The Future of Capitalism?

[BSM1]

Unless capitalism, at least as we now see it, adjusts to a growing population but a shrinking amount of resources, it will not survive in most locations in the long run.

It's simply a matter of logistics, whereas the greater the gap of income equality and the more difficult it is for those in the lower tiers to get adequate resources, the less stability. Greenspan about 10 years ago considered this to be the single greatest danger to America's well being. Of course he said this before Trump being our Commander-In-Chief

This is the beauty of Capitalism. Even if your worse economic nightmare comes true someone will find a way to make a buck and give us what we need or want. You simply can't stop a capitalists from capitalizing.

 

[metis]

This is the beauty of Capitalism. Even if your worse economic nightmare comes true someone will find a way to make a buck and give us what we need or want. You simply can't stop a capitalists from capitalizing.

I agree and, btw, I hope you're not assuming I'm anti-capitalistic. Like so many other things, "everything in moderation, nothing to extreme"-- although that in and of itself is an extreme statement. Being Buddhist, this should resonate with ya.

 

[suncowiam]

Unless capitalism, at least as we now see it, adjusts to a growing population but a shrinking amount of resources, it will not survive in most locations in the long run.

It's simply a matter of logistics, whereas the greater the gap of income equality and the more difficult it is for those in the lower tiers to get adequate resources, the less stability. Greenspan about 10 years ago considered this to be the single greatest danger to America's well being. Of course he said this before Trump being our Commander-In-Chief

Capitalism has been the best social structure to bring forth advancements in technologies, medicines and other useful innovations for humanity. If there's a need, than there's a will through venture capitalism.

I agree we have limited resources, but this is not new and is not something Capitalism created. It is a problem for all societies. Capitalism will find alternative resources much faster than other social paradigms.

I don't see anything useful coming out of North Korea or Cuba? More like a bunch of people being forced to sing Kumbaya.

 

[David T]

Given the amount of economic and political turmoil, I wanted to ask people here what you think the future of Capitalism will be? Will it continue to deliver massive economic advances as it has done over the past two hundred years? or Will it fall into crisis or become stagnant and be replaced by another "post-capitalist" economic system? Are there good reasons to be optimistic about the future?

**This is the Capitalist Only Sub-forum**
Please Respect the Money

The buffalo population went from 20,000,000 in 1800 to 1094 by 1889. I ran a calculation and applied it to 7.5 billion which brought the number to 300,000. That gives me great hope! So I would say the future is very bright on the other side of that 300,000 number!!!! I would say currency then will be radically different how I have no idea and no one else does either.

 

[YmirGF]

The buffalo population went from 20,000,000 in 1800 to 1094 by 1889. I ran a calculation and applied it to 7.5 billion which brought the number to 300,000. That gives me great hope! So I would say the future is very bright on the other side of that 300,000 number!!!! I would say currency then will be radically different how I have no idea and no one else does either.

Are you actually saying what I think you are saying? I guess we have different definitions of happy times.

 

[David T]

Are you actually saying what I think you are saying? I guess we have different definitions of happy times.

We are 14 billion years old.

 

[YmirGF]

We are 14 billion years old.

and....

 

[David T]

and....

And you understand that? I didn't catch that in your previous statement you actually did!! You seem confused

 

[metis]

Capitalism has been the best social structure to bring forth advancements in technologies, medicines and other useful innovations for humanity.

I don't disagree with that. What I am saying is that capitalism will undoubtedly have to adjusted in future decades because of population growth and reduction in some resources. It already is very different than what we saw 100 and 200 years ago, whereas pretty much every country has come to realize that it needs to be modified with socialistic elements that many of us now take for granted. Even a hard-line capitalist here in the west is likely going to want the protections offered by Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, welfare, the FDIC, medical subsidies, etc.

To put it another way, laissez-faire capitalism died a long time ago.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't disagree with that. What I am saying is that capitalism will undoubtedly have to adjusted in future decades because of population growth and reduction in some resources. It already is very different than what we saw 100 and 200 years ago, whereas pretty much every country has come to realize that it needs to be modified with socialistic elements that many of us now take for granted. Even a hard-line capitalist here in the west is likely going to want the protections offered by Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, welfare, the FDIC, medical subsidies, etc.

To put it another way, laissez-faire capitalism died a long time ago.

Capitalism with a heart? Capitalism that seeks to not only enrich the individual but also enrich the lives of those around them? I could go for that.

 

[metis]

Capitalism with a heart?

And if you're in the business of selling refried beans, it could be "capitalism with a fart".

 

[suncowiam]

I don't disagree with that. What I am saying is that capitalism will undoubtedly have to adjusted in future decades because of population growth and reduction in some resources. It already is very different than what we saw 100 and 200 years ago, whereas pretty much every country has come to realize that it needs to be modified with socialistic elements that many of us now take for granted. Even a hard-line capitalist here in the west is likely going to want the protections offered by Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, welfare, the FDIC, medical subsidies, etc.

To put it another way, laissez-faire capitalism died a long time ago.

I get what you're saying.

I can't speak for other capitalists but I definitely will not depend on Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment and others from your list for my future.

Capitalism offers me much more non-government choices to deal with my future security.

 

[YmirGF]

I get what you're saying.

I can't speak for other capitalists but I definitely will not depend on Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment and others from your list for my future.

Capitalism offers me much more non-government choices to deal with my future security.

Absolutely, as it should, however there will always be folks who do not make the brightest decisions and other folks who are trapped by unfortunate circumstances and other folks who are simply overwhelmed by the pace of our very fast modern era. We can't sit counting our stockpiles while others suffer.

Life has been generous to me. I've also made both very good and very bad mistakes along the way. I was smart enough and tenacious enough to get back up again and carry on every time I screwed up. It's not that we should provide enough to the downtrodden to de-incentivize them in that they would be worse off without our aid than they would with gainful employment but neither should we starve them and force them out onto our streets.

There has to be a happy median so that folks get help when they need it and are deserving of help and that we maybe give a leg up to those who can't quite make it by themselves.

 

[suncowiam]

Absolutely, as it should, however there will always be folks who do not make the brightest decisions and other folks who are trapped by unfortunate circumstances and other folks who are simply overwhelmed by the pace of our very fast modern era. We can't sit counting our stockpiles while others suffer.

Life has been generous to me. I've also made both very good and very bad mistakes along the way. I was smart enough and tenacious enough to get back up again and carry on every time I screwed up. It's not that we should provide enough to the downtrodden to de-incentivize them in that they would be worse off without our aid than they would with gainful employment but neither should we starve them and force them out onto our streets.

There has to be a happy median so that folks get help when they need it and are deserving of help and that we maybe give a leg up to those who can't quite make it by themselves.

This is my mantra which partially overlaps with that.

Teach people to fish. Don't give out free fish.

Well, it goes something like that...

People will have to learn from their mistakes. I vote liberally so my track record speaks for itself but I'm not going to give out hand outs to people that continues to "fail" with expectations of others to pull themselves out. There's a distinction between people down on their luck versus people that take advantage of the system. I support systems that specifically support structural needs as opposed to simply supporting population. I would never support anything that simply gives out money untracked. I support housing, food stamps, education, healthcare as long as we can track the progress of how it improves society... If it doesn't then we need to update it until it does.

 

[metis]

I can't speak for other capitalists but I definitely will not depend on Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment and others from your list for my future.

I was not as fortunate in this area as you because being in education simply didn't pay that much, especially at the beginning of my career. When I took that job, I literally turned down making double the amount with an offer that I got from Monsanto. However, I never regretted my decision and would do it all over again.

Right now, I do collect SS and Medicare, and without either of them I'd probably survive but at no where near the same level I've been at-- and I don't live very high at all, let me tell ya. Either way, even though you may not need these social programs, millions of Americans do, and the history of what was happening to people before these programs were enacted was all so often rather nasty.

 

[metis]

Teach people to fish. Don't give out free fish.

But under capitalism it really doesn't work out that way for so many people. Even if every single American had a ph.d., there still would be unemployment because of the nature of the system.

Sometimes we gotta give out "free fish" (actually it's really not free most of the time because most on assistance either did work or do work) before we "teach people to fish".

 

[suncowiam]

I was not as fortunate in this area as you because being in education simply didn't pay that much, especially at the beginning of my career. When I took that job, I literally turned down making double the amount with an offer that I got from Monsanto. However, I never regretted my decision and would do it all over again.

Right now, I do collect SS and Medicare, and without either of them I'd probably survive but at no where near the same level I've been at-- and I don't live very high at all, let me tell ya. Either way, even though you may not need these social programs, millions of Americans do, and the history of what was happening to people before these programs were enacted was all so often rather nasty.

But under capitalism it really doesn't work out that way for so many people. Even if every single American had a ph.d., there still would be unemployment because of the nature of the system.

Sometimes we gotta give out "free fish" (actually it's really not free most of the time because most on assistance either did work or do work) before we "teach people to fish".

Some of these systems are broken. Some of these programs are not sustainable especially social security. As you mentioned, we live in world of limited resources. For everything we take out, we have to put something back in.

I have no proper fix for much of it but I would suggest that taking more out than we can put back in is much of the root cause of our issues. Many social programs that give more than it can sustain will only make things worst. Not to sound cold, but people have to produce services, items, innovations that are needed by society. Everyone should produce and give back to society. Single individuals do not decide what is important. Society as a whole decides this. The tricky part is projecting what society will need. So having a PH.D. when society doesn't need more PH.D.s is just counter productive.

Again, I'm not against helping the unfortunate, but at some point those unfortunates have to turn it around themselves and stand on their own legs.

 

[BSM1]

Some of these systems are broken. Some of these programs are not sustainable especially social security. As you mentioned, we live in world of limited resources. For everything we take out, we have to put something back in.

I have no proper fix for much of it but I would suggest that taking more out than we can put back in is much of the root cause of our issues. Many social programs that give more than it can sustain will only make things worst. Not to sound cold, but people have to produce services, items, innovations that are needed by society. Everyone should produce and give back to society. Single individuals do not decide what is important. Society as a whole decides this. The tricky part is projecting what society will need. So having a PH.D. when society doesn't need more PH.D.s is just counter productive.

Again, I'm not against helping the unfortunate, but at some point those unfortunates have to turn it around themselves and stand on their own legs.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Social Security is not a social program. This was money that was paid in (forcibly) by the earners in the country. It is their money, period.

 

[metis]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Social Security is not a social program. This was money that was paid in (forcibly) by the earners in the country. It is their money, period.

Actually it's not really any kind of personal bank account even though the more one puts in helps to determine what they may get back in return after they retire. Some people may collect but may not put a penny in because of disability. Some others may put in but die before they can ever collect.

Social Security is just that-- "Socialism" and not a personal bank account. Same with Medicare and Medicaid. Same with u.c. These were all designed as part of our social safety-net and not our personal bank-account.

 

[metis]

Some of these systems are broken. Some of these programs are not sustainable especially social security.

Not really as they are all very fixable. But what will have to be done in the future, starting as early as possible, is to tweak them to adjust to new environmental situations. We've done it in the past and we can do again in the future. If we don't, millions of Americans will get badly hurt and for no reason.