Capitalism is really the private ownership of production within a market economy. I don’t think that commenter was against private ownership, just more oversight in a capitalist system… which I think is workable.
You could say that about any government system though. Every system will encounter someone or a group of people looking to corrupt and give gains to themselves. The endless pursuit of power and greed is what needs to be controlled, and as long as that’s not controlled and seal tight, every government will eventually fall.
Probably because there is some inherent flaw in human psychology that pushes many to hoard wealth and material objects to the point of absurdity, and somehow they or their like minded humans corrupt the system to allow more power and control consolidation. I don’t think we’ve manage to come up with a system that contains enough stabilizing rules to prevent wild excesses to damage the whole over time. There’s always going to be a segment that views themselves as exceptions and they will reshape, bend, and break rules to their advantage, and they’ll have their supporters.
I don’t think there’s any way to prevent people like that unless we have such rigid controls that society begins to look a different version of totalitarian, so is corruption, collapse and rebirth of all large systems inevitable?
I wouldn’t say it’ll always be inevitable, but I don’t think any current systems in place or theorized are the answer. I think so long as people try to think of developing a system of government with that in mind, there will be many answers presented and we’ll eventually find one that works.
Personally, I think one way forward is to use both UBI and capitalism for necessities and luxuries. The UBI gives everyone what they need - utilities, food, basic shelter, supplies like mattresses and toothpaste, healthcare, transport, fuel, ect. However, all material objects are generic in appearance and function. Corndog #1 (Jumbo), all clothing is white and boring, ect. Capitalism is used for buying interesting items, bigger housing, and so forth.
People like their individuality, which is something that capitalism is terrific at supporting. Unfortunately, capitalism is also terrible at allowing people to survive and establish a foundation for success. Thus, separation of necessity vs luxury. All work is for earning the money to upgrade lifestyle.
There are other things that I have in mind for making things more egalitarian, such as making schooling into a paid job. Many seemingly weird reforms like that would be needed to make economics work for society, rather than the other way around.
It’s more specific even than private ownership. It’s about allowing businesses to incorporate as entities with limited liability so that multiple owners can pool capital while shedding risk.
If every shareholder of, say, Nestlé, were criminally liable for every criminal act that Nestlé committed, it would obviously be impossible for such an entity to exist.
The main issue with capitalism is the way it facilitates scale without accountability.
Capitalism is really the private ownership of production within a market economy. I don’t think that commenter was against private ownership, just more oversight in a capitalist system… which I think is workable.
I think more oversight is a temporary solution. End stage capitalism is inevitable.
Tax anyome with over 10million in “worth” at 100%.
If theynare caught chesting with loop holes, take it all and put them in jail for harming others like you would assault or murder.
You could say that about any government system though. Every system will encounter someone or a group of people looking to corrupt and give gains to themselves. The endless pursuit of power and greed is what needs to be controlled, and as long as that’s not controlled and seal tight, every government will eventually fall.
Probably because there is some inherent flaw in human psychology that pushes many to hoard wealth and material objects to the point of absurdity, and somehow they or their like minded humans corrupt the system to allow more power and control consolidation. I don’t think we’ve manage to come up with a system that contains enough stabilizing rules to prevent wild excesses to damage the whole over time. There’s always going to be a segment that views themselves as exceptions and they will reshape, bend, and break rules to their advantage, and they’ll have their supporters.
I don’t think there’s any way to prevent people like that unless we have such rigid controls that society begins to look a different version of totalitarian, so is corruption, collapse and rebirth of all large systems inevitable?
I wouldn’t say it’ll always be inevitable, but I don’t think any current systems in place or theorized are the answer. I think so long as people try to think of developing a system of government with that in mind, there will be many answers presented and we’ll eventually find one that works.
Personally, I think one way forward is to use both UBI and capitalism for necessities and luxuries. The UBI gives everyone what they need - utilities, food, basic shelter, supplies like mattresses and toothpaste, healthcare, transport, fuel, ect. However, all material objects are generic in appearance and function. Corndog #1 (Jumbo), all clothing is white and boring, ect. Capitalism is used for buying interesting items, bigger housing, and so forth.
People like their individuality, which is something that capitalism is terrific at supporting. Unfortunately, capitalism is also terrible at allowing people to survive and establish a foundation for success. Thus, separation of necessity vs luxury. All work is for earning the money to upgrade lifestyle.
There are other things that I have in mind for making things more egalitarian, such as making schooling into a paid job. Many seemingly weird reforms like that would be needed to make economics work for society, rather than the other way around.
It’s more specific even than private ownership. It’s about allowing businesses to incorporate as entities with limited liability so that multiple owners can pool capital while shedding risk.
If every shareholder of, say, Nestlé, were criminally liable for every criminal act that Nestlé committed, it would obviously be impossible for such an entity to exist.
The main issue with capitalism is the way it facilitates scale without accountability.
Indeed, I see nothing wrong with private ownership.
I believe it should be workable, but counter examples are uncountable.