Fantastic read. It almost feels like you could draw a similar parallel to the anti-vaccine or anti-flourude rhetoric so common today. Hopefully we'll do a better job overcoming the ignorance....
Fantastic read. It almost feels like you could draw a similar parallel to the anti-vaccine or anti-flourude rhetoric so common today. Hopefully we'll do a better job overcoming the ignorance. Right now it seems somewhat bleak, at least in the US
I'll push back on that a bit. The 'cure' to scurvy was 'lost' because we didn't yet understand the underlying mechanism. It was understood that "citrus works" and that was good enough for awhile,...
I'll push back on that a bit. The 'cure' to scurvy was 'lost' because we didn't yet understand the underlying mechanism. It was understood that "citrus works" and that was good enough for awhile, but due to advances in ship speed it wasn't noticed that other new technologies invalidated that simplistic understanding or that different foods had different levels of effectiveness. With further investigation deficiency of ascorbic acid / Vitamin C was isolated and understood as the root cause.
Anti-vax and anti-flouride movements are purely reactionary ideological movements that have been weaponized as a way to mobilize voters. We have very solid understandings of the underlying mechanisms and use cases.
I also enjoyed reading the whole article. The central thesis of how scientific knowledge can regress due to simple misunderstandings, lack of rigor, and even advances in other fields that obscure...
I also enjoyed reading the whole article. The central thesis of how scientific knowledge can regress due to simple misunderstandings, lack of rigor, and even advances in other fields that obscure the importance of a vital discovery is both intriguing and unnerving, especially in this age where everyone thinks they're an expert in fields they've never seriously studied and "I did my own research" more often than not means means "I watched this guy's conspiracy theory channel on Youtube."
This blog is so good, I can't remember which other piece(s) from it I've read before but I know I've seen that fish logo. The essay has really got a fantastic thematic mix: lost knowledge,...
This blog is so good, I can't remember which other piece(s) from it I've read before but I know I've seen that fish logo.
The essay has really got a fantastic thematic mix: lost knowledge, scientific discovery, and most importantly for me: a pure-grit survival story in the remotest of environments. The story of Scott's doomed final expedition in particular is always worth a re-read.
On that note, time for me to get back to my own survival story in Rimworld Odyssey š¤
Apologies to those in the audience who have already seen this comment coming, but capitalism :3. On a less contentious note, the article reminded me that humans have a single gene mutation which...
Finally, that one of the simplest of diseases managed to utterly confound us for so long, at the cost of millions of lives, even after we had stumbled across an unequivocal cure. It makes you wonder how many incurable ailments of the modern worldādepression, autism, hypertension, obesityāwill turn out to have equally simple solutions, once we are able to see them in the correct light. What will we be slapping our foreheads about sixty years from now, wondering how we missed something so obvious?
Apologies to those in the audience who have already seen this comment coming, but capitalism :3.
On a less contentious note, the article reminded me that humans have a single gene mutation which prevents us from synthesizing vitamin C. Interestingly, at least one researcher hypothesizes that it could've been selected for to increase fat storage! (admittedly another paper I skimmed said that it's probably a neutral gene, which is motivated by how often it seems to be disabled in other species)
Johnson et al. have hypothesized that the mutation of the GULOP pseudogene so that it stopped producing GULO may have been of benefit to early primates by increasing uric acid levels and enhancing fructose effects on weight gain and fat accumulation. With a shortage of food supplies this gave mutants a survival advantage.[18]
If there was an easy solution to depression, capitalists would love to discover and sell it :P Plenty of governments are funding nonprofit research into every major medical problem you can think...
If there was an easy solution to depression, capitalists would love to discover and sell it :P
Plenty of governments are funding nonprofit research into every major medical problem you can think of. Science isn't easy!
I was thinking moreso that the capitalism focuses nearly entirely on economic growth, to the detriment of all other factors. We -- people who work for a living, presumably, unless you're extremely...
Exemplary
I was thinking moreso that the capitalism focuses nearly entirely on economic growth, to the detriment of all other factors. We -- people who work for a living, presumably, unless you're extremely wealthy and can live on your investments alone! -- then get crushed by a world-spanning machine that is designed to extract maximum value from every moment of existence.
For flavour, here're some idle thoughts about those incurable ailments:
depression, hypertension, obesity: all of these are common symptoms of chronic stress, which (in the above analysis) could be attributed in large part to living in a world where losing your job -- e.g. through injury, exhaustion, or a need to care for a dependent -- means losing your medical coverage, home, food, water, personal safety, etc. as well as most of society shunning you. Not to mention that all those become increasingly expensive as the people in charge of them squeeze harder to get more profit out of you.
autism: not sure if this counts as an ailment, but just to engage with the author on their topic, psychological disorders are normally only diagnosed when they become harmful to the individual (or to those around them). Under that lens, autism is harmful when it prevents individuals from obtaining gainful employment and independence. Another way of stating that could be: people are only as useful as their work output, and anyone who cannot work either in the same fashion or degree as the majority of others are disordered. Thus, autism is only a problem in a world where maximum work output per capita is the sole optimized value, and therefore capitalism could be at the root cause of it as well.
Anyways, I'm sure this is really contentious for folks, because there are definitely a few names on this forum who I'm aware keenly despise invocation and critique of the C word š point is, though, that I feel that time will prove that it's the root of most of our social ills, per the author's quote:
What will we be slapping our foreheads about sixty years from now, wondering how we missed something so obvious?
edit: Or to put it more bluntly: "(in 60 years) slaps forehead of course, a worldwide economic system designed to dehumanize and concentrate power in the hands of the few would lead to mass harm and inevitable conflict!"
As much as I love to point out the failures of capitalism, autism is also a problem when it prevents you from keeping yourself physically healthy or forming social connections and those aren't...
As much as I love to point out the failures of capitalism, autism is also a problem when it prevents you from keeping yourself physically healthy or forming social connections and those aren't related to work output.
Totally fair! Iād also underline that Iām painting with a wide brush ā I know a fair few people who identify as being on the spectrum, and they all succeed to varying degrees at tasks which...
Totally fair! Iād also underline that Iām painting with a wide brush ā I know a fair few people who identify as being on the spectrum, and they all succeed to varying degrees at tasks which neurotypical folks take for granted.
My goal was to underline that being forced to work 40 hours a week (or more) in jobs that demand skill sets that are already difficult to some folks can overtax them, potentially exacerbating other symptoms. Totally agreed that people would still have autism ā and the social + physical issues that can arise from it ā without living under capitalism, but theyād also be able to retire, eat food, and receive medication while doing so.
I think you're right to point at the fact that diagnoses do at least ostensibly require whatever deviation from the norm you have to be distressing or otherwise interfere with your life in a...
I think you're right to point at the fact that diagnoses do at least ostensibly require whatever deviation from the norm you have to be distressing or otherwise interfere with your life in a negative way, and that capitalism almost always exacerbates these existing problems. But I think mental healthcare can often counterintuitively focus too much on whether these things interfere with work specifically rather than looking at how they interfere with one's life more broadly. I was initially told to only take my ADHD medication on workdays, for instance, and that fucked me up because I couldn't get anything done outside of work without it and really needed its effects day-to-day outside of the workplace.
The advice that convinced me to take stimulants on non-workdays was: "why do you value your mental health at work more than your mental health at home?" I don't need them as much on some of my...
The advice that convinced me to take stimulants on non-workdays was: "why do you value your mental health at work more than your mental health at home?"
I don't need them as much on some of my days off, but I don't avoid them when they'd help!
For me it was less that I needed advice to do it and more that I needed to start consciously ignoring advice from my psych and convince him it was better this way. He was relatively easy to...
For me it was less that I needed advice to do it and more that I needed to start consciously ignoring advice from my psych and convince him it was better this way. He was relatively easy to convince once I pushed, but that was a big barrier for me.
I think this is at too high a level of abstraction to be useful. "Economic growth" is a very vague term that includes both positive and negative forms of growth. The rapid growth of solar power is...
I think this is at too high a level of abstraction to be useful. "Economic growth" is a very vague term that includes both positive and negative forms of growth. The rapid growth of solar power is economic activity, which can be measured in dollars spent. The growth of fossil fuel infrastructure would also be measured in dollars. It matters which it is.
Even after zooming in a level, to be against military spending would be rather simplistic, assuming you don't think the Ukrainians should be abandoned. There are good and bad causes.
There's similar complexity however far you zoom in - at every level, there are better and worse ways to spend money.
Preface: Iām going to make this reply, then let you have the last word afterwards ā this isnāt a capitalism vs everything thread, itās a lighthearted discussion about scurvy. (although,...
Preface: Iām going to make this reply, then let you have the last word afterwards ā this isnāt a capitalism vs everything thread, itās a lighthearted discussion about scurvy.
(although, ironically, a profit motive is what drove the British to buying limes vs lemons, per the article. Anyways)
I think this is at too high a level of abstraction to be useful. "Economic growth" is a very vague term that includes both positive and negative forms of growth. The rapid growth of solar power is economic activity, which can be measured in dollars spent. The growth of fossil fuel infrastructure would also be measured in dollars. It matters which it is.
Youāre totally entitled to your opinion, but I would counterpoint that (1) I absolutely mean all economic growth, regardless of sector, (2) my statement was that capitalism is problematic when it focuses on economic growth to the detriment of other factors, and (3) itās useful because it provides a framework for understanding or predicting the behaviour of market actors.
To your point, I would ask if you can imagine a situation where building out more solar power could be profitable but harmful in some way ā eg. displacing some other land use, being deployed in some unethical manner, etc. Then, try to imagine whether a rational actor under capitalism would hold onto their ethics, and avoid doing the profitable thing, or if they would take a swing at it regardless.
Thatās the core of my argument: capitalism eventually forces everyone to care intimately about profit, above all other factors. The rich do so to preserve their wealth, the poor do so to survive under increasing economic pressure.
Just a note: not OP. But IMO that depends on what you see the source of "greed" is. I think the desire and capacity for humans to hurt other humans for their own personal gain is ingrained in...
Just a note: not OP.
But IMO that depends on what you see the source of "greed" is. I think the desire and capacity for humans to hurt other humans for their own personal gain is ingrained in humanity. That's not because of anything particularly nefarious; it's simply that in a prisoner's dilemma-like setup, it's inevitable for this to happen.
In every recorded human civilization, no matter the economic setup, or political setup, there are always people who screw over other ("honest") people for their own gain, and they generally do pretty well for themselves. Is what it is.
The great feature of "capitalism", which I will define here as a combination of market-based resource allocation and a majority of assets being privately owned, is that this is harnessed for something. A context is set up where we can assume all parties are maximally greedy, and yet that is the intention. The force balance each other out.
Of course, there are many edge cases, but it by all accounts holds well for 80% of the economic activity of a country, and I don't think it's an accident that despite much experimentation over the 20th and 21st, there's pretty much two models that thrive: capitalist fusions (ranging from Chicago Boys Chile to Sweden to CCP China), and resource-based autocracies.
(my no-more-replies rule was to skybrian, not yourself, so I shall permit myself this comment :3) To be 100% honest, I wouldāve made the exact same argument about human nature and capitalism a...
(my no-more-replies rule was to skybrian, not yourself, so I shall permit myself this comment :3)
To be 100% honest, I wouldāve made the exact same argument about human nature and capitalism a dozen years ago, so Iām not sure if Iām getting senile in my old age or Iāve had some Great Revelation about human nature š thus it feels weird to be having this conversation. Please consider this moreso a reply to my former self than to you.
What helped change my mind is the notion that resource scarcity could easily be blamed for most of the violence weāve done to each other. And that in the modern era of abundance ā of more than enough to sate every person on earth ā we have a chance to find a better way to live.
In terms of modern works, worker co-ops seem like a step forwards that is both compatible with the rules of capitalism, but retains sufficient humanity to avoid instantly crushing everything in its proximity into fungible paste. Iād also lean away from looking at basically any modern economy for inspiration, since the incentive structure for any profit seeking entity would encourage it to seek out ways to make alternatives fail (eg by enforcing embargoes, engaging in proxy wars, denying trade, etc.), so any non-trivial attempt will likely have some transparent tampering involved to encourage failure.
I don't think we're anywhere close to sufficient resource abundance to satiate the human desire for hoarding. It's ingrained in our DNA. It's evolutionary beneficial for humans to continue to want...
I don't think we're anywhere close to sufficient resource abundance to satiate the human desire for hoarding. It's ingrained in our DNA. It's evolutionary beneficial for humans to continue to want and want, because in the wild, you never know when you will need more. I don't think this is something that can be trained away, just managed.
worker co-ops seem like a step forwards that is both compatible with the rules of capitalism, but retains sufficient humanity to avoid instantly crushing everything in its proximity into fungible paste.
Sure. This is an example of how "capitalism" is very broad, in practice, and can fit many different kind of models.
Iād also lean away from looking at basically any modern economy for inspiration, since the incentive structure for any profit seeking entity would encourage it to seek out ways to make alternatives fail
I think being stable and self sufficient is an important part of any kind of economic or governmental system; if a system only works if every major country in the world plays nice with it, then, realistically, it's not going to work. That's just how it is. Humans always look for advantageous, historically.
If you can't withstanding tampering, you're not fit. Because other countries will always tamper.
(just ducking out of this conversation now -- we could already factually materially provide decent living standards to everyone, and we're just going to talk past each other by attempting to make...
(just ducking out of this conversation now -- we could already factually materially provide decent living standards to everyone, and we're just going to talk past each other by attempting to make evolutionary psychology arguments about human nature. I'm not terribly willing to have a discussion where we pound chests at each other, and that's what these threads always devolve into. Hope you have a good evening; as before, I won't reply to replies to this message so you can have the last word š)
I think you're associating economic growth too closely with for-profit businesses? Increased government or non-profit spending would also count as economic growth. Also, non-profits aren't exempt...
I think you're associating economic growth too closely with for-profit businesses? Increased government or non-profit spending would also count as economic growth. Also, non-profits aren't exempt from budgeting and efficiency considerations.
Comrade, Marx was an economist. What do you think an economy is? An economy is all production, trade, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. If you cook a meal, that's an economic...
my statement was that capitalism is problematic when it focuses on economic growth to the detriment of other factors
Comrade, Marx was an economist. What do you think an economy is? An economy is all production, trade, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. If you cook a meal, that's an economic activity. Taking a mental health day? Believe it or not, also an economic activity.
Economic growth as you're conceptualising it is separate from capitalism or any other economic system. The issues you're identifying were actually much worse in "workers paradise" countries that didn't focus on economic growth.
Price wars are a good case study for this dilemma. If a company has increased profit by taking market share via temporarily reduced prices, it's not immediately clear whether their choices have...
Price wars are a good case study for this dilemma.
If a company has increased profit by taking market share via temporarily reduced prices, it's not immediately clear whether their choices have led to increased or decreased short term or long term profits, but it is clear that their actions have a net negative effect on the country's economy.
Less profit within the industry means reduced investment which leads to less money for R&D; less innovation leads to less economic growth. Short-term belt tightening can be good... it can encourage people to think creatively and differentiate their product. But long-term it causes competitors to close: reducing competition.
The drive for profit nearly always leads to consolidation: oligopolies and monopolies. Monopolies can be generative, especially in the short-term, but long-term they eventually turn parasitic. That's not to say that governments are exempt from this, per se. Governments can be just as parasitic as large non-governmental organizations.
If a government operates a monopoly, and if the government has the same incentives and moral structures as these corporations, then it can certainly behave like a corporation. The difference between large organizations and governments is often only one of true goals and accountability. Identifying and auditing that your governments goals are the same that are claimed is made easier by laws of transparency.
Global mergers and acquisitions (M&A) volume has tripled over the past two decades, reaching over $3.6 trillion in 2021 alone. This surge in M&A activity has been driven by the ready availability of cheap debt, which has allowed companies to finance acquisitions at historically low costs. The acquisition of YouTube by Google in 2006, long before the platform became profitable, is a prime example of how large tech companies have used this strategy to eliminate competition and entrench their market positions.
If we define economic growth as accounting for this, if the goal is long-term sustainability (even sustainable de-growth when necessary: small businesses laying off people several times per year is less disruptive than coordinated annual corporate decimation), it can no longer be called simply capitalism.
Thatās not the case. Itās not just that we want to make more stuff blindly, itās that we need to make things in proportion to the need for them. This is one of the major weaknesses of planned...
but it is clear that their actions have a net negative effect on the country's economy.
Thatās not the case. Itās not just that we want to make more stuff blindly, itās that we need to make things in proportion to the need for them. This is one of the major weaknesses of planned economies - they make a lot of things, but have a difficult time with nuanced and quickly changing demand, meaning that even when their economies are doing well, there can often be shortages of random items.
A price increase can indicate two things.
One is that it indicates that we need more of something. When the unit price increases, thereās more room for other firms to enter the market and make profit.
Secondly, it indicates that we need a lot less of something, because it cost more to make it, and itās a signal for consumers to move to alternatives.
Neither is ābadā. Itās just a thing that happens.
If we define economic growth as accounting for this, if the goal is long-term sustainability (even sustainable de-growth when necessary: small businesses laying off people several times per year is less disruptive than coordinated annual corporate decimation), it can no longer be called simply capitalism.
Why not? What part of the textbook definition of capitalism does that contradict?
Not a communist, but thank you for the compliment. An engine that serves to produce a societyās needs. Notably, society should not exist for the sole purpose of keeping the engine running. Itās a...
Comrade
Not a communist, but thank you for the compliment.
What do you think an economy is?
An engine that serves to produce a societyās needs. Notably, society should not exist for the sole purpose of keeping the engine running. Itās a balance.
Economic growth as you're conceptualising it is separate from capitalism or any other economic system.
Yes, thatās because Iām describing degrowth, not communism. Hereās Wikipediaās definition:
It argues that modern capitalism's unitary focus on growth causes widespread ecological damage and is unnecessary for the further increase of human living standards.
If we lived in an alternative economic system that had similar impacts (worldwide collapse of fisheries, extinction of entire crops, slash and burn deforestation in the rainforest, etc.) I would be having this exact same conversation.
Iām off from this thread as well, in the meagre hope of shoving this metaphorical train back on track. If someone would like a debate ā with cited sources, well defined topics, and a laser focus on describing viewpoints rather than rhetorical spectacle ā I would be happy to go participate there in a different thread :3
Countries focus on economic growth because increased productivity and wealth are huge protective factors when it comes to mental health. Still, wealth is no silver bullet as all of Musk's or...
Countries focus on economic growth because increased productivity and wealth are huge protective factors when it comes to mental health. Still, wealth is no silver bullet as all of Musk's or Kanye's neurosis demonstrates...
Humanities' access to essential resources has never been better! If all someone wants are the bare essentials and a shack in the woods, it has never been easier to work part time and live a modest lifestyle. The average peasant in the 1700s would literally kill for the lifestyle of a modern, impoverished European!
As for mental diagnoses as a social versus individual problem, that's complicated and open to debate. Though I'm not sure modern pressures are causing increased mental health struggles. Most of the data I've seen lays the blame on social media and isolation. Millions of people are chasing that infinite scroll rather than making meaningful connections, and the social consequences have been devastating.
Fantastic read. It almost feels like you could draw a similar parallel to the anti-vaccine or anti-flourude rhetoric so common today. Hopefully we'll do a better job overcoming the ignorance. Right now it seems somewhat bleak, at least in the US
I'll push back on that a bit. The 'cure' to scurvy was 'lost' because we didn't yet understand the underlying mechanism. It was understood that "citrus works" and that was good enough for awhile, but due to advances in ship speed it wasn't noticed that other new technologies invalidated that simplistic understanding or that different foods had different levels of effectiveness. With further investigation deficiency of ascorbic acid / Vitamin C was isolated and understood as the root cause.
Anti-vax and anti-flouride movements are purely reactionary ideological movements that have been weaponized as a way to mobilize voters. We have very solid understandings of the underlying mechanisms and use cases.
I also enjoyed reading the whole article. The central thesis of how scientific knowledge can regress due to simple misunderstandings, lack of rigor, and even advances in other fields that obscure the importance of a vital discovery is both intriguing and unnerving, especially in this age where everyone thinks they're an expert in fields they've never seriously studied and "I did my own research" more often than not means means "I watched this guy's conspiracy theory channel on Youtube."
This blog is so good, I can't remember which other piece(s) from it I've read before but I know I've seen that fish logo.
The essay has really got a fantastic thematic mix: lost knowledge, scientific discovery, and most importantly for me: a pure-grit survival story in the remotest of environments. The story of Scott's doomed final expedition in particular is always worth a re-read.
On that note, time for me to get back to my own survival story in Rimworld Odyssey š¤
Apologies to those in the audience who have already seen this comment coming, but capitalism :3.
On a less contentious note, the article reminded me that humans have a single gene mutation which prevents us from synthesizing vitamin C. Interestingly, at least one researcher hypothesizes that it could've been selected for to increase fat storage! (admittedly another paper I skimmed said that it's probably a neutral gene, which is motivated by how often it seems to be disabled in other species)
If it didn't have other effects, I'd trade decreased weight gain from fructose for vitamin c synthesis.
If there was an easy solution to depression, capitalists would love to discover and sell it :P
Plenty of governments are funding nonprofit research into every major medical problem you can think of. Science isn't easy!
I was thinking moreso that the capitalism focuses nearly entirely on economic growth, to the detriment of all other factors. We -- people who work for a living, presumably, unless you're extremely wealthy and can live on your investments alone! -- then get crushed by a world-spanning machine that is designed to extract maximum value from every moment of existence.
For flavour, here're some idle thoughts about those incurable ailments:
Anyways, I'm sure this is really contentious for folks, because there are definitely a few names on this forum who I'm aware keenly despise invocation and critique of the C word š point is, though, that I feel that time will prove that it's the root of most of our social ills, per the author's quote:
edit: Or to put it more bluntly: "(in 60 years) slaps forehead of course, a worldwide economic system designed to dehumanize and concentrate power in the hands of the few would lead to mass harm and inevitable conflict!"
As much as I love to point out the failures of capitalism, autism is also a problem when it prevents you from keeping yourself physically healthy or forming social connections and those aren't related to work output.
Totally fair! Iād also underline that Iām painting with a wide brush ā I know a fair few people who identify as being on the spectrum, and they all succeed to varying degrees at tasks which neurotypical folks take for granted.
My goal was to underline that being forced to work 40 hours a week (or more) in jobs that demand skill sets that are already difficult to some folks can overtax them, potentially exacerbating other symptoms. Totally agreed that people would still have autism ā and the social + physical issues that can arise from it ā without living under capitalism, but theyād also be able to retire, eat food, and receive medication while doing so.
I think you're right to point at the fact that diagnoses do at least ostensibly require whatever deviation from the norm you have to be distressing or otherwise interfere with your life in a negative way, and that capitalism almost always exacerbates these existing problems. But I think mental healthcare can often counterintuitively focus too much on whether these things interfere with work specifically rather than looking at how they interfere with one's life more broadly. I was initially told to only take my ADHD medication on workdays, for instance, and that fucked me up because I couldn't get anything done outside of work without it and really needed its effects day-to-day outside of the workplace.
The advice that convinced me to take stimulants on non-workdays was: "why do you value your mental health at work more than your mental health at home?"
I don't need them as much on some of my days off, but I don't avoid them when they'd help!
For me it was less that I needed advice to do it and more that I needed to start consciously ignoring advice from my psych and convince him it was better this way. He was relatively easy to convince once I pushed, but that was a big barrier for me.
I think this is at too high a level of abstraction to be useful. "Economic growth" is a very vague term that includes both positive and negative forms of growth. The rapid growth of solar power is economic activity, which can be measured in dollars spent. The growth of fossil fuel infrastructure would also be measured in dollars. It matters which it is.
Even after zooming in a level, to be against military spending would be rather simplistic, assuming you don't think the Ukrainians should be abandoned. There are good and bad causes.
There's similar complexity however far you zoom in - at every level, there are better and worse ways to spend money.
Preface: Iām going to make this reply, then let you have the last word afterwards ā this isnāt a capitalism vs everything thread, itās a lighthearted discussion about scurvy.
(although, ironically, a profit motive is what drove the British to buying limes vs lemons, per the article. Anyways)
Youāre totally entitled to your opinion, but I would counterpoint that (1) I absolutely mean all economic growth, regardless of sector, (2) my statement was that capitalism is problematic when it focuses on economic growth to the detriment of other factors, and (3) itās useful because it provides a framework for understanding or predicting the behaviour of market actors.
To your point, I would ask if you can imagine a situation where building out more solar power could be profitable but harmful in some way ā eg. displacing some other land use, being deployed in some unethical manner, etc. Then, try to imagine whether a rational actor under capitalism would hold onto their ethics, and avoid doing the profitable thing, or if they would take a swing at it regardless.
Thatās the core of my argument: capitalism eventually forces everyone to care intimately about profit, above all other factors. The rich do so to preserve their wealth, the poor do so to survive under increasing economic pressure.
Just a note: not OP.
But IMO that depends on what you see the source of "greed" is. I think the desire and capacity for humans to hurt other humans for their own personal gain is ingrained in humanity. That's not because of anything particularly nefarious; it's simply that in a prisoner's dilemma-like setup, it's inevitable for this to happen.
In every recorded human civilization, no matter the economic setup, or political setup, there are always people who screw over other ("honest") people for their own gain, and they generally do pretty well for themselves. Is what it is.
The great feature of "capitalism", which I will define here as a combination of market-based resource allocation and a majority of assets being privately owned, is that this is harnessed for something. A context is set up where we can assume all parties are maximally greedy, and yet that is the intention. The force balance each other out.
Of course, there are many edge cases, but it by all accounts holds well for 80% of the economic activity of a country, and I don't think it's an accident that despite much experimentation over the 20th and 21st, there's pretty much two models that thrive: capitalist fusions (ranging from Chicago Boys Chile to Sweden to CCP China), and resource-based autocracies.
(my no-more-replies rule was to skybrian, not yourself, so I shall permit myself this comment :3)
To be 100% honest, I wouldāve made the exact same argument about human nature and capitalism a dozen years ago, so Iām not sure if Iām getting senile in my old age or Iāve had some Great Revelation about human nature š thus it feels weird to be having this conversation. Please consider this moreso a reply to my former self than to you.
What helped change my mind is the notion that resource scarcity could easily be blamed for most of the violence weāve done to each other. And that in the modern era of abundance ā of more than enough to sate every person on earth ā we have a chance to find a better way to live.
In terms of modern works, worker co-ops seem like a step forwards that is both compatible with the rules of capitalism, but retains sufficient humanity to avoid instantly crushing everything in its proximity into fungible paste. Iād also lean away from looking at basically any modern economy for inspiration, since the incentive structure for any profit seeking entity would encourage it to seek out ways to make alternatives fail (eg by enforcing embargoes, engaging in proxy wars, denying trade, etc.), so any non-trivial attempt will likely have some transparent tampering involved to encourage failure.
I don't think we're anywhere close to sufficient resource abundance to satiate the human desire for hoarding. It's ingrained in our DNA. It's evolutionary beneficial for humans to continue to want and want, because in the wild, you never know when you will need more. I don't think this is something that can be trained away, just managed.
Sure. This is an example of how "capitalism" is very broad, in practice, and can fit many different kind of models.
I think being stable and self sufficient is an important part of any kind of economic or governmental system; if a system only works if every major country in the world plays nice with it, then, realistically, it's not going to work. That's just how it is. Humans always look for advantageous, historically.
If you can't withstanding tampering, you're not fit. Because other countries will always tamper.
(just ducking out of this conversation now -- we could already factually materially provide decent living standards to everyone, and we're just going to talk past each other by attempting to make evolutionary psychology arguments about human nature. I'm not terribly willing to have a discussion where we pound chests at each other, and that's what these threads always devolve into. Hope you have a good evening; as before, I won't reply to replies to this message so you can have the last word š)
I think you're associating economic growth too closely with for-profit businesses? Increased government or non-profit spending would also count as economic growth. Also, non-profits aren't exempt from budgeting and efficiency considerations.
Comrade, Marx was an economist. What do you think an economy is? An economy is all production, trade, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. If you cook a meal, that's an economic activity. Taking a mental health day? Believe it or not, also an economic activity.
Economic growth as you're conceptualising it is separate from capitalism or any other economic system. The issues you're identifying were actually much worse in "workers paradise" countries that didn't focus on economic growth.
Price wars are a good case study for this dilemma.
If a company has increased profit by taking market share via temporarily reduced prices, it's not immediately clear whether their choices have led to increased or decreased short term or long term profits, but it is clear that their actions have a net negative effect on the country's economy.
Less profit within the industry means reduced investment which leads to less money for R&D; less innovation leads to less economic growth. Short-term belt tightening can be good... it can encourage people to think creatively and differentiate their product. But long-term it causes competitors to close: reducing competition.
The drive for profit nearly always leads to consolidation: oligopolies and monopolies. Monopolies can be generative, especially in the short-term, but long-term they eventually turn parasitic. That's not to say that governments are exempt from this, per se. Governments can be just as parasitic as large non-governmental organizations.
If a government operates a monopoly, and if the government has the same incentives and moral structures as these corporations, then it can certainly behave like a corporation. The difference between large organizations and governments is often only one of true goals and accountability. Identifying and auditing that your governments goals are the same that are claimed is made easier by laws of transparency.
If we define economic growth as accounting for this, if the goal is long-term sustainability (even sustainable de-growth when necessary: small businesses laying off people several times per year is less disruptive than coordinated annual corporate decimation), it can no longer be called simply capitalism.
Thatās not the case. Itās not just that we want to make more stuff blindly, itās that we need to make things in proportion to the need for them. This is one of the major weaknesses of planned economies - they make a lot of things, but have a difficult time with nuanced and quickly changing demand, meaning that even when their economies are doing well, there can often be shortages of random items.
A price increase can indicate two things.
One is that it indicates that we need more of something. When the unit price increases, thereās more room for other firms to enter the market and make profit.
Secondly, it indicates that we need a lot less of something, because it cost more to make it, and itās a signal for consumers to move to alternatives.
Neither is ābadā. Itās just a thing that happens.
Why not? What part of the textbook definition of capitalism does that contradict?
A price war is when competing firms lower prices
Not a communist, but thank you for the compliment.
An engine that serves to produce a societyās needs. Notably, society should not exist for the sole purpose of keeping the engine running. Itās a balance.
Yes, thatās because Iām describing degrowth, not communism. Hereās Wikipediaās definition:
If we lived in an alternative economic system that had similar impacts (worldwide collapse of fisheries, extinction of entire crops, slash and burn deforestation in the rainforest, etc.) I would be having this exact same conversation.
Iām off from this thread as well, in the meagre hope of shoving this metaphorical train back on track. If someone would like a debate ā with cited sources, well defined topics, and a laser focus on describing viewpoints rather than rhetorical spectacle ā I would be happy to go participate there in a different thread :3
Hope your Monday is a pleasant one.
Countries focus on economic growth because increased productivity and wealth are huge protective factors when it comes to mental health. Still, wealth is no silver bullet as all of Musk's or Kanye's neurosis demonstrates...
Humanities' access to essential resources has never been better! If all someone wants are the bare essentials and a shack in the woods, it has never been easier to work part time and live a modest lifestyle. The average peasant in the 1700s would literally kill for the lifestyle of a modern, impoverished European!
As for mental diagnoses as a social versus individual problem, that's complicated and open to debate. Though I'm not sure modern pressures are causing increased mental health struggles. Most of the data I've seen lays the blame on social media and isolation. Millions of people are chasing that infinite scroll rather than making meaningful connections, and the social consequences have been devastating.
At this point, we're way off topic though!