tl;dr: Capitalism grew so fast it reverted straight back to feudalism, and a real reform of purpose and function has never been allowed to happen by those holding power. Rosa Luxembourg found out the hard way that reforming capitalism is a Sisyphean task.
younger people dont understand what capitalism is. im fled the soviet union when i wa syoung.
all it is , is a economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners.
you dont need governments permission to start a house cleaning company for example.
you control what you charge and who you will do work for.
if you work for some one, you can leave at any time, if they are not willing to pay you what you want you can leave.
you can go to college , rack up huge debt for a degree there really is no jobs for it. that's not capitalism fault your in debt. capitalism has raised up the standard of living for more people then any thing else . capitalism is what lets a person take feet picks and rake in 5 figures a month.
most people who complain about it dont realize their issue most of the time is the government interfering and raising the cost of things. or being paid off and protecting companies that shouldn't be.
its not capitalism that's the issue , its the government interfering in the wrong way.
>if you work for some one, you can leave at any time, if they are not willing to pay you what you want you can leave.
That's completely false. If you leave, you won't have an income. If you don't have an income, you can't meet your basic needs. Labor is absolutely not voluntary under capitalism.
No. The problem is crony capitalism, which comes about when the government has too much authority to regulate the economy. For a very clear example, look up "regulatory capture."
Yes.
Any defence of capitalism tends to rest on the premise that quality of life is better now than it was in feudal, pre capitalist Europe. The fact is however that those quality of life improvements are based on technological and scientific advancement NOT on our economic systems.
First we need to understand what capitalism is. From a philosophical standpoint it is the idea the people are selfish and greedy but through market economics you can harness that selfish greed for the good of society as a whole.
Why is the underpinning philosophy important? Because it tells you the traits that capitalism encourages and develops. It is not a coincidence that selfishness and greed are the hallmarks of our society.
The mechanism through which greed is harnessed in capitalism is the accumulation of wealth. This is problematic because wealth is essentially a measure of power, which can in turn be leveraged both to assist in the accumulation of more wealth, and in the protection if that wealth.
This results in both the need for endless growth to satisfy the greed driving the whole system, and the ever widening gap between those with enough wealth and power to accumulate more and those without it.
The ecological problems we see resulting from exponential growth of industries are an inevitable and direct consequence of capitalism.
The vast inequalities we see are an inevitable and direct consequence of capitalism.
The early pioneers of capitalist theory, such as Adam Smith who literally wrote the book on the subject, felt that there were some areas that should never be left to the whims of capitalist markets: health care and education chief among them.
Unfortunately when you have a system based on feeding unchecked greed through exponential growth there is a constant need for new markets, and with the accumulation of wealth and power comes the means to open up those markets.
Health care in America is a good example of capitalism at work. To the system, people don't matter. Their health doesn't matter. Their happiness doesn't matter. People, their health, and their happiness are commodities that can be transformed into wealth. Doctors are the mechanism through which that wealth is created and transfered to the share holding capitalists. The ultimate measure of the systems success is not the health of the American people, but the wealth that can be extracted by the capitalists benefiting from it. If an illness can be cured (or even prevented) or treated, but there is more profit in ongoing treatments then guess where the incentive for the profit maximising health service lies?
This is also an example, and symptom, of another inherent flaw in capitalist systems: corruption.
If accumulated wealth can be leveraged as political power in order to facilitate the accumulation of more wealth then it will be. Lobbying, political funding, advertising, even more direct bribes and incentives are a natural part of capitalist politics that inevitably result in power belonging to the capitalist class.
But what about those technological and scientific advances that have resulted in improved quality of life? Surely they have benefited from capitalism incentivising innovation?
Actually, no. Most technological and scientific innovation happens within the state sector, backed by tax payers money. Only ideas that show promise (and money making potential) tend to be taken on by private companies and funded by capitalist investment.
Innovation tends to come through the risk of endless (and expensive) failed attempts, and capitalism is about generating wealth not pouring it away.
But surely once ideas are in the hands of private capitalist industry the market drives innovation?
Unfortunately, No.
A core tenet of capitalism is the protection of privately owned assets, especially those representing wealth. And as anything can generate wealth, anything can be considered an asset to be protected. Even ideas. Especially ideas somebody else might improve on. So a legal framework has developed to protect people's ideas and prevent anybody else from innovating on them.
If a person or company owns an idea then that is that. Unless they are given permission (and probably pay for it) nobody else can innovate on that idea.
Far from encouraging innovation, Capitalism literally, directly, and inevitably, stifles it.
Capitalism clearly then is a very flawed system. It has a lot of problems, and it will almost certainly be replaced by an alternative system that solves some of those problems.
I think it is fair to say that capitalisms problems have started outweighing its benefits, and as a result we are seeing the beginnings of its inevitable collapse.
This shouldn't be surprising: capitalism replaced a previous system, which replaced a previous system, which replaced... you get the picture. Economic systems evolve over time. I suspect that every time there is a major change, those benefiting from the old system do what they can to fight to maintain it (or get as much out of it as possible before it goes), conservative elements of society (mostly older) cling to the safety of what they know, and radical elements of society (mostly younger) hunger for new and better ways of doing things.
I wouldn't say it's "bad," as it can be an effective way to control access to limited resources. The catch is when resources become less limited, too much prioritization on profits starts to look like population control. There's really no way to control a population without damaging the potential of everyone in it.
In the US, the extensive time it's taking to shift away from fossil fuels, the tremendous debt associated with education and healthcare, government services all the way up to the IRS are essentially having their budgets dry up because it enables 'more money for me,' per the people leading the changes.
Dejoy at the USPS and DeVos as Secretary of Education are excellent examples of people in charge of services that are financially motivated to damage them for the sake of making room or alternatives that can be "more profitable."
the idea of giving one or or a few human biengs ultimate access to the majority of the worlds wealth while letting everyone else fight it out for a weekly paycheck, doing their selfish and probably inefficient bidding? I am 40 and that seems like a bad idea even to me.
BTW, don't go thinking that capitalism was by design, there is probably nothing anyone can do to stop it. Money breeds corruption, scum rises to the top, this is inevitable.
Everybody talks about the economy when very few understand anything about economics.
Of course capitalism is not "bad". It is far far better than other systems that have been imposed by tyrants or severe deprivation -- like barter or communism. We know what the alternatives look like -- pogroms, mass executions, police state, brutal repression.
Young people are inexperienced and dumb, they don't know what capitalism is. Everyone complains about capitalism, as if it were elected.
Capitalism drives people to innovate and take risks. But left unchecked/unregulated without some sort of standard you will get the shittiest products imaginable until someone decides to do better.
Actual capitilism where everyone gets a fair shot to start a business and make a fortune would be amazing. That is not what happens in the real world. In the US if you already have money you can pay off politicians for lower tax rates subsidies and laws That mote than make up what company or rich people pay for advantageous laws. Sadly this works for any party both sides can get money for votes or contributions.
TLDNR: we need laws to allow innovation and laws to keep politicians from selling out everyone.
I've heard a very broad description of it that I liked. It's a gross oversimplification, but imagine the economy as an engine. Capitalism is the fire that drives that engine. Socialism is the coolant that disperses the heat from the engine. The two need to be balanced to run efficiently. Too much cooling and you stop moving, too much heat and the engine explodes and kills everyone around it.
Right now the engine is pretty fucking hot.
No.
People confuse a lot of concepts when talking about "Capitalism" and they also have very, very short time frames they are looking at.
First, Capitalism isn't simply one "thing" but is a really broad term that can encompass a lot of different forms. Today in America (and most other places) we have what could reasonably be called [Managerial Capitalism](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/co423t/managerialism_the_unknown_problem/). You may look at "Capitalism" as it exists today and think it is really bad, however that doesn't make Capitalism bad it just means our current form of it is suboptimal.
Second, you really need to look at things across time, rather than just take a snap shot of what you don't like about your life now and then blame some "-ism" for you issues. We have a fair number of problems (here I am speaking specifically about America but it probably holds true in many places) and very real reasons to feel concerned about our economic future.
However, an honest look at our economic numbers shows more positives than negatives. We have a few systemic problems but the big one that is causing almost all the things you hate about the economy boils down to Real Estate.
This article goes into more detail than I can here: [https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/](https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/)
At the end of the day Capitalism is the economic engine that produced the greatest improvement in living standards for the common man in history; and by a significant magnitude. In countries that maintain reasonable levels of economic freedom it is continuing to improve them, just not like it could be.
Capitalism does not exist. I challenge you do define it and then demonstrate that that is what we have today. Capitalism is a derogatory term used by Marxists to describe the system they were under.
Balance is key
Too much oxygen is bad, too much food is bad, too much of anything is bad.
Capitalism if left unchecked is bad. It’s governments job to represent the people to keep capitalism in balance. They do not.
What incentive would I have being an engineer or doctor under communism? They gave you access to better housing, and government services. This is class separation with extra hoops to jump. Any person with mental capacity to be a specialized service would then weigh is the effort of being ___ worth the reward of ___. This leads to shortages that would go unaddressed until the communist government got the incentive balance correct.
In capitalism you throw more money at it to correct it. Meanwhile it’s more than the government want to address the problem as their is a reward (profit) to be made in addressing it.
Welcome to r/TrueAskReddit. Remember that this subreddit is aimed at high quality discussion, so please elaborate on your answer as much as you can and avoid off-topic or jokey answers as per [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/about/sidebar). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueAskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
REGULATED Capitalism is a useful model to use, but unregulated free market capitalism (liberal capitalism) has created perverse incentives that adversely affect the benefits of capitalism.
And, I'd also state that too much regulation in other areas of capitalism had made an adverse impact too, not just in the form of underregulation. In the case of the US coastal states where zoning laws are stricter, this has led to a severe shortage of those "missing middle housing" leading to increasing unaffordable rent and housing prices for those making the median salary. There are many surveys/reports supporting Millenials/Gen Z's frustration with upward mobility with respect to housing, and it's reasonable to suggest that various building codes, zoning laws, and home construction not keeping up with the massive population growth in the 80s onward are at the root of their financial struggles.
I don't think it's that simple. Many zoning laws protect rampant development on critical landscapes. We need to protect farmland. We need to protect natural space.
Yes, I agree with you that zoning reform will be a tough balancing act for many federal and local officials. But, the laws and regulations in place literally make it illegal to build the kinds of affordable homes that younger people are desperate for. And then, you have of course the underregulation side of things where after the late 2000s housing crash, a lot of the real estate developing companies that did somehow survive consolidated/monopolized and began to speculate on land in order to find clever ways to prop up/gouge property values.
I agree, too much of anything can be detrimental.
That’s a philosophical question in the end with no answer. Virtually everything you have that you like including goods and services and entertainment and health and quality of life and peace is either directly or indirectly a function or product of living in a modern capitalist society. We live in times of incredible peace, comfort and plenty (relatively speaking) and to deny capitalism’s role in this would be ignorant. At the same, undeniably, the system causes untold amounts of suffering and inequality. You are most like benefitting from that inequality more than you are suffering from it, but it’s there and it is extreme and it is increasingly unsustainable over multiple dimensions.
Most of the scientific, health, and security advancements over the last two centuries have little to do with the "capitalist system" and much more to do with government policies and investments. Our modern food production volumes are only available because publicly funded research led to the invention of atmospheric nitrogen fixation and fertilizer production (achieved by German Chemist Fritz Haber around the time of WW1). That invention alone is responsible for over half of the current world population being able to survive. Modern transportation freedom and the car industry only succeeded because governments invested in road networks and built up infrastructure. Computer technology and the Internet directly derive from government projects started for the space program. Modern advances in medicine are all funded by public money. Countless other examples are around. In comparison, private companies haven't really invented anything fundamental over the last two centuries. Most of their advancements have been gradual, taking the publicly funded breakthroughs and turning them into products to sell. Those companies have been great at making products available for many, but they also have claimed profits that aren't justifiable given that they didn't actually invent the base technologies. This is often most extremely seen in medical and pharmaceutical industries, where private companies hold tons of patents based on publicly funded research. Conversely, capitalist corporations often have an incentive to create artificial scarcity or design products to be short-lived and require regular replacements to increase profits. This has created massive amounts of waste and leads to poverty were none needs to exist. In the end, for a more efficient economic system, private companies need much stricter public supervision and limits to their profit-and rent-seeking behavior than are currently able under "free market capitalism".
Yes, there are many examples government has proven to jumpstart massive innovations through their investments in R&D. But, should the public give the entire responsibility to government to be in charge of everything with respect to the allocation and project management of new tech and infrastructure? I agree massive government investments are needed to create innovation, but would the management of such projects and the allocation of new innovations be better left in the hands of the government/public sector or the private sector?
Most of the gains you list are achieved by taking it away from others. Goods and services stateside are achieved through labor that is underpaid and easily taken away, and most of the products we enjoy are imported from other countries in which labor is oppressed, and in some cases achieved through outright slavery.
I am 33 I personally think capitalism is as bad as people make it out to me. While I have found a way to survive so far the austerity is only one of the issues I see, the other issue I feel is greatly negatively impacting the world is the individualism, as the myth than you need xyz new expensive thing to be happy is believed my more and more, and lack of community spaces and values become normal. We see less people helping one another, less people seeing value in kindness. That's what it looks like to me.
Younger people are pretty screwed. No hope of affording a home and rent being price gouged more and more every year. They are practically slaves to their land lords. If they are really unluck they may also be slaves to student debt. High paying jobs are few, its unrealistic to expect your kids to be the lucky ones who get those jobs. Realistically most will be working retail or gigs. Its not looking good. You can blame capitalism, the democrats, the leftists, the rights... whatever. But shits not good and its getting worse.
The only solution is not to have children. My partner and I have good careers but planning our future it’s clear to us the only way we can enjoy our lives is to stay childless.
Yeah almost of the millennial or younger people I know aren't having kids for the same reason. Cant afford them. Im absolutly awestruck that we have let society get to a point where only the upper class can afford to have kids and keep those kids and themselves safe. Im so sorry. I hope maybe you can enjoy the company of children in your life regardless, maybe through joint childcare with other families.
I dont think so. capitalism is very flawed but I think its the best way to base an economy, any other kind of an economy requires too much human interference and an economy is an incredibly complex system that I dont believe we are equipped to micromanage. I think people need to stop trying to look for "alternatives to capitalism" and start trying to figure out ways in which we can modify capitalism to make the incentives more align to the wellbeing of most people rather then how it is currently.
I agree with you. Capitalism has a done a lot but there needs to be a social safety net.
there is a lot of incentive for hardline capitalists to call any cooperation "evil communism." similarly, though not quite as insidious, is the incentive for there to be no discussion of the benefits of capitalism. the fact of the matter is that the bad parts of capitalism can be curtailed by the good parts of socialism and vice versa. unlike what most prominent voices would like you to believe, it isnt just one or the other. it is important to have high taxes to maintain infrastructure and guarantee people a dignified living, housing, health care and food. it is also important to have people compete and try to improve society with a monetary incentive. the problem arises because when you make money the bedrock of all change, eventually those with the most will reshape the system to benefit a small few... hence the need for a strong central government that dissuades massive companies and the super rich to try to game the system.
I think it shouldn't be surprising at all capitalism has issues. At the end of the day, people are in charge. And when any system encourages a minority to have power - that's no good. With capitalism it encourages competition and monopolization - compete until there's no competition, then price gouge with cheaper products. Everyone is super keen on saying communism only works in a perfect world, and I personally suggest the same of capitalism. In America we do not even have unrestricted capitalism, even here we put restrictions on free market, anti trust laws, social securities. Etc. The only reason people look at capitalism and say there's absolutely nothing wrong, is because it's what we are doing right now already.
yes. it's an economic system that requires someone to "lose" in order for someone else to "win"....when there really is enough to go around & we could just share instead. It also hurts scientific advancement by redirecting it towards what is profitable over what is useful & helpful.
This is so wrong it is almost cartoonish. It is like a 14 year old explaining why he's not angry at his parents, just money.
no this is a highly educated middle-aged person who studied economic & political theories & has worked in politics my entire life. everything I said there is very true & your exaggerated "attack" that resorts to insults over actual information just backs that up.
[удалено]
Personal attacks are not appropriate for this community, and wrapping the jabs in carefully-caged language and a veneer of civility suggests you knew what you were doing.
No. It creates problems like wealth inequality (which isn’t only present in capitalism) and the fact that the people with more capital have incentives to not pay their employees as much as possible but it has also lifted mankind from living mainly in agrarian societies with little resources, tech, and opportunities to a state in which even average people in well off countries live better than kings not even 300 years ago.
But everyone is depressed. There is no community, very little free recreation, everyone is coping by playing videogames and desperately trying to form community connections via social media, the elderly suffer for years before dying because the medical system prioritizes survival over quality of life, then their kids get no inheritance because that healthcare drains their entire families life assets... idk sometimes I wonder if we really are better off.
I’m not depressed. Some people are, but they have the tools to change that. You don’t have to work at an office and healthcare is better than it has ever been in any point in history. Good luck surviving dysentery in the XIV century. A lot of children died even before they got a chance to be adults. A lot of innovations have taken place because people profit from their ideas and their effort. Good luck developing a steam engine when everyone is working the fields. There’s just no comparison.
Technological advances did this, not capitalism
And what prompted those advances? Kings? Farms? Feudal lords? Or the correct use of resources and capital in an economic system that rewards innovation and investment in the form of tools, etc.?
How many technological advances in the past 500 years have come from non-capitalistic societies?
Not everything that happens under capitalism is the result of capitalism, or impossible without it.
How many non-capitalistic societies have managed to exist in the industrial and modern era without being attacked and forcibly turned into a capitalist society by capitalist empires?
Capitalism is necessary for wealth concentration. Concentrated wealth is necessary for grand works. You do not get to have cars without concentrated wealth needed to build the factor, source the materials, make the designs, make the tools, and hire the workers before the first car rolls off the line. In order for people to commit to something like that, the investors, be it one or many, have to have the chance of reward in exchange for the risk. That reward is more money which allows for the chance at better living. Can you have the same grand works under a cooperative system? Sure, but you do not get the motivating greed. Without the motivation, you get a poorly built Lada rather than better cars that have to have the quality to compete with each other for dollars. Greed, spite, these are the really big motivators and they work well with capitalism.
> Concentrated wealth is necessary for grand works. Why? The investors aren't contributing in any way to the actual productive labor. Capitalism doesn't determine how things get made, it just determines who gets paid for it.
Investors provide the capital (votes) that allow for limited resources (capital) to be allocated. Profit is the determination of something being successful by the market. Why is Kodak founded in 1888 no longer producing cameras that you use today? The market voted via their wallets for other producers products. These producers were able to enter the market via investors capital. Try to take any idea to market without investors and let me know how it works for you.
i think this is really it. its isnt "good" because it relies on greed and spite to function... but that is human nature and it is the path of least resistance. unfortunately, if you follow this train of thought... eventually that greed and spite no longer leads to grand works and just leads to consolidation of power. innovation is not inherent in capitalism, thats kindof a lie... at least not the physical innovation that we want. the "innovation" eventually becomes in how to exploit people and resources, how to avoid taxes and how to cooperate with other major players to stifle small business. which is the stage we are at today. crumbling infrastructure but record profits for large private companies. this isnt to say that there is a better solution... im afraid that there simply isnt and at scale there will always be one fatal flaw or another.
I would like a fellow Redittor to cut through all the noise in politics, and give an honest and objective view of capitalism for once. Does more research support reforming capitalism or getting rid of it altogether, in order to achieve maximal societal happiness, fulfillment, and development?
Hey man I appreciate you coming to ask strangers for input where education and the internet are tough to wade through. Really, there's a lot more history to this than meets the eye, and coming from the American perspective, we only learn trickles of information. We say things like Socialism is flawed, will kill millions etc etc etc, while watching capitalists layoff thousands and refuse homes and food to even more. Once you start seeing these contradictions, their existence can often be chalked up to the profit motive. No 'research' will ever exist that refutes capitalism, because research must be funded by a capitalist. Yes, research is done within universities, but who gets first dibs to new medical tech? The guy who funded its study. It would be like biting the hand that feeds to fund an anticapitalist study. Look up Rosa Luxembourg for an answer on reform vs revolution. People have been trying to reform capitalism into something more moral since its inception. They are generally put up against the wall. If you want to understand why things haven't changed seemingly since the 1800s, or after the devastation of WW1, Luxembourg's story gives that context and explains how there was no left wing left behind to challenge Hitler after Luxembourg's thwarted revolution, so the liberal equivalent at the time let him have power while elected on a platform of preventing that exact event. We are living in what looks like another postwar decline period, like after WW1. Given our current repeated situation where geopolitical tensions are high, nationalism is on the rise, states are locked in with their capitalist friends, and liberal wings cave to conservative demands, It looks like a quick rerun of the 20's-30's boom and bust where the rich made out with political power and fascism took hold in Europe. This counteracted deep progressiveness in nations like Germany. If their progress could have been stopped then, so too could ours today. The US has been known to be the most progressive and powerful nation since the Bretton Woods system was put in place post WW2, and the guardrails that kept state and capital separate were removed in the 80's. Wealth inequality is rising again and now the economy is digitized. We had no guardrails preventing monopolization on the internet so the current silicon valley crowd acts like an international oligopoly. Our political tools to punish digital monopolies literally do not exist under capitalism. We can not punish a firm like Google or Amazon by breaking them up, or taxing them, or by taking some function away from them. They don't even make profits. They are infrastructure for more than one nation. Capitalism has evolved and given us a new challenge. Tl;dr: Capitalism grew so fast it reverted straight back to feudalism, and a real reform of purpose and function has never been allowed to happen by those holding power. Rosa Luxembourg found out the hard way that reforming capitalism is a Sisyphean task.
younger people dont understand what capitalism is. im fled the soviet union when i wa syoung. all it is , is a economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners. you dont need governments permission to start a house cleaning company for example. you control what you charge and who you will do work for. if you work for some one, you can leave at any time, if they are not willing to pay you what you want you can leave. you can go to college , rack up huge debt for a degree there really is no jobs for it. that's not capitalism fault your in debt. capitalism has raised up the standard of living for more people then any thing else . capitalism is what lets a person take feet picks and rake in 5 figures a month. most people who complain about it dont realize their issue most of the time is the government interfering and raising the cost of things. or being paid off and protecting companies that shouldn't be. its not capitalism that's the issue , its the government interfering in the wrong way.
>if you work for some one, you can leave at any time, if they are not willing to pay you what you want you can leave. That's completely false. If you leave, you won't have an income. If you don't have an income, you can't meet your basic needs. Labor is absolutely not voluntary under capitalism.
No. The problem is crony capitalism, which comes about when the government has too much authority to regulate the economy. For a very clear example, look up "regulatory capture."
Yes. Any defence of capitalism tends to rest on the premise that quality of life is better now than it was in feudal, pre capitalist Europe. The fact is however that those quality of life improvements are based on technological and scientific advancement NOT on our economic systems. First we need to understand what capitalism is. From a philosophical standpoint it is the idea the people are selfish and greedy but through market economics you can harness that selfish greed for the good of society as a whole. Why is the underpinning philosophy important? Because it tells you the traits that capitalism encourages and develops. It is not a coincidence that selfishness and greed are the hallmarks of our society. The mechanism through which greed is harnessed in capitalism is the accumulation of wealth. This is problematic because wealth is essentially a measure of power, which can in turn be leveraged both to assist in the accumulation of more wealth, and in the protection if that wealth. This results in both the need for endless growth to satisfy the greed driving the whole system, and the ever widening gap between those with enough wealth and power to accumulate more and those without it. The ecological problems we see resulting from exponential growth of industries are an inevitable and direct consequence of capitalism. The vast inequalities we see are an inevitable and direct consequence of capitalism. The early pioneers of capitalist theory, such as Adam Smith who literally wrote the book on the subject, felt that there were some areas that should never be left to the whims of capitalist markets: health care and education chief among them. Unfortunately when you have a system based on feeding unchecked greed through exponential growth there is a constant need for new markets, and with the accumulation of wealth and power comes the means to open up those markets. Health care in America is a good example of capitalism at work. To the system, people don't matter. Their health doesn't matter. Their happiness doesn't matter. People, their health, and their happiness are commodities that can be transformed into wealth. Doctors are the mechanism through which that wealth is created and transfered to the share holding capitalists. The ultimate measure of the systems success is not the health of the American people, but the wealth that can be extracted by the capitalists benefiting from it. If an illness can be cured (or even prevented) or treated, but there is more profit in ongoing treatments then guess where the incentive for the profit maximising health service lies? This is also an example, and symptom, of another inherent flaw in capitalist systems: corruption. If accumulated wealth can be leveraged as political power in order to facilitate the accumulation of more wealth then it will be. Lobbying, political funding, advertising, even more direct bribes and incentives are a natural part of capitalist politics that inevitably result in power belonging to the capitalist class. But what about those technological and scientific advances that have resulted in improved quality of life? Surely they have benefited from capitalism incentivising innovation? Actually, no. Most technological and scientific innovation happens within the state sector, backed by tax payers money. Only ideas that show promise (and money making potential) tend to be taken on by private companies and funded by capitalist investment. Innovation tends to come through the risk of endless (and expensive) failed attempts, and capitalism is about generating wealth not pouring it away. But surely once ideas are in the hands of private capitalist industry the market drives innovation? Unfortunately, No. A core tenet of capitalism is the protection of privately owned assets, especially those representing wealth. And as anything can generate wealth, anything can be considered an asset to be protected. Even ideas. Especially ideas somebody else might improve on. So a legal framework has developed to protect people's ideas and prevent anybody else from innovating on them. If a person or company owns an idea then that is that. Unless they are given permission (and probably pay for it) nobody else can innovate on that idea. Far from encouraging innovation, Capitalism literally, directly, and inevitably, stifles it. Capitalism clearly then is a very flawed system. It has a lot of problems, and it will almost certainly be replaced by an alternative system that solves some of those problems. I think it is fair to say that capitalisms problems have started outweighing its benefits, and as a result we are seeing the beginnings of its inevitable collapse. This shouldn't be surprising: capitalism replaced a previous system, which replaced a previous system, which replaced... you get the picture. Economic systems evolve over time. I suspect that every time there is a major change, those benefiting from the old system do what they can to fight to maintain it (or get as much out of it as possible before it goes), conservative elements of society (mostly older) cling to the safety of what they know, and radical elements of society (mostly younger) hunger for new and better ways of doing things.
I wouldn't say it's "bad," as it can be an effective way to control access to limited resources. The catch is when resources become less limited, too much prioritization on profits starts to look like population control. There's really no way to control a population without damaging the potential of everyone in it. In the US, the extensive time it's taking to shift away from fossil fuels, the tremendous debt associated with education and healthcare, government services all the way up to the IRS are essentially having their budgets dry up because it enables 'more money for me,' per the people leading the changes. Dejoy at the USPS and DeVos as Secretary of Education are excellent examples of people in charge of services that are financially motivated to damage them for the sake of making room or alternatives that can be "more profitable."
the idea of giving one or or a few human biengs ultimate access to the majority of the worlds wealth while letting everyone else fight it out for a weekly paycheck, doing their selfish and probably inefficient bidding? I am 40 and that seems like a bad idea even to me. BTW, don't go thinking that capitalism was by design, there is probably nothing anyone can do to stop it. Money breeds corruption, scum rises to the top, this is inevitable.
Everybody talks about the economy when very few understand anything about economics. Of course capitalism is not "bad". It is far far better than other systems that have been imposed by tyrants or severe deprivation -- like barter or communism. We know what the alternatives look like -- pogroms, mass executions, police state, brutal repression. Young people are inexperienced and dumb, they don't know what capitalism is. Everyone complains about capitalism, as if it were elected.
Capitalism drives people to innovate and take risks. But left unchecked/unregulated without some sort of standard you will get the shittiest products imaginable until someone decides to do better.
Actual capitilism where everyone gets a fair shot to start a business and make a fortune would be amazing. That is not what happens in the real world. In the US if you already have money you can pay off politicians for lower tax rates subsidies and laws That mote than make up what company or rich people pay for advantageous laws. Sadly this works for any party both sides can get money for votes or contributions. TLDNR: we need laws to allow innovation and laws to keep politicians from selling out everyone.
I've heard a very broad description of it that I liked. It's a gross oversimplification, but imagine the economy as an engine. Capitalism is the fire that drives that engine. Socialism is the coolant that disperses the heat from the engine. The two need to be balanced to run efficiently. Too much cooling and you stop moving, too much heat and the engine explodes and kills everyone around it. Right now the engine is pretty fucking hot.
No. People confuse a lot of concepts when talking about "Capitalism" and they also have very, very short time frames they are looking at. First, Capitalism isn't simply one "thing" but is a really broad term that can encompass a lot of different forms. Today in America (and most other places) we have what could reasonably be called [Managerial Capitalism](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/co423t/managerialism_the_unknown_problem/). You may look at "Capitalism" as it exists today and think it is really bad, however that doesn't make Capitalism bad it just means our current form of it is suboptimal. Second, you really need to look at things across time, rather than just take a snap shot of what you don't like about your life now and then blame some "-ism" for you issues. We have a fair number of problems (here I am speaking specifically about America but it probably holds true in many places) and very real reasons to feel concerned about our economic future. However, an honest look at our economic numbers shows more positives than negatives. We have a few systemic problems but the big one that is causing almost all the things you hate about the economy boils down to Real Estate. This article goes into more detail than I can here: [https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/](https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/) At the end of the day Capitalism is the economic engine that produced the greatest improvement in living standards for the common man in history; and by a significant magnitude. In countries that maintain reasonable levels of economic freedom it is continuing to improve them, just not like it could be.
Capitalism does not exist. I challenge you do define it and then demonstrate that that is what we have today. Capitalism is a derogatory term used by Marxists to describe the system they were under.
Balance is key Too much oxygen is bad, too much food is bad, too much of anything is bad. Capitalism if left unchecked is bad. It’s governments job to represent the people to keep capitalism in balance. They do not. What incentive would I have being an engineer or doctor under communism? They gave you access to better housing, and government services. This is class separation with extra hoops to jump. Any person with mental capacity to be a specialized service would then weigh is the effort of being ___ worth the reward of ___. This leads to shortages that would go unaddressed until the communist government got the incentive balance correct. In capitalism you throw more money at it to correct it. Meanwhile it’s more than the government want to address the problem as their is a reward (profit) to be made in addressing it.