Does Capitalism need a tweak?

[Trolldor]

No, capitalism doesn't need a tweak. Generation "Y" just needs a Jap-slapping, that's all.

I've seen it in the movies a thousand times. Women do it to men all the time in the movies. Rare is the movie that doesn't include at least one Jap-slapping of a man by a woman.

Men will also Jap-slap other men to bring them back to their senses when they freak out and go apeshit.

It works. Try it on one of your apeshit friends some time. Your friend will immediately snap out of it and say, "Thanks. I needed that."

Well then, that's a first, Humanity finally created system not subject to flaw and human error.


Oh, wait, nevermind, you forgot a few things.

[JimC]

Some interesting replies, particularly concerning the rather vague concept of human nature. There seems to be two clear schools of thought, both occupying the usual polarised extremes...

One suggests that human nature is a totally immutable condition, usually totally dominated by a full-on "nature red in tooth and claw" position, owing much to the old values of social darwinism and its pervasive air of racism and sexism. The usual political conclusion is that an unrestricted capitalist society is an accurate reflection of this intrinsic condition, and that we all need to lie back and think of the beauty of an unrestrained market, invisible hand and all...

The other extreme rejects any view of an intrinsic human nature, and instead views our human reality as almost infinitely malleable, a true tabla rasa. In this view, the art of improving society lies entirely in altering the experiences and views of people by life experience. Usually, this ends up in a form of life experience known as political re-education, best done in large camps with surrounding barbed wire...

The possibly boring reality is that we have a hominid nature with strong but not immovable tendencies, usually involving an interesting combination of personal selfishness and strong tribal tendencies, but strongly modified by a variety of environmental influences... The art of making society liveable for most people in most condition lies in intelligent compromise and the rule of law, something clearly anathema to the doyens of the left and the right. Unrestricted capitalism leads to robber baron societies of vast inequality. A combination of government regulation, and an active union movement are vital to prevent pure market forces from crushing the poor, as they would if left to their own devices...

The opposite dream of a society without free enterprise has been tried...

And found wanting, as the history of communism shows more than adequately...

[Eriku]

With more than half of the world's population surviving on two dollars a day or less, I'd say the capitalist system, in its present guise, has proved a failure.

[mistermack]

The capitalist system exists so that people can exchange goods and services. It works. It's up to govornments ( people's own representatives ) to provide an environment in which they can produce those goods and services.
If a people can't elect a stable govornment, with laws that are obeyed, and foreign companies are not ripped off by every petty official, then the world won't come knocking on their door.
In the end the poorest countries in the world are held back by their own instability, violent ways and individual greed. And that's a mixture of culture and human nature. Both are very hard and slow to change.
I'm thinking of places like Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan. No brilliant economic system is going to change those places for the better.
.

[Cunt]

Some interesting replies, particularly concerning the rather vague concept of human nature. There seems to be two clear schools of thought, both occupying the usual polarised extremes...

This discussion has made me think of one video which suggests that, since governments allow banks to issue their currency, the governments don't actually hold the power they should.

The video reeks of bullshit (if you know what I mean), but I can't say just where, since I don't know finance even well enough to know where to start looking.

Maybe someone here can...

It's a long video...but here is part one.

[PsychoSerenity]

Some interesting replies, particularly concerning the rather vague concept of human nature. There seems to be two clear schools of thought, both occupying the usual polarised extremes...

This discussion has made me think of one video which suggests that, since governments allow banks to issue their currency, the governments don't actually hold the power they should.

The video reeks of bullshit (if you know what I mean), but I can't say just where, since I don't know finance even well enough to know where to start looking.

Maybe someone here can...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8

It's a long video...but here is part one.

OK I'm still half way through watching it, but as far as I know it's all fairly accurate. This is one thing that has got me interested in economics, and recently I've been trying to learn more about it, so I can understand why it's all such a big cock up.

I would also like to hear about it though, if anyone has any more professional opinions and knowledge on this.

[mistermack]

Some interesting replies, particularly concerning the rather vague concept of human nature. There seems to be two clear schools of thought, both occupying the usual polarised extremes...

OK, I can declare with certainty that human nature, or at least human behaviour, is incredibly hard to predict. That's about all you can say with certainty.

But with all of the six billion plus humans, which includes hundreds of millions of incredibly bright people, nobody has thought of anything that works better than Capitalism. That doesn't mean I worship it, or think it's perfect, but I for one accept it's going to stay for a long time, so I say, give it a tweak.

Human nature does come right into it, because capitalism does provide incentives, communism and very heavy socialism does not. They just provide incentives to kiss the ass of your superior, or to make money on the black market.

There are things a govornment can do better, and there are things govornments OUGHT to be able to do better, but often don't. People working for the govornment usually end up edging up their salaries, and their pensions, edging down their hours, and getting ahead by ass licking. If you could find a way to control that, there are lots of things that govornments could do better than private enterprise.

So I'm happy to keep capitalism, but close all the dodges and loopholes, and let govornments run the natural monopolies, but find some way of keeping the pressure on the public sector, to stop them making nice soft beds for themselves.
.

[Robert_S]

So, I'm wondering how alone I am thinking that national governments ought to be the ones in charge of petroleum drilling and refining.

[Pappa]

So, I'm wondering how alone I am thinking that national governments ought to be the ones in charge of petroleum drilling and refining.

That implies you trust governments more than corporations.