this is some good socialist **** right here

[WI-Tom]

un-regulated capitalism is an inherently flawed system. Just ask KW.

There is no such thing as unregulated capitalism.

There is capitalism that is regulated in favor of the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else, resulting in the concentration of wealth and off-the-charts inequality; and (sometimes, briefly) there is capitalism that is regulated in favor of a greater number of people, resulting in lower levels of inequality.

The flaws are inherent to the system; innate; inevitable--one major flaw being the impossibility of sustaining more just forms of regulation.

Tom

[Paul Pless]

Don't regulate us.

DON'T regulate us.

Oh... you should have done a better job of regulating us.

forsooth

[Keith Wilson]

There is no such thing as unregulated capitalism.

I agree; merely different degrees and types of regulation. Capitalism needs laws and orderly processes, or it breaks down into something very different.

The flaws are inherent to the system; innate; inevitable--one major flaw being the impossibility of sustaining more just forms of regulation.

'Innate', 'inevitable', 'impossible'? Nah. You're assuming what you're trying to demonstrate. Difficult, yes.

[David G]

I agree; merely different degrees and types of regulation. Capitalism needs laws and orderly processes, or it breaks down into something very different.

'Innate', 'inevitable', 'impossible'? Nah. You're assuming what you're trying to demonstrate. Difficult, yes.

Various nations have done various degrees of 'good' jobs at various times.

The U.S. is currently in one of the historically worst periods... where we went dozy at the wheel and allow the 'more' greedheads too much access to the levers of power. It doesn't happen often, but greed never sleeps, so waves of deregulation and corruption - small and large - are always lapping at the shore of good government. I suspect it's recency bias that makes people like W'tom believe that this current state of things is the norm.

[WI-Tom]

Various nations have done various degrees of 'good' jobs at various times.

The U.S. is currently in one of the historically worst periods... where we went dozy at the wheel and allow the 'more' greedheads too much access to the levers of power. It doesn't happen often, but greed never sleeps, so waves of deregulation and corruption - small and large - are always lapping at the shore of good government. I suspect it's recency bias that makes people like W'tom believe that this current state of things is the norm.

I think you've misunderstood my main point, which is not that the current state of drastic and quickly increasing inequality is "the norm," but rather that capitalism inevitably leads in this direction. Sometimes it may take longer to get there, but (absent aggressive interventions from outside), it always gets there. And that the fact that it always gets there is a feature of the system rather than a bug.

Why? Because capitalism always produces a concentration of wealth, and disparities in wealth between workers and investors. The right kind of regulation (those "aggressive interventions") can slow the growth of inequality, but if inequality were not a result of the system, the system would not be capitalism.

Once the accumulation of wealth becomes large enough, it leads to political power. And that political power is always used, eventually, to shift regulation to allow for even greater concentrations of wealth. This might take a few generations, but history is pretty clear that it happens over and over.

It's funny--many will post here about their extreme skepticism that no alternative to capitalism is likely to be found, because history gives us no examples (and surely it would have by now). And these same people will post that capitalism can be maintained without an inevitable concentration of wealth and the political power that goes with it being used to increase the concentration of wealth even further--even though history provides no examples of such a thing.

Another way of saying it might be: The evils of capitalism cannot be cured, though they can be brought into remission (with the threat of reappearance always very real), at least briefly.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

'Innate', 'inevitable', 'impossible'? Nah. You're assuming what you're trying to demonstrate. Difficult, yes.

Nah. I'm merely posting a model that has yet to be discredited, and so must serve until a better model comes along.

Kind of like, you know, gravity. We have to be open-minded enough to be ready to discard our understanding of gravity entirely if a better model comes along. And we have to understand that the current model is so well supported by experimentation that a new model that is better, with significant fundamental differences from what we assume now, is extremely unlikely.

Tom

[Nicholas Carey]

I think you've misunderstood my main point, which is not that the current state of drastic and quickly increasing inequality is "the norm," but rather that capitalism inevitably leads in this direction. Sometimes it may take longer to get there, but (absent aggressive interventions from outside), it always gets there. And that the fact that it always gets there is a feature of the system rather than a bug.

Why? Because capitalism always produces a concentration of wealth, and disparities in wealth between workers and investors. The right kind of regulation (those "aggressive interventions") can slow the growth of inequality, but if inequality were not a result of the system, the system would not be capitalism.

Once the accumulation of wealth becomes large enough, it leads to political power. And that political power is always used, eventually, to shift regulation to allow for even greater concentrations of wealth. This might take a few generations, but history is pretty clear that it happens over and over.

It's funny--many will post here about their extreme skepticism that no alternative to capitalism is likely to be found, because history gives us no examples (and surely it would have by now). And these same people will post that capitalism can be maintained without an inevitable concentration of wealth and the political power that goes with it being used to increase the concentration of wealth even further--even though history provides no examples of such a thing.

Another way of saying it might be: The evils of capitalism cannot be cured, though they can be brought into remission (with the threat of reappearance always very real), at least briefly.

Tom

+100: Well put.

[hawkeye54]

That 'WI-Tom' guy is one heck of a good explainer, don't you think ?

[L.W. Baxter]

excellent exposition, yes.

a similar treatise might be written about life. life always leads to death. it can be postponed, be put in remission, at least briefly. but it is inevitable.

we can't imagine some other form of being so we keep trying life. and we die every time.

obviously i am being cheeky. but the principle of gathering resources to oneself, by effort, power, or other device, seems fundamental to life.

a lion takes a kill that isn't his. the lion's share.

could be that something like the intermediate condition we are in today--concentration of wealth and power under way but not complete-- is about as good as it is going to get.

[Nicholas Carey]

excellent exposition, yes.

a similar treatise might be written about life. life always leads to death. it can be postponed, be put in remission, at least briefly. but it is inevitable.

we can't imagine some other form of being so we keep trying life. and we die every time.

obviously i am being cheeky. but the principle of gathering resources to oneself, by effort, power, or other device, seems fundamental to life.

[One of] the flaw(s)of communism is that it fails take into account that a certain amount of what you describe above ("greed") is innate in human nature. And, people being imperfect, and unwilling to voluntarily relinquish power, those who have it are unlikely to ever end "the dictatorship of the proletariat".

One of he many flaws of unregulated free-market capitalism is that it fails take into account that many, especially those who are successful, lack a sense of "enoughness". Instead, they operate on the basis that if having a $1,000,000,000 is good, having $10- or $50,000,000,000 is better. Even if you couldn't spend it all in your lifetime.

Worth noting that the earliest written laws, the Code of Hammurabi, has lots of commercial/business regulation, esp. regarding the cost, weight and purity of bread. Capitalism has never, since its earliest days, been unregulated. One may argue about how best to regulate it, and what regulations may be necessary, but it's been understood that such regulation is necessary for a very long time.

[end of rant: you may now resume the discussion of the evils of Big Pharma.]

[WI-Tom]

excellent exposition, yes.

a similar treatise might be written about life. life always leads to death. it can be postponed, be put in remission, at least briefly. but it is inevitable.

we can't imagine some other form of being so we keep trying life. and we die every time.

obviously i am being cheeky. but the principle of gathering resources to oneself, by effort, power, or other device, seems fundamental to life.

a lion takes a kill that isn't his. the lion's share.

could be that something like the intermediate condition we are in today--concentration of wealth and power under way but not complete-- is about as good as it is going to get.

Yep, I agree. Humanity seems to be stuck with capitalism, unable to envision solutions or alternatives that seem plausible at scale. It might in fact be the case that capitalism, despite its innate flaws, is the best we can do.

But, attitudes and belief systems change. Slavery was commonplace not so long ago. It's virtually unthinkable as a foundation for civilization now.

Perhaps much of our material consumption and energy use--stuff we take for granted now--will seem unthinkable as the consequences on the biosphere and climate become ever harder to ignore.

Perhaps capitalism will become unthinkable, and will be replaced. And once we acknowledge that possibility, I'd argue that thinking critically about its problems is a necessary (but not sufficient) step in moving from diagnosis to prescription.

Tom

[David G]

I think you've misunderstood my main point, which is not that the current state of drastic and quickly increasing inequality is "the norm," but rather that capitalism inevitably leads in this direction. Sometimes it may take longer to get there, but (absent aggressive interventions from outside), it always gets there. And that the fact that it always gets there is a feature of the system rather than a bug.

Why? Because capitalism always produces a concentration of wealth, and disparities in wealth between workers and investors. The right kind of regulation (those "aggressive interventions") can slow the growth of inequality, but if inequality were not a result of the system, the system would not be capitalism.

Once the accumulation of wealth becomes large enough, it leads to political power. And that political power is always used, eventually, to shift regulation to allow for even greater concentrations of wealth. This might take a few generations, but history is pretty clear that it happens over and over.

It's funny--many will post here about their extreme skepticism that no alternative to capitalism is likely to be found, because history gives us no examples (and surely it would have by now). And these same people will post that capitalism can be maintained without an inevitable concentration of wealth and the political power that goes with it being used to increase the concentration of wealth even further--even though history provides no examples of such a thing.

Another way of saying it might be: The evils of capitalism cannot be cured, though they can be brought into remission (with the threat of reappearance always very real), at least briefly.

Tom

You're getting there. Mighty close, in fact' Most of what you are now saying is correct.

Capitalism IS flawed, in just the way you mention. If left alone, it will trend toward concentration of wealth & power. And it does take 'interventions from outside' to keep that from happening.

But then your post goes a bit pear-shaped. The 'right kind of regulation' doesn't just 'slow the growth of inequality'... it maintains it at a certain range. It allows for industry, drive, creativity, cupidity, perseverance, etc. to be rewarded. Enough so that it continues to be encouraged. So some will always be more wealthy, and some less. And that's not a terrible thing. Humans are used to that. As long as it doesn't spin out of control.

You also speak as if the great inequities we saw during the 1890's, 1920's, and currently are the norm. They're not. For the most part... the 'well-regulated' part has been decently manifested. Not as much as I'd wish, because I think the U.S. - among nations - is too prone to allow unregulated 'cowboy capitalism'. But decently well. But greed never sleeps, and the watchmen sometimes do. Which leads to concentration of wealth and political power. And we end up with the current situation. Again, though, it's NOT the norm. Understandable if someone living today perceives it that way, as it's been building that way for most of our lives. But historically... NOT the norm. You're right... it happens (maybe not 'over and over'... let's say 'periodically'). And it gets corrected 'periodically'.

I can't promise that this concentration will not, this time, continue... and become the New Normal, and our society morph into a sort of New Feudalism. But it never has stabilized at that spot in the nations history. And I see lots of reasons why it wouldn't.

But we really DO know how to do the regulatory thing passably well. The problem is we sometimes get complacent and all the wolves to enter the fold. And it's harder work to clear out the wolves once they're in. They don't go willingly. As I said elsewhere --

"My prescription for now... elect people who want effective regulation of our economy, and protect that 'democratic elections' component. Both of those are under attack. The former is why we are in such a state at present. The latter is their next big push... and will only serve to make it all worse. If we don't manage those two... then I reckon we're headed for a New Feudalism."

There's nothing wrong with critquing capitalism. But how many times do you have to hear people agree with you, stipulate the flaws, before you are ready to move on to the next step... 'so... now what?'. Again... I've said it before - hammering on an already understood problem without offering potential solutions is nothing more than 'whining'... and feeds the nihilists narrative (all is lost, we are doomed).

[WI-Tom]

^^^

Meh. I don't need you to tell me I'm right "now" when this is exactly what I've said on every capitalism thread on the WBF that I've posted on.

Also, you are the only one who has made any comment about the current state of affairs being "the norm."

And, if the right kind of regulation "maintains" equality as you say, then we would have "maintained" it since the 1890s. As, clearly, we didn't manage to do. Because, the failure is baked into the system. Capitalism always results in the concentration of wealth. With the concentration of wealth comes the concentration of political power. And with the concentration of political power comes an end to any regulations that those with political power don't like.

Regulations can absolutely treat the symptoms of capitalism, and slow the progress of the disease. (They can also exacerbate the symptoms and speed up the disease).

And it's a looooooooooooooooooong stretch to throw accusations of "nihilism" at someone who consistently makes the point that an alternative is possible, if we don't give up and settle for what we already have. Far more "nihilistic" to fall back on the tired "capitalism may be bad, but it's the best we can ever hope to do" narrative you seem to believe in.

As always, if you find these discussions tedious, you are free to disengage.

Tom

[David G]

^^^

Meh. I don't need you to tell me I'm right "now" when this is exactly what I've said on every capitalism thread on the WBF that I've posted on.

Also, you are the only one who has made any comment about the current state of affairs being "the norm."

And, if the right kind of regulation "maintains" equality as you say, then we would have "maintained" it since the 1890s. As, clearly, we didn't manage to do. Because, the failure is baked into the system. Capitalism always results in the concentration of wealth. With the concentration of wealth comes the concentration of political power. And with the concentration of political power comes an end to any regulations that those with political power don't like.

Regulations can absolutely treat the symptoms of capitalism, and slow the progress of the disease. (They can also exacerbate the symptoms and speed up the disease).

And it's a looooooooooooooooooong stretch to throw accusations of "nihilism" at someone who consistently makes the point that an alternative is possible, if we don't give up and settle for what we already have. Far more "nihilistic" to fall back on the tired "capitalism may be bad, but it's the best we can ever hope to do" narrative you seem to believe in.

As always, if you find these discussions tedious, you are free to disengage.

Tom

Reverting to the same ol' aggrieved bs. Too bad. If you find my elaborations, interpretations, and corrections in the face of your ignorance 'tedious', you are free to disengage instead of deliberately misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said... again.

[WI-Tom]

Reverting to the same ol' aggrieved bs. Too bad. If you find my elaborations, interpretations, and corrections in the face of your ignorance 'tedious', you are free to disengage instead of deliberately misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said... again.

No, what I find tedious is your condescending attitude. I haven't seen any "corrections" from you. Attempted corrections, perhaps. But mostly it comes across as 'whining' to me.

Tom

[David G]

No, what I find tedious is your condescending attitude. I haven't seen any "corrections" from you. Attempted corrections, perhaps. But mostly it comes across as 'whining' to me.

Tom

Every 'accusation' a confession.

[WI-Tom]

Every 'accusation' a confession.

Meh. Still sounding like "whining" to me. Maybe re-read #118 and think about the corrections I listed, then get back to me after you've shown some sign you understood what I was saying. Make a case against it if you want (I doubt you can). But really, more whining isn't going to do much for anyone, you and me included. It's the very definition of tedious.

Tom

[David G]

Meh. Still sounding like "whining" to me. Maybe re-read #118 and think about the corrections I listed, then get back to me after you've shown some sign you understood what I was saying. Make a case against it if you want (I doubt you can). But really, more whining isn't going to do much for anyone, you and me included. It's the very definition of tedious.

Tom

Ahhh... more of the same. Good to know some things never change.

[WI-Tom]

Ahhh... more of the same. Good to know some things never change.

I see. You can't actually argue reasonably against anything I posted in #118, then. Pretty much what I expected. But whatevs, David. If you need to post one more scolding at me here, I'll let you have the last word. Other people must be even more bored by it than I am--I'm out.

Tom

[David G]

I'll just say it once more. The rampant greed/corruption we are currently experiencing are not the norm. They are the exception. Like a long-term birth defect that occasionally flares up.

The current version is reaching historical highs, and has been going on for a long time. We really need to rein it in. I'm glad to see Biden making some of the correct moves in that direction. And THAT needs to be the focus. Fondling your grievances about how capitalism isn't perfect, particularly at the moment, will only distract and waste time.

Get back to me when you've got some more well-considered notions of this 'better system' you imagine might be out there. Until then - I'd rather see you put your energy into correcting the present, urgent, problems.

[Keith Wilson]

Man, for people who agree about 80%, maybe 90%, we sure do argue a lot.

Let me see if I can list some possible points of agreement:
- Capitalism has all too many evident faults, but it really does work better than anything else that has yet been tried on a large scale.
- There are very likely better ways of doing things. Trying to come up with some is a good idea.
- One of the major faults is a tendency toward greater concentration of wealth and power.
- This tendency can be countered by law and regulation if we're careful, and sometimes has been.
- Since about 1980, inequality has been increasing in the US, and we really, really need to fix it.

How's that?

[David G]

Man, for people who agree about 80%, maybe 90%, we sure do argue a lot.

Let me see if I can list some possible points of agreement:
- Capitalism has all too many evident faults, but it really does work better than anything else that has yet been tried on a large scale.
- There are very likely better ways of doing things. Trying to come up with some is a good idea.
- One of the major faults is a tendency toward greater concentration of wealth and power.
- This tendency can be countered by law and regulation if we're careful, and sometimes has been.
- Since about 1980, inequality has been increasing in the US, and we really, really need to fix it.

How's that?

Not bad for an engineer. Quite useful, in fact. WAIT... are you sure you're an engineer? <G>

Rather than 'sometimes has been', I'd say 'mostly has been, to a moderately workable degree'.

And I'd add the most important element - we need to do better. (Sooner rather than later, which argues for fixing our existing leaky boat rather than starting to design a new boat).

[WI-Tom]

Man, for people who agree about 80%, maybe 90%, we sure do argue a lot.

Let me see if I can list some possible points of agreement:
- Capitalism has all too many evident faults, but it really does work better than anything else that has yet been tried on a large scale.

Well, maybe. I think a good case can be made that the U.S. and other powerful capitalist nations have perhaps prevented a fair, unbiased trial of some of the alternatives. Absent such interventions, I think whether some kind of socialist/non-capitalist system can be made to work is still somewhat of an open question.

- There are very likely better ways of doing things. Trying to come up with some is a good idea.
- One of the major faults is a tendency toward greater concentration of wealth and power.
...
- Since about 1980, inequality has been increasing in the US, and we really, really need to fix it.

I ca agree with all that. But this:

- This tendency can be countered by law and regulation if we're careful, and sometimes has been.

Certainly the effects--the symptoms and consequences--can be countered by law and regulation. But the tendency itself is inherent to capitalism, and will always affect outcomes. And, if history is any guide, that tendency to concentrate wealth and power will always eventually erode any regulations we put in place to control the effects of that tendency. There is no permanent cure, nor is there any good reason to believe that there ever will be.

Also, can we agree that climate change, which is exacerbated by many aspects of capitalism (e.g. energy use, outsourcing manufacturing to countries with poor environmental protections, etc.), is an existential threat to the biosphere? If so, then it seems we ought to consider the problem of finding workable alternatives with some urgency.

How's that? A fair amount of agreement, with some distinctly different conclusions or interpretations.

Tom

[Keith Wilson]

Also, can we agree that climate change . . . is an existential threat to the biosphere?

Eh? No, nothing even vaguely close to 'an existential threat to the biosphere'. Earth has been much warmer and much colder at various times, and 'the biosphere' got along just fine. Some species went extinct, some new ones evolved; it's been going on for four billion years or so. It could very well be an existential threat to our current human civilization; that's quite bad enough.

[WI-Tom]

Also, can we agree that climate change . . . is an existential threat to the biosphere?

Eh? No, nothing even vaguely close to 'an existential threat to the biosphere'. Earth has been much warmer and much colder at various times, and 'the biosphere' got along just fine. Some species went extinct, some new ones evolved; it's been going on for four billion years or so. It could very well be an existential threat to our current human civilization; that's quite bad enough.

OK, imprecise wording on my part, maybe. I don't mean to say that climate change is an existential threat to all life on the planet. I used the definite article--the biosphere--to mean the set of ecosystems currently operating on the planet--a set of systems that includes ALL living things, and their interactions with each other. Like this, from Wikipedia:

By the most general biophysiological definition, the biosphere is the global ecological system integrating all living beings and their relationships, including their interaction with the elements of the lithosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere.

Certainly a biosphere will remain active for a long long time, even with climate change making drastic changes and causing mass extinctions, etc.

But it will not be the biosphere we currently enjoy and live in. That biosphere is currently under an existential threat from climate change. Much of it will be (is already being) lost. All of it will be (is already being) changed--some of it drastically.

Life continues in some forms, dies out in others. But the current biosphere will not survive. And I for one think it is worthy of preservation. The knowledge that life in some form will continue on the planet long after everything I love has been destroyed is not of much interest to me.

Tom

[Keith Wilson]

Again, we don't disagree. I'm probably leaning on it too hard, but it has always irritated me when well-intentioned folks with whom I mostly agree talk about how humans are going to 'destroy the planet', or similar apocalyptic phrasing. We can't. We could do our absolute worst, and in another five or ten million years (a minuscule eyeblink in geological time), a bunch of new species would have evolved, and things would be going on pretty much as they always have. We'd be gone, of course. All that would be left of us would be some thin layers in the rock with lots of odd chemicals. We can destroy ourselves. That's a quite sufficient reason not to be stupid.

There's something obscurely comforting about climbing down the rocks by the Mississippi and looking at all the Ordovician fossils.

[Durnik]

it's recency bias that makes people ... believe that this current state of things is the norm.

'recency bias'.. yer funny. never heard of robber barons? it's the system - across time.

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."

predatory capitalism (the u.s. version) is anything but unregulated.. it is - as said above - carefully regulated in favor of 'the wickedest of men', & against workers.


and what wi-tom has been saying.

That 'WI-Tom' guy is one heck of a good explainer, don't you think ?

for sure.

[David G]

'recency bias'.. yer funny. never heard of robber barons? it's the system - across time.

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."

predatory capitalism (the u.s. version) is anything but unregulated.. it is - as said above - carefully regulated in favor of 'the wickedest of men', & against workers.


and what wi-tom has been saying.




for sure.

You are, once again, citing outliers as the norm. Looking at history would, if you had an open mind, disabuse you of that error.