Does capitalism work?

To begin with what is efficiency? It's arrogant to assume that western definition of efficiency (a.k.a the highest possible margin of profit for a capitalist, who pays little or no regard to the externalization costs picked up by the society as whole or to be picked up by the future generations, if any) is the only true one, the only possible one.

How could you say that nazi war slave economy was not efficient? It was ZILLIONS times more "efficient" than any free market economy at the circustances Germany was facing (NUmber/0= very large number). It's enabled nazis to lead a few extra years of war. It's true, they've lost it eventualy. But what if they would have won? Without war slaves, nazi production would fell appart because of the lack of man power, lack of the resources to economically motivate free man power.

Soviety economy had its own efficiency criteria = 0% joblessness, free universal education, free universal medical care, huge army (relative to the overall size of economy), jump from agrarian backwaters to a superpower in 15 years or so.

Efficiency is not universal term, its meaning is set by the goals society sets for itself.

Accumulation of the maximum "wealth" without regard to its distribution is not the only possible measure of the economic efficiency.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For what times those "cold-hearted" calculations were made? I bet the times when fertility of the man has produced sufficient amount of units relatively to the number of units needed to support upper classes, fight wars, etc. Invention of "Manufacture" in England has made peasants less "efficient" than sheep grazing on formerly peasant's land. Peasants were crowded in the city's slums to fuel industrial revolution. To name that "fuel" anything but slaves with the right of a choice what bridge to die under is disingeneous. Human unit just lost its value for the masters of life. Isn't that simple supply/demand stuff, commodization of the human life? The whip of guard was generously substituted with a whip of fear of joblesness, etc. and a carrot of "rags to riches". A unit was generously allowed to guard itself (under close guidance).

In the slaveowning South, slaveowners hired free Irish to do dangerous work like roofing. Slaves were too expensive to risk. About living conditions, you've got that wrong again, Irish in the slums of Detroit were doing worse than Southern slaves circa 1850.

It's not slaves being expensive, it's free men being cheaper than slaves and easier to manage that killed slavery.

I'll give you that. Lots of po whites in the South were as cheap/poor/desperate or cheaper than slaves. Sharecropping could commence before Civil war. Slavery was just too hard to disband. First, slaves were WAY more expensive than white poor slob. Nobody wanted to lose that value. Second, poor whites were given "wage of whiteness" to keep them pacified and separated from blacks. Freeing slaves could give them wrong ideas.

I have a bad news though. Each of us uses equivalent of 300 personal slaves, if warp drive will not be invented and oil will eventually run out, cold-hearted calculations may show that the use of slave labor is more profitable. IIt's all about supply/demand of the human commodity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think so. In the USA, it's slavery which has built an agricultural surplass, which has been traded for the Europian capital and industrial expertise/machinery/etc. Cottonmills, tobaco factories, etc. cannot exist without agricultural economy. 100 years ago, industrial farming was not feasible, but people wanted to eat and get dressed. Sharecroppers provided great deal of raw materials to satisfy those needs, thus, fueling industrialization. separation of agricultural economy and capitalism is kind of artificial.

I wonder why mighty agrobusiness drives gang members of the Mexican origin from one field to another. I don't think that those Mexicans are doing much better than sharecroppers 100 years ago did. Seems that there are some niches where chain gang is competing very well with diesel equipment. Imagine what will happen if the price of diesel will triple? My guess, white folks will join gangs en masse.

PS. Agrobusiness must die. It's one of the worst things happened to humans.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not reading that long bullshit right now (sorry). But I will comment that efficiency in capitalism does not equate to profit margins. If that was the case, then you'd be paying $15 for a pack of cigarettes. It has to do with production and consumption. If goods are being produced in the least costly way possible and they are being consumed as quickly as they are being produced, then that's efficient production.

 

What worries me about this is that this statement has no indication to quality of life or wellbeing.

Products can be made cheap and efficiently in a sweat shop in the far east and consumed quickly in the west, and the entire process can actually mean detrimental effects on the quality of life on both sides of the equation.

Does that worry you? Or am I alone in this matter?

 

It does worry me. People take the suggestions of economics as gospel, like it's their moral imperative to be as efficient as possible. I see no reason to do this. As an analogy, would I want to build a car without airbags and seatbelts just so that it's lighter and faster? In most cases, of course not; there's no point in having a fast car if I die in a fender bender. I believe economics empowers you with the knowledge of how to build a faster car, but just because you can doesn't mean you should.

 

So in a way capitalism is only really best for the people and society if there are restrictions?

 

I wouldn't presume with my limited education to know why capitalism, of all systems, should be best for society. Let's just say I think it's only good for society with some common sense restrictions, since the point of society and the function of capitalism are not exactly the same.

 

anecdotal story relating to this:

I can still remember that during geography classes in school yonks and yonks ago I first came across the difference between 'Welvaart' and 'Welzijn'.

'Welvaart' being 'an economic state of growth with rising profits and full employment'.

Welzijn being 'well being' or 'the state of being happy and healthy and prosperous'.

All everybody nowadays talk about is the first one. Economic progress. Nobody ever puts any emphasis on the last. As if well being automatically results from economic progress. It's the curse of American influence on the world. Well being has stopped being a goal of human society.

It's sad.

 

A related news item on happiness:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5169448.stm

 

Capitalist logic compels you to. This is one of the contradictions between capitalist philosophy and human well-being. I'm sure I don't need to give you examples of how cost-cutting has cost human life and health, but the Bhopal disaster is one of the most notorious ones. I'd argue that, far from being 'natural', capitalism taken to it's logical extreme is a threat to our survival.

 

Natural selection = rewards the smart

Communism/Capitalism = rewards the self-interested

HELL NO IT DOES NOT WORK

 

Dinosaurs were on top of the food chain for 145M years.

Then a dumb rock sent them to the dust bin of existence.

Exactly why should a self not be self-interested?

Then move to Mexico, where capitalism doesn't work. Why the f are 10% of Mexicans in capitalist America and sending $Billion back across the border?

 

Wow G-Dawg, I can appreciate your overtly-politicking arguments, but it doesn't really make sense.

 

There is enough fruit and other edibles to feed fifty monkeys within the distance they could travel before starving. Thus, competition. There is a herd of bison and a pack of wolves. The wolves want to eat the bison and the bison do not want to be eaten. Thus, competition. Nobody wakes up in the morning wanting to compete with anyone else, they just want to do what they can to better themselves. And, except in times of truely absurd plenty, that means competition.

 

Actually, the earth offers (and humans produce) well more than enough to feed and clothe everybody on the planet. The resources themselves are not the problem right now; they're being misappropriated.

 

Doesn't matter how much the earth offers. The problem is that certain areas are plague and famine drench wastelands where men really shouldn't live. Like Africa. On top of that, most countries in such regions are governments only in name and are intent on genociding everyone and their dog.

It is a mistake to just offer to feed someone and their offspring generation after generation until the end of time. To get anywhere, men have to work for the right to live.

 

Why? If it's possible, then it's possible.

 

Nice to see how you ignore my posts and just repeat what you before hoping that repitition makes something true.

A. Competition doesn't drive social animals. Social groups have evolved because cooperation on a behavioural level gives a competitive edge on the evolutionary level.

That eliminates the idea that competition is the prime behavioural modus operandus of the human species.

B. Now maybe you want to put forward the absurd idea that competition is good for 'natural selection'. I can slam that down easily by just pointing out simple facts to you. Poor people have more children than rich people. Highly educated people have less children than poorly educated people.

Therefore, capitalist competition favours the exact group on a evolutionary level that does not win on a capitalist level, the poor.

 

No you prove my point.
You are done. Get lost because you have no say.