Why is capitalism doomed to collapse?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Why is capitalism doomed to collapse? » Why is capitalism doomed to collapse?

Why is capitalism doomed to collapse?

Page: First 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Why is capitalism doomed to collapse?

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England

Total Topics: 89
Total Posts: 2963

Posted 12/14/07 - 01:03 AM:	#141
Hype It is easy to say that you will share all your goods with the populace, but doing it is another thing alltogether, and that is why people will want to own their own things instead of sharing. Owning property is not incompatible with sharing. Infact, it is a pre-requisite. You cannot share with others what you do not own. Owning something means you get to decide whether to share and who with. 299792458 Capitalism is (also) based upon excessive waste and competition in the marketplace and presumes the existence of infinite resources. I would say that capitalism in actual fact presumes scarce resources. If the means of satisfying all our wants were really in abundance, there would be no need for economising and therefore no need for capitalism. And I wouldn't say that capitalism is based on excessive waste. I would not say that there is no waste in a capitalist system but it is clear that it is in a producer's best interests to minimise waste because that maximises profit. Capitalism, to succeed to its maximum potential, requires an 'amoral' consumer base. This approach erodes culture. Hardly. It does not require any particular moral stature of consumer. The market must simply bend itself to best suit the consumer's ends. If the consumers are immoral, then what the market produces will be immoral. What you might want is an economic system that imposes a system that you regards as moral on the immoral masses. Capitalism doesn't do that so you despise it. Capitalism, as it is presently, creates massive environmental pollution, i.e., Why fly half empty airplanes? Why establish a 'throw it away' consumer mentality? That may be the case presently but one has to ask is it an inherent feature of capitalism? I would argue that with a proper system of property rights in place, much pollution would be eliminated. Afterall, what we call pollution really boils down to a dispute over how a particular resource should be used. One person might believe in maintaining a particular resource in a particular state and another would change it. A system of property rights that determines who gets to decide would eliminate such conflicts. Capitalism is based upon 'gluttony' in the marketplace rather than temperance. There may be many individuals who are gluttonous but capitalism does not need nor rely on such individuals.

IBrakeForTrees
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2007

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 113

Posted 12/26/07 - 12:16 PM:	#142
"Capitalism is irresponsibility developed into a system". -- Rev. Emil Brunner
http://ibrakefortrees.wordpress.com

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 2252

Posted 12/27/07 - 09:35 PM:	#143
Fried Egg wrote: That may be the case presently but one has to ask is it an inherent feature of capitalism? I would argue that with a proper system of property rights in place, much pollution would be eliminated. Afterall, what we call pollution really boils down to a dispute over how a particular resource should be used. One person might believe in maintaining a particular resource in a particular state and another would change it. A system of property rights that determines who gets to decide would eliminate such conflicts. So, who gets to own the air?

iRhumbleD
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2006
Location: Orange County, California

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 36

Posted 01/06/08 - 11:00 PM:	#144
unrealist42 wrote: So, who gets to own the air? I'm just a student out of high school with a small hobby of understanding economics. But isn't economics only involved in with the efficient distrubtion of scarce resources?

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 2252

Posted 01/07/08 - 05:17 PM:	#145
iRhumbleD wrote: unrealist42 wrote: So, who gets to own the air? I'm just a student out of high school with a small hobby of understanding economics. But isn't economics only involved in with the efficient distrubtion of scarce resources? Is not the air a resource? Are not all resources limited in their availability thus making them all scarce in an economic sense? You live in Orange County so it should be pretty obvious to you that clean air is a scarce resource much in demand. Still, no one answers my question. How come?

iRhumbleD
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2006
Location: Orange County, California

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 36

Posted 01/07/08 - 05:49 PM:	#146
unrealist42 wrote: I'm just a student out of high school with a small hobby of understanding economics. But isn't economics only involved in with the efficient distrubtion of scarce resources? Is not the air a resource? Are not all resources limited in their availability thus making them all scarce in an economic sense? You live in Orange County so it should be pretty obvious to you that clean air is a scarce resource much in demand. Still, no one answers my question. How come?[/quote] Though all resources are finite I don't know if that necessitates scarcity. For example, would anyone want to buy air--clean or otherwise? I am not talking about small amounts in canisters--but rather large amounts. I also disagree with your notion that clean air is in demand in the sense you use it in. You could be referring to the recent wild fires (air quality has definitively improved from when the fires were raging). Plus, I don't think there is the required elasticity in demand; clean air seems to be something people are rather elastic about. Most people just stayed inside and drove with their windows open.

iRhumbleD
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2006
Location: Orange County, California

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 36

Posted 01/07/08 - 05:52 PM:	#147
unrealist42 wrote: Is not the air a resource? Are not all resources limited in their availability thus making them all scarce in an economic sense? You live in Orange County so it should be pretty obvious to you that clean air is a scarce resource much in demand. Still, no one answers my question. How come? Though all resources are finite I don't know if that necessitates scarcity. For example, would anyone want to buy air--clean or otherwise? I am not talking about small amounts in canisters--but rather large amounts. I also disagree with your notion that clean air is in demand in the sense you use it in. You could be referring to the recent wild fires (air quality has definitively improved from when the fires were raging). Plus, I don't think there is the required elasticity in demand; clean air seems to be something people are rather elastic about. Most people just stayed inside and drove with their windows closed. /edited to fix quote

oligopolist
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 94

Posted 01/07/08 - 07:04 PM:	#148
To Unrealist Clean Air isn't in demand because 'dirty air' is only a byproduct of overpopulated or industrialized areas. It's a local issue regardless of what Manbearpig says. Orange County has clean air all along the coastline. California is a natural bog, so it's used to cleaning itself out efficiently. It's when we all pile on top of each other beyond reasonable density that we put ourselves in a situation with less than clean air. It's still almost unnoticeable unless you are in somewhere extremely confined like New York. It's more the humidity really though, but New York was much harder to breathe in than California. The Philippines are also very humid and also very polluted in their denser areas and feel alot like NY meets Miami. There still is no reason for air being a finite resource, you can drive for 20 minutes in any direction if you want out of it, or move somewhere else that is less populated. No one can own air because you can't prevent people from having it for free. We COULD create a BIG vacuum and force everyone in at gunpoint, make them give us all their money and then charge them in labor for air to be pumped into the vacuum. Just don't go into any big buildings labeled 'Hoover' and you'll be fine. I don't think the issue is so much if 'capitalism' will collapse, all things do, but rather is it the best way to ride into our 'social' collapse. I think Capitalism is best for our current situation and for commercial development of technology, medicine and the provision of true individual freedom. We will inevitably collapse socially, whether by natural catastrophe or socially parasitic concepts like socialism so I believe it benefits us most to make what individual impact and achievement we can and create the strongest legacy we can instead of hand wrenching and fearing our mortality or living in denial.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England

Total Topics: 89
Total Posts: 2963

Posted 01/08/08 - 05:57 AM:	#149
unrealist42 wrote: Is not the air a resource? Are not all resources limited in their availability thus making them all scarce in an economic sense? You live in Orange County so it should be pretty obvious to you that clean air is a scarce resource much in demand. Still, no one answers my question. How come? No one has answered your question because it is stupid and inane. Like asking "Who owns the earth?" Incidentally, scarce in the economic sense does not mean merely finite. Economically speaking, a resource is "scarce" if the ends to which we would put it outstrip it's availability. There is no need to consider ownership of resources that are not scarce. This is because there is, by definition, no conflict over it's use. i.e. there is more than enough for everyone. However, that does not mean that air pollution is always ok in a capitalist society. If I built a factory next to your house which belched smoke over your land I would probably be liable in court for violating your property rights.

Moosashi
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 18, 2007
Location: Arizona

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 102

Posted 01/10/08 - 02:28 PM:	#150
299792458 wrote: Capitalism is (also) based upon excessive waste and competition in the marketplace and presumes the existence of infinite resources. A critique of capitalism gains more validity if compared to an idealized economic system. One might counter that capitalism is the only system to potentially minimize waste (which is costly). Planned economies failed because they were extraordinarily wasteful. Industry was directed to produce stuff no one wanted from resources that could have been fashioned into products for which there was actually a demand. There was no incentive to cut costs. This incentive is strongest in a free market. In a free market, if producers are to increase efficiency, thereby cutting costs and minimizing waste, they must be able to invest in new and better means of production- capital. In an 'idealized economic system' workers would be shareholders in their work product. The inclusion of long term 'self interest' (shareholder) is thought to enhance the finished product and the productivity of the workers. When this "ideal" is "systematized", it is an ideal failure. But there is nothing stopping a group of workers from attempting this business model in a free market. The fact that it is not widespread indicates that it is probably not ideal, likely because it requires that workers must take lower wages in order to invest profits back into the company. Competition in the marketplace is thought of as benefitting the consumer (end user). Some benefit is bestowed upon the consumer but the environmental consequences are tragic, i.e, We wind up with 700 different vehicles to choose from, all with 'built in' obsolence and created with an utter disregard of the source of raw materials (the earth). Without competition, there is no incentive to develop technology that makes more efficient use of resources. And no one with the most rudimentary understanding of economics could believe that markets engender an utter disregard for raw materials. In a free market, resources become more expensive as they are depleted. Right there, the market regards raw materials in terms of their price. Competition then works to promote the development of alternatives. Capitalism is without ethics or any 'Corporate Code of Responsibility". The mantra of the marketplace is, "Let the buyer beware". This (buyer beware) is a predatory posture compared to a posture of contribution and accountability. I thought the mantra of the market place was "the customer is always right" (notice that customer service is in the interest of the producer/vendor). Nature is a 'closed system' and we use raw materials much faster than the Earth can reproduce them. The Sun shines! Anybody with an idea and a profit incentive can simply acquire materials and manufacture the most ridiculous item that can take 10,000 years (if at all) to degrade and be returned to the earth. This approach is non sustainable and indicates an eventual shortage of materials, not to mention trashing the environment. So, unsupervised capitalism rapes the environment and is without regard to its long term consequences. Its philosophy infects the consumer. Is your alternative to progress, wealth and long life then regression to the stone age, poverty and early death? Because without our "ridiculous" products, that's what we'd face. Of course, you'd first have to advocate and succeed in returning several billion of us "to the earth". Capitalism, to succeed to its maximum potential, requires an 'amoral' consumer base. This approach erodes culture. I think your use and punctuation of 'amoral' indicates the impossibility of defining the word in this context. That said, capitalism thrives upon cultural freedom. In the early days of the Enlightenment, when ideas of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom from slavery were expressed along with freedom to trade, marketplaces were the centers of cultural harmony. Catholics, Protestants and Jews were killing each other in state-controlled France, but in the markets of Liberal Holland, people of these groups mingled together peacefully and to their mutual benefit. Capitalism when combined with multimedia (TV) advertising results in the brainwashing of the viewing public. The advertising is designed to create a perpetual 'wanting' which is a form of perpetual discontent. Yet somehow, your mighty brain has emerged relatively unscathed. Are you really that much smarter than everyone else? I guess we should let you decide what the rest of us should and shouldn't buy, you know, for our own good. Capitalism, as it is presently, creates massive environmental pollution, i.e., Why fly half empty airplanes? Why establish a 'throw it away' consumer mentality? Note: Coka Cola, Inc., went into India to set up a beverage manufacturing plant. It (the plant), using local water, eventually caused the water table to drop by xx feet and wells dried up and crops failed and local residents had to buy Coke's bottled water at a ridiculously high (local economy) price. One example but quite typical. If the rule of law was actually enforced, as it must be for capitalism to thrive, the residents would have quite a case against Coca Cola. Now, I wonder what India's new and growing middle class would have to say about your desire to halt their advance from poverty. Capitalism is based upon 'gluttony' in the marketplace rather than temperance. In a capitalism, gluttony is relatively expensive. One can choose to be a glutton or not, and a glutton must pay for his excesses. When the state decrees what should be produced and purchased, all a glutton need do is buy a little political influence in order to feast with impunity upon the rest of his powerless nation. Capitalism is based upon the fallacy that "More is Better". Please display, formally, the logic that proves this a fallacy. I submit that only in a market, with free choice, can it be decided when more is better and when it is not. With the introduction of 'ethics' into the economic cosmology, capitalism as we know it, would grind to a halt. With the introduction of your 'ethics', civilization would grind to a halt. And of course, people would die. Though I get the impression that you're motivated more by your personal nature aesthetic than any real concern for the needs and desires of other people.

Page: First 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.