Does a capitalist society actually work?

[buck 11]

Years ago I did some contract work in communist countries, namely Poland, Hungary, and Yugoslavia during the cold war years. Quite apart from the oppression of free thought, the concept of a national salary with equal pay for everyone whether a manager or a janitor was a dismal failure. Products available to the public were of poor quality made by people with no incentive to do better. Western products of high quality from Britain, Germany, and the US could only be bought at special stores using currency from one of these three countries. Needless to say, the commissars ran around in Mercedes.

[JoeP 11]

A capitalist society works only for some and it would be an illusion to think that is the majority.

 

What realistic and attainable system of government doesn't?

 

One reason why I'm a libertarian is that I'd be happier to have 'big' government and 'big' business just stay the Hell out of my business and let me get on with my life.

 

Capitalism in it's current form survives because it undesrtands some basic tenets of human nature; we're potentially greedy, envious, egotistical and self-deceiving.

 

Greed and envy provide the basic drives for people above and beyond that required for basic provision of needs. Self-deceit allows us to believe that we MIGHT get to the top of the pile - we might win the lottery, invent something that will become a moneyspinner, etc. Ego helps us to think that we're the most important people in the world and that we deserve the best.

 

Capitalism is probably the only system currently running that actually takes these features of human behaviour in to account and runs with them. Not only can you not beat the markets, you can't beat human nature.

[Dungbeetle 10]

if everybody was the same then communism would work very well but lets face it there will always be people who want or think they deserve more and thats where it all falls down.

You say "people who want or think they deserve more" as though that were a problem.

 

Is it unreasonable for people who work harder, and put more into society, to want a little more reward for their efforts?

 

Talented, hard-working people must be given reward, or they have no incentive to do well. Without that incentive, nobody strives for excellence and the society stagnates.

[Cyclone 10]

The US and UK are very good examples of a total capitalist society, but yet they're are full of crime, social problems, corruption, manipulation, and loads of other social injustices, capitalism always seems to ensure all this will happen, but yet it does allow the poor to become rich and if you go to the other extreme such as communism this doesn't allow people to become rich successful, it actually dictates to people what they can earn get etc and brings up a hole load of other problems.

 

So what do you all think?

 

They aren't examples of total capitalism.

The UK certainly has a strong socialist twist and also strong governmental control on industry. (Not that these are bad things).

 

You seem to suggest that crime is a consequence of capitalism, I think crime is a consequence of human nature, there's not been an socio economic model tried that has eliminated crime.

[Heyesey 11]

You say "people who want or think they deserve more" as though that were a problem.

 

Is it unreasonable for people who work harder, and put more into society, to want a little more reward for their efforts?

 

 

Some people say it is.

 

 

If people were prepared to work harder and put more effort in, merely because they were capable of it, and NOT expect to gain more in return, society would probably be better overall. But such things are dreamland, of course. People just aren't like that, as you well point out.

 

 

To put it bluntly, communism is a beautiful theory that can't work, and capitalism is a nasty one that does.

[wearetherobots 10]

Talented, hard-working people must be given reward, or they have no incentive to do well. Without that incentive, nobody strives for excellence and the society stagnates.

 

 

That all depends on your interpretation of reward.

 

If that reward increasingly leads towards building a huge fence around your house or maybe living in a gated community to keep out the failed masses I think you should question your own views on the stagnation of society.

[Crayfish 10]

Sounds ideal to me. Big fence, no failed masses. Where's the down side?

[Cyclone 10]

The reward is greater compensation in the form of exchangeable tokens.

It's up to the person who works hard to decide if they want to spend them on a fence.

 

In a communist society why would anyone go the extra mile, or put in the extra effort to develop a new product, or a new process when they know that it will not benefit them very much and that it will benefit others who do the bare minimum required?

 

Capitalism rewards the hard working and does a decent job of allocating scarce resources in the most effective way.

Socialism takes care of ensuring that no one drops out the bottom completely.

Regulation stops big business getting too big and changing things to suit themselves rather than the whole of society.

[stuchyg 10]

hay man this is getting heavy lets all just love each other man

[BorderReiver 10]

The US and UK are very good examples of a total capitalist society, but yet they're are full of crime, social problems, corruption, manipulation, and loads of other social injustices, capitalism always seems to ensure all this will happen, but yet it does allow the poor to become rich and if you go to the other extreme such as communism this doesn't allow people to become rich successful, it actually dictates to people what they can earn get etc and brings up a hole load of other problems.

 

So what do you all think?

 

I think communism has been discredited in most civilised parts of the world - apart from a few lefties still living in cloud cuckoo land that is.

 

Even the "ex" Marxists in New Labour have succumbed to the lure of capitalism now that they have achieved their primary Marxist goal of power over the proletariat.

[Crayfish 10]

I'm a believer in the necessity of competition.

 

Without a requirement to excel, people will be mediocre at best. Capitalism, as noted, is the only social structure that takes into account the truth of human nature.

 

I just don't think current capitalism has all the details ironed out of it. Capitalism with conscience is the way forwards - and this can be achieved within the current framework by minor additions and revisions (from governments), assigning financial value to ecosystem function and humane causes.

 

The carbon market is a beginning, if more follows in similar and other veins then I envisage capitalism allowing sustainability without having to rely on the goodness of all humankind, which I don't have any faith in.

 

Idealist concepts of Utopia are all well and good but have little foundation in reality. I don't believe the world's ever had it so good in terms of average quality of life. There are few reasons why things can't keep on improving if proper care is put into designing the future.

[angle20 10]

Something not alluded to so far is the management of debt and of currency inflation in a capitalist system. These are things which can be managed prudently. However, the USA, the world's leading capitalist economy has in recent times built up budget and trade deficits of humungous proportions. Imagine a pile of one dollar bills 4.5 million kilometres high - that's the amount of debt currently riding on the US currency. Wow, they sure have a friendly bank manager on that side of the pond.

 

Money is only valued as a commodity if it has what is sometimes referred to as ‘reliable rarity’, and savers can have trust in future rarity. However, during the course of the credit cycle things tend to become more liberal (and possibly interlinked): eg currently with such things as easy consumer credit, ‘futures’, ‘options’ and links between banks, stockbrokers and insurance companies. A periodic ‘correction’, or belly up, is needed to rein things in again. More linkages between financial operators can mean that a collapse becomes like a row of dominoes. Are we due for the biggest belly up since the 1930s?

 

An American official, David Walker, the comptroller general of the US, used some quite colourful phraseology in a recent interview with the Financial Times. (The comptroller general is a non-partisan figure who heads the Government Accountability Office – a vague equivalent of our National Audit Office). Mr Walker was reported as saying that the US government is on a ‘burning platform’ of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon. ‘Chilling long term simulations’ included ‘dramatic’ tax rises, slashed government services and the large scale dumping by foreign governments of holdings of US debt. Mr Walker even likened America’s current predicament to the fall of the Roman empire.

 

The whole Iraq, Iran, Muslim thing may become a sideshow in a little while. China, Russia, Japan and India will move in for the economic kill – and the USA will then be destined to become a rotting multicultural corpse.