Do you recognize any fundamental problems in capitalism?

Dustin · February 22, 2015, 01:40:57 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · February 22, 2015, 01:45:43 PM

I've read the first three books of the Wealth of Nations. Loved, pretty much all of it.

I don't think, however, that it's fair to say capitalism relied on the mass death of children. Smith was just describing the price mechanism of labour.

Turkey · February 22, 2015, 01:53:02 PM

How would you say the government can increase competitiveness while not interfering through regulations?

Dustin · February 22, 2015, 02:13:48 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · February 22, 2015, 02:15:40 PM

Quote from: Dustin' on February 22, 2015, 02:13:48 PM

I guess you kind of need to look at it at a case-by-case basis.

Political discretion's a joke when it comes to question on the economy

Verbatim · February 22, 2015, 02:17:34 PM

"Social hierarchy" is, fundamentally, one of those terms that makes me throw up a little bit in my mouth. A lot a bit, actually.

More Than Mortal · February 22, 2015, 02:18:21 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 22, 2015, 02:17:34 PM

"Social hierarchy" is, fundamentally, one of those terms that makes me throw up a little bit in my mouth. A lot a bit, actually.

It isn't really anybody's fault that some people are better than other people.

Dustin · February 22, 2015, 02:19:20 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Turkey · February 22, 2015, 02:20:24 PM

I don't know how it would be structured, but I'd like to see campaign donations be a thing of the past. Maybe make it a pool for all candidates, provided by the government, which anyone can contribute to, but I agree that Congress is in the way of a truly fair and free market.

I'm pretty mixed on bailouts. In some cases it's been shown to be effective, but the idea that something can ever be "too big to fail" rubs me the wrong way.

More Than Mortal · February 22, 2015, 02:22:21 PM

Quote from: Dustin' on February 22, 2015, 02:19:20 PM

Well maybe economists need to adopt the scientific method or something.

It's not that economists aren't empirical, it's that it's such a convoluted subject.

There's a non-trivial possibility that I may be completely wrong about most economic questions.

Dustin · February 22, 2015, 02:23:55 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · February 22, 2015, 02:28:42 PM

Quote from: Dustin' on February 22, 2015, 02:23:55 PM

Super computer models of the economy?

Would probably need to be a near or actual AI to do that.

However, it'd only work from a descriptive approach, not necessarily a policy one. Like, you could determine what was causing a recession and everybody would agree how to end it on the computer's analysis. But the computer can't necessarily answer subtle ethical questions about economic perspectives.

Verbatim · February 22, 2015, 02:36:31 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 22, 2015, 02:18:21 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 22, 2015, 02:17:34 PM
"Social hierarchy" is, fundamentally, one of those terms that makes me throw up a little bit in my mouth. A lot a bit, actually.
It isn't really anybody's fault that some people are better than other people.

Genetically? I don't know. Our skills are dictated by our interests, and our interests are acquired through our upbringing, our social background, and our conditioning. Every ounce of it. The only reason I'm not an engineering major right now is because I wasn't exposed to all the glories of the field as a child. I was very coddled and sheltered, and as a result, I spent a lot of my childhood just thinking and using my imagination a lot. This led to a more artistically-inclined set of proclivities.

You can argue that it's our conditioning that, indeed, makes us "better" (I would use the term more fortunate) than other people, in the sense that if you come out of some rich cunt's cunt, then you will have had a very fortuitous circumstance of life. What I'm saying is, I think it's an insult to our intelligence to allow the stochastic apportioning of social status to be at all extant in any rational civilization--let alone allowing it to define our civilization.

You know, given that we don't have to be that way.