But is that a result of experiencing the US system which leans too far in that direction? Or a reflection of how neoliberalism as a philosophy has tried to take the whole globalised financial system in that direction? — apokrisis
Whether it's social status or business/wealth or romance competition is pervasive in human affairs and the losers suffer real, serious consequences. Life is often a high stakes competition. — BitconnectCarlos
The losers don't necessarily deserve it, either. There's an element of randomness to it ... I think there's an element of tragedy to it that cooperation doesn't quite have. — BitconnectCarlos
But how much is this a modern cultural mythology - the image of the striving hero battling against fickle fate? You don't have to go far to see counter-stories where the tragedy is to be cast out of the collective bosom.
$15 minimum wage and increasing taxation for some multi-millionaires and billionaires is exactly what Orwell was talking about, absolutely.
It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
We should note that “Capitalism” was initially a snarl word used by socialists to disparage a sort of bogeyman. So I think a name change would be appropriate. — NOS4A2
He also defines his predicted date of the singularity (2045)
If the idea you’re talking about is just non-coercive
trade, that already has a name: a free market. Which isn’t the same thing as capitalism. If you’re not in favor of wealth concentrating in the hands of fewer and fewer people, then you’re against capitalism (even if you’re still in favor of a free market), and shouldn’t mind that word being snarled at that bad thing you’re against.
With those concepts separate then maybe you can brainstorm some ideas on how to keep wealth from concentrating like that without sacrificing the free market. And libertarian socialists around the world
will join you in that.
I don’t think wealth can necessarily concentrate in the hands of a few because wealth is not a zero sum game. For instance when I make a dollar you do not lose a dollar, my gain is not your loss. So I cannot agree with that assessment of capitalism. — NOS4A2
Yet the basic fact is that wealth is created. If you produce something of value, then the World is that product richer as it was earlier. If you sell it and someone buys it, notice that the amount of money stays the same, but that product is more than before.I don't necessarily have to lose a dollar for you to gain a dollar, but it is still possible that you can gain a dollar at my expense. — Pfhorrest
This seems a linchpin to your theory, and it's false at least in numbers high enough to matter. — Hanover
I'd like to take some time, to thank the manufacturers of the laptops or other devices on which you and I write, Isaac. The designers who cooperated with the various engineers to bring about a plan, paid for by innumerable investments, built from materials dug by miners from deep underground, the folk who transported these across the globe, refining them on the way into usable materials, crafted and fashioned these into components that other folk could write code for, test, improve over the years into the device you see before you. I'd like to thank the families of these millions, for cooperating with them while they took the time to do all this. Thanks too, to the farmers and shop owners who provided them with food, the teachers and academics who educated them, who researched the physics, chemistry, and mathematics involved. Thanks also to those who supported you with food, funds, education, and everything else needed to bring it about that you could point out that people do not agree as to how the world is. All those millions on millions of folk who worked together, agreeing that despite their small differences of opinions the world is so, that you could copy-and-paste some irrelevancies rather than actually think. — Banno
It's funny how some people can't realize that "be glad you aren't living 200 years ago" is an extremely stupid defense of present day conditions. — Maw
There's no paradox, Tzeentch. This has been the normal for a long time, it's just pops up from time to time to be observable.Be very wary of those who see no issue in forcing people to part with their wealth in search of a 'perfect' system'. It's indicative of the totalitarian mindset, and sadly it is well-represented here. On a philosophy forum, paradoxically(?). I guess that can be attributed to the arrogance of intellect, even though any real intellect seems to be lacking. — Tzeentch
Economic growth comes from innovation and increased complexity, not the quantity of money. — Banno
Is boom and bust the issue, or inequity? — Banno
What? First, how does one fake this kind of ginormous interconnection of markets and populations?Suppose the the market is not in a state of equilibrium, but has been treated as if it were... would the resulting instability look like a series of booms, followed by busts? — Banno
What? First, how does one fake this kind of ginormous interconnection of markets and populations?
Second, say we could fake it, then the series of booms -- why then would we allow a series of busts? I'm just saying... if we could fake something this enormous. — Caldwell
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.