An Alternative to Capitalism

[bluenijnja]

There is not rational alternative to capitalism, nothing else has come close to removing poverty. America today is more socialist which gives money to the poor and makes them reliant and counter productive in society.

[Mattes50A05]

market economies are mutually beneficial. If that wasn't the case why would anyone trade at all, if both parties don't benefit? Capitalism is not a zero sum game.

[Laoch111]

Capitalism is no longer relevant.

[mpc91]

I give up, what is the alternative to capitalism? 4:16 and you really don't say what that thing might be.

[guidedmarkets]

@mpc91 What exactly are you looking for? In a nutshell, we need research-based social systems that reduce disparities and eliminate poverty while retaining and bolstering incentives for productivity; we need to remove situations in which there is a conflict of interest between individual interests and the common good. If you want a word, we need libertarian socialism.

[mpc91]

@guidedmarkets - So if we get enough clever people together in the same room, we'll fix everything? Isn't that what the government has been trying (and failing) to do for 90 years. A truly free market makes the best decisions.

You want to remove the cause and reap the reward, and it just doesn't work that way.

Libertarian Socialism is a myth. You are either for individual liberty, or for collectivism. You are for government interference in people's lives, or you are against it.

[guidedmarkets]

@mpc91 Did you even read my response? This "clever people in a room" concept is a knee-jerk libertarian notion, but it has nothing to do with research or with what I'm talking about. Unrestrained markets create overwhelming disparities, wars, overuse of resources (the list goes on). Markets in egalitarian contexts are extremely useful.

We too are against "government interference," but in favor of systems that empower people—which is also why you're wrong that we're not considering causality.

[mpc91]

@guidedmarkets - Who will be making these decisions? If not the government then who? Who is this we?

Free markets don't cause wars, trade restrictions do. Unrestrained markets create greater wealth for all. Social programs and regulation are the only thing maintaining poverty.

Overuse of resources is an economic misunderstanding. Private ownership solves this problem. Are we running out of chickens? Trees? Of course not, because the business owners have a vested interest in preserving them.

[guidedmarkets]

@mpc91 We can spew anti-government rhetoric all day, but in the real world, governments exist whether you or I say it's okay—there's absolutely no way around that at this point in history. If you want good outcomes, push for good decisions by basing policy on what actual scientific research says benefits people: Market economies modified to produce more equality.

And social programs actually fight poverty *all the time*, which is why there's far more social mobility in Sweden than, say, the US.

[mpc91]

@guidedmarkets - I'm not in favor of removing government. I'm in favor of limiting it to the reasons it was created, to protect the liberties of the people, to ensure basic safety and security, and to provide a stable background for commerce.

If you want good outcomes, though, get government out of them. Centrally planned economies fail, as does tinkering.

The US has spent TRILLIONS attempting to fix the problems you refer to, and the people targeted for help are the ones who are hurt.

[guidedmarkets]

@mpc91 It's not about whether government is "limited" or not; it's about whether the social systems we have are good ones. I agree we should get rid of bad systems, but good social systems give people a context where success is possible and in which they have the skills to take care of themselves. The facts bear this out: In the developed world, nations with more equality/those with more socialism do better. Period.

[mpc91]

@guidedmarkets - And really, honestly, who will create and administer these "systems that empower people"?

Who will make these decisions on who needs what better than the people themselves?

[guidedmarkets]

@mpc91 Often what cannot be achieved by individuals acting alone can be achieved with the cooperation of many. Decisions can be made by communities with debate & discussion, & with research as a guide. This process is imperfect, but the alternative is vast differences in bargaining power & thus exploitation and coercion.

In the future, please keep your comments to one at a time unless you have something very original or interesting to say. This will allow us to give you a thoughtful response.

[mpc91]

@guidedmarkets - Give me a thoughtful sensible RESPONSE, and I'll answer one at a time. But you're spewing classic socialist dogma, wrapped up in a disguise new big happy words.

Drop the rhetoric, who is going to do this? And how? Which communities?

You talk about economic result as if its a noble goal. This assumes that one person getting rich makes another person poor. This just isn't so. People get wealthy by creating wealth, helping others voluntarily.

Your system will need force.

[guidedmarkets]

@mpc91 If you're going to insult me, we'll soon be done with this exchange.

What I'm talking about is already done to one degree or another in many nations. I can't answer multiple vastly broad questions (like "how is this done") in specific terms in 500 characters, so you'll have to be more specific with your asking.

We're not assuming that one person gets rich by making others poor; merely that (as is demonstrable) laissez-faire creates huge income disparities. It also requires coercion.

[mpc91]

@guidedmarkets - 1. Income disparities are not a bad thing, unless aided (as in some cases they are by government regulation to limit competition). 2. Coercion is a tool of socialists. It is necessary for wealth redistribution.

3. Are your solutions government based? How will they be enforced? Will there be penalties?

I will treat you with respect if you do the same. You have not done so thus far. "Spewing", "interesting", and telling me how to post. I find you condescending and evasive.

[guidedmarkets]

@mpc91Can we stick to one issue at a time? It's not fair of you to lob a bunch of questions and then label me evasive for not answering them.

I think you're reaching in saying that I've been in any way insulting to you. Also, I get to tell you my terms as far as posting here. I'm sorry if you find that condescending, but they're our videos.

In fact, income disparities cause massive social problems, regardless of their cause, and coercion can occur anytime one group has more power than another.

[mpc91]

@guidedmarkets - I don't accept your "fact". Income disparities don't cause massive social problems, it's well-intentioned government programs that have done that. The rich getting richer doesn't make the poor poorer, it's not a zero sum game.

The welfare state has destroyed many, many families by rewarding single parent families and destroying the incentive to work. The public education system has bankrupt many local governments, while failing the students it was created to help.

[guidedmarkets]

@mpc91 You don't have to accept it; I'm just telling you what research says. Did you hear someone arguing that wealth creation was a zero-sum game? On the contrary—when people have enough resources to take care of themselves and contribute, we all end up with more. And there's no evidence to support the idea that effective systems can't reduce poverty and empower people to help themselves by producing more. That doesn't mean that there aren't bad welfare systems—just that we need good ones.

[mpc91]

@guidedmarkets - Your "research" is inherently flawed, because it flips the symptom and the disease. By your logic diet coke makes people fat, because they do seem to drink it.

When your talking about income disparity, it requires the zero-sum belief, or disparities become meaningless.

There are effective systems for reducing poverty, the main one being the free market. The other one being private charities. But large scale programs requiring central control are doomed before they start.

[guidedmarkets]

@mpc91 Your implication about the causality here doesn't explain the facts—the symptoms move together with inequality as the only constant, and it's consistent with a large body of research about the importance of social status on well being. Major inequality is poison, and this fact has nothing to do with game theory.

There is zero evidence to suggest that publicly funded programs or those with larger scopes capable of systemic change are doomed, and intuitively, the idea is nonsense, anyway.

[mpc91]

@guidedmarkets - There is a great deal of evidence to show that publicly funded programs are doomed to fail. Give me an example of one that has succeeded. Private solutions always work better, as people are always more careful spending their own money.

Private programs that fail cease to exist, government programs that fail simply demand more money, and get it.

The poison here is government programs, which sap the economy and magnify the problems they were created to rectify.

[guidedmarkets]

@mpc91 The contrivance of the dichotomy between success and failure aside, examples are endless: NIH, pell grants, clean air/water acts, social security/medicare, consumer protection, internet funding, Library of Congress, workforce centers, the interstate system.... ask an economist for more!

governmentisgood[dot]com

Though you overstate your case, I actually agree about the issue you note here. What you aren't mentioning, though, are the many problems w/ exclusively private funding.

[z44sms]

@ineptsegue Well I believe this response to this is Walter E Williams answer "Greed is Good",. You also fail to realize government intervention doesn't need to take effect until some crime is committed. Human selfishness is why we create more than what we need. If a person wasn't greedy they make only what they need for themselves.

[guidedmarkets]

@z44sms We don't "realize" that because we believe prevention is almost always better than dealing with problems after they occur (e.g., in the criminal justice system). Meanwhile, although self interest is a fact of life and (in moderation) it sometimes leads to positive results, "greed" destroys natural resources, causes wars, and leads to compulsive hoarding and unnecessary pain and death (etc.). Likewise, selfishness is *defined* as excessive concern with oneself—it is, by definition, bad.

[asalade]

"Regulate and manage their emotions"...

Hahaha you filthy maniac

[guidedmarkets]

@asalade You nailed it. We are indeed filthy manics, each and every one.

Honestly, is this phrasing really that confusing? Effective people are capable of regulating and managing their own emotions. People who can't regulate and manage their emotions tend to have major problems in life.

[Hyena62]

"is" Sorry for the grammatical error........

[Hyena62]

You can keep trickle up poverty.......

Please explain how many jobs are created by the poor and middle class. Oh wait! Yes........we're all Keynesians now.

Uncle Milt, rules!

[guidedmarkets]

@Hyena62 You're the one supporting an economic system that creates a vast disparities and a class of poor people who don't have the resources to do things that create jobs, not us. There are more people capable of creating jobs when more people can reap the rewards of the wealth they help create.

[Hyena62]

@guidedmarkets My best response is probably best from a video posted from Liberty Pen - Milton Friedman - Poverty and Equality.

I stand by my opinion of trickle up poverty........which means we will have to simply agree to disagree.

I wish you well........have a great weekend.

[guidedmarkets]

@Hyena62 The concept of "trickle up poverty" doesn't apply, as a progressive tax rate doesn't make *anyone* poor (in either an objective or relative sense).

We've been agreeing to disagree with libertarians for years.Well wishes back at you. :)

[Hyena62]

@guidedmarkets One thing I must say is, "thank you!!" for your measured and pleasant responses.

The caustic vitriol found here are astounding.......and they're not limited to political videos. A simple comment regarding a music video drew a pretty nasty exchange.

So, again, I say thank you..............

[guidedmarkets]

@Hyena62 Well, likewise. Seriously, there's something about posting facelessly and anonymously that makes people into assholes. I'm not immune to it myself—but I work hard to keep in mind that there's an actual thinking and feeling being on the other end.

[Hyena62]

@guidedmarkets True......... A guy I work with suggested this video to describe exactly this - Real Life vs The Internet

It's based on Halo and is rather comical. The discussing politics part comes in around 2:34......enjoy!!

[guidedmarkets]

@Hyena62 Very funny. I've seen Red vs. Blue, but not that particular clip...

[Hyena62]

@guidedmarkets A follow-up comment..........You must have goals of your own, otherwise you are doomed forever to work to achieve the goals of someone else. -Brian Tracy



[guidedmarkets]

@Hyena62 Yes, I'd say that's a truism... best for everyone to develop their own goals!

[z44sms]

Capitalism works better than what ever you are talking about. Read Founding Fathers reasoning behind this idea of human nature that greed is good. If for example in your THEORY land you say we should do this or that who is to pay for this or that? How do you access a value in your system in capitalism it is clear the value is represented in DOLLARS your system has nothing other than dictators or cousels making these decisions and of course an aristract like you in charge.

[guidedmarkets]

@z44sms Yes, the famous "greed is good" rationale, articulated by the Founders in support of laissez-faire. Wait, what?

[FreeEcon]

@ineptsegue was still wondering if I could get a response on my inquiry: Can Beingism be justified by Public Choice?

[Di0genesus]

Poor are vastly more

Compassionate, they give to

Others, they don't horde

[trevor1787]

As far as the emotions regulating, that was listed at 2:16. The title of the video itself is "An Alternative to Capitalism", that title alone is stating that by eliminating capitalism, the ideas presented in the video could take place. As far as misrepresentation; I don't think I would be guilty of that, just watching these videos it paints the picture of government control and regulation solving problems. And ridicule; I do think it's funny, just because it's just a lot wishes with no substance

[trevor1787]

How can anyone not laugh when they watch this? A society where bridges don't collapse, and where our cities are protected from natural disasters, and emotions are "managed and regulated"? How ridiculous a concept is the progressive idea that just by throwing out capitalism that that would pave the way for this utopia where even the people have "healthy self esteem"? It's absurd, and it's no wonder the people are voting it down....I still do think it's funny though.

[AroundSun]

He says it is not just "wide-eyed idealism", then he speaks about nothing but wide eyed idealism.

[Aliothemage]

@ineptsegue

Measuring happiness? That's got to be one of the least solid statistics I've ever heard of. It is COMPLETELY subjective! And what do you mean "effective" citizens? Americans are pound for pound the most PRODUCTIVE people on earth, and solid economic statistics back THAT up.

Myth: Libertarians think it is always wrong to take property or wealthy from people who have it. (like when they stole it)

PLEASE stop straw manning... Do you even know what Libertarians advocate, lol?

[Aliothemage]

Of course cooperation can (and usually does) result in scenarios where everyone wins... That is what capitalism is all about! The division of labor and free trade are all about cooperation!

Instead what you're proposing is use the government to STEAL our money involuntarily to fulfill whatever goals you (or in reality, silk tonged ideologues) believe to be most worthwhile. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of cooperation! This is straight up propaganda of the worst kind.

[CommanderGene]

I'd stick with Capitalism, thank you, for multiple reasons. It's naive to assume that people will just provide for one another on the basis of compassion. Some of our greatest inventions and everyday products have come from people working for self interest, which is a very powerful motivation. Yet, by working for self interest, they've benfitted the rest of society. Cars, iPhones, iPods, TVs, computers (like the one you're using), etc. were all given to us because of capitalism.

[Beingism]

@CommanderGene We completely agree that it's naive to assume that people will "just do" that, which is why we need social systems that give incentives for being compassionate. Self-interest is indeed a powerful motivator; a good system is one that incentivizes desirable outcomes.

[FreeEcon]

@Beingism This is too vague to be considered an alternative. For example, remove disparities only to the extent to which they are required in order to get people to perform certain tasks? That's pretty vague.

If you have an actual alternative, I would love to hear it, but please, do some research first, so for example, you would know what that "extent" should be

[MirageScience]

@ineptsegue There is this thing called insurance that wants to keep the money you pay them, and they don't want treatments to cost a lot and nor do they want a lot of them.

[skatepunkzero]

@ineptsegue With what research? All you've done is talk about improving and making things better, but you never mentioned how.

[skatepunkzero]

@ineptsegue explain to me how these so called "Successful Social Systems" are going to work. To me it sounds like some lsd fantasy.

[skatepunkzero]

@ineptsegue the guy in the video is talking about free health care and making a society were everyone is equal and everyone wins aka Large government control aka communism. Sorry everyone can't win. Health care is not owed to anyone for free. It is not the governments job to give out health care.

[skatepunkzero]

The day your alternative to Capitalism works, is the day Hell freezes over. Sounds like you want large government control. Health care is not a free hand out. Im sorry but you definitely don't understand economics.

Also the day I give up my 57 Chevy for some computerized car is the day the sun explodes.

[MirageScience]

Prevention comes along with capitalism if you get rid of government.....

[MirageScience]

If you want to get rid of a lot of crime all you have to do is convince people that parental parenting classes are important. What is it like 87% of child abuse is from parents?

[nasaguy]

it's still not clear to me where this army of angels is going to come from, to bring about this revolution in human affairs. He acknowledges at the start that people are by their nature self-interested. Doesn't that by definition mean that it cannot be changed? Who is going to volunteer to do all this remaking of society? Government? No - they won't risk their re-election. The rich? No. Cops? Too busy with regular law enforcement. And on and on, it's just another pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

[Obasiliasfilosofos]

The mixed system is called Neo Capitalism

[netinfoseek]

To move beyond capitalism will require new and unknown technologies. Although these technologies are unknown at the moment, reprap technologies do look promising.

[Beingism]

@netinfoseek We totally agree with you! I'm impressed, actually, since I don't think many people understand this. I would add that pushing for major improvements in the mixed economy we have at present is perfectly possible without major technological breakthroughs, as superior systems already exist in some countries. Something a significant as a replacement for capitalism, however, will have to wait for 3D printers and similar technologies.

[netinfoseek]

@Beingism We are definitely on the same page. A mixed economy sure helps take the sting out of capitalism. However socialism is part of the same paradigm of industrialization that capitalism is and therefore can’t replace capitalism in the historical sense.

[Beingism]

@netinfoseek Well, there's a lot of room for a variety of meanings in a concept like socialism—and we don't really have the words yet to describe the future systems that may be developed. We're arguing here that whatever might be possible in the future, there's room for a lot of improvement to our current system even without any further technological changes.

[netinfoseek]

@Beingism “We're arguing here that whatever might be possible in the future, there's room for a lot of improvement to our current system even without any further technological changes.”

.

I’m in total agreement with you.

[netinfoseek]

@Beingism cont.

.

Of course there will still be large projects, but these can be done by a voluntary association of workers (and their machines) on a per project basis.

[netinfoseek]

@Beingism “Well, there’s a lot of room for a variety of meanings in a concept like socialism”

.

So true, in my above statement I was using a more mainstream meaning involving industrial manufacturing. If the technologies that we both have mentioned replace industrial manufacturing with a kind of desk top manufacturing then the workplace can be worker managed without any need for unions, since the workplace will be one person and his/her reprap machine.

[Beingism]

@netinfoseek If you ever do an essay or a video on this concept, let us know—we'd like the opportunity to link to it.

[netinfoseek]

Continuing with the new technology idea, medieval people needed the opportunity of moving to cities and working for the baker or candle stick maker before they could exchange the shackles of serfdom for those of wage slavery. New technology is required so people have the opportunity of giving up their wage slave jobs for something that is better.

[netinfoseek]

cont.

My argument for the above statement is this. Improved sailing technologies (rudders, rigging etc.), improved navigational aids (watches, Mercator maps etc.), the printing press for paper money and other technologies were essential for the European economy to go from feudalism to mercantilism, the precursor to capitalism. In turn the new technologies of the industrial revolution were essential for the economy to go from mercantilism to capitalism.

[netinfoseek]

cont.

It is inconceivable that the people of medieval Europe could have exchanged their serfdom for wage slavery without these technological advances. It is inconceivable that we can exchange our wage slavery for whatever will come next without some new technology that will transform society.

[JohnColt]

@ineptsegue Pinochet spoke of free markets, but that doesn't mean that libertarianism produces dictators - no - government does. And whereas anarchists/libertarians want power dispersed among the people, socialists want power centralized. The socialists say "government isn't necessarily bad" by which they really mean "it wouldn't be bad if WE were in charge". You guys fancy yourselves as philosopher kings, but so did PolPot, Stalin, Hitler et al.

[JohnColt]

@ineptsegue Good quote. Another excellent example of what happens when one person or group thinks "the world would be better if only I were in charge".

[JohnColt]

"I want you to know that everything I did, I did for my country."

- Pol Pot.

[notbored12]

How can we do these things, you would have to redistribute wealth, I doubt the people who built up that wealth themselves will take kindly to that. Also this video contains no concrete methods for achieving these goals, it just asserts they are achievable.

[Americaisgreat123]

@ineptsegue This is the problem with you socialists. You are all about feelings and philosophy. There was not a shred of economic reasoning in your comment.

Economic realities may not appeal to your emotions or your unconstrained vision of utopia, but proven fact overrides your wishes.

I'll stick with Adam Smith and Milton Friedman and tell Mr. Beingism to kiss my economic degree's ass.

[ineptsegue]

If you really think all economists (or even a good majority of them) believe in free market principles, you need to do a lot more research. Countless problems with so-called free markets are outlined here:

beingism [dot] org/community/?q=node/13

I don't have much more to say, as you're just making insulting comments and not providing specific objections, except to say that you're way off base in your claim that:

Myth: Economic conservatism is the only political philosophy favoring reason.

[Americaisgreat123]

Ignore intentions. Adam Smith pointed out over 200 years ago that those who help society most do so by simply following their own self interest. Think about how countries get rich and how rich countries get richer (ignore communists - they don't have economic degrees). It doesn't happen through charity or benevolent government. It happens through people seeking wealth which creates jobs where none existed, productivity and hence wages increase and it turns into a great cycle. Wealth is created

[newb2yutube]

Sorry but both you and this guys' video is wrong. Adam smith's ideas was absolutely great for an 18th century agrarian society. However, we are in the age of technology which you should already know, changes the game by a huge margin. Wealth is not created by money but by technology. Money only changes how and why it's made...to make money. Hence you get planned obsolescence waste,and corruption. It's the price systems game and it will not work for the benefit of humanity and earth.

[Beingism]

I'm afraid I'm not really clear what you're getting at,

newb2yutube.

[newb2yutube]

I don't know. My comment was sloppy. I like your video. I'm just here saying there is a viable option. It's called technocracy. The price system isn't capable of sustaining a high energy civilization...period. Any idea within the price system claiming otherwise is wrong.

[MigDanskeren]

Okay, I'm going to stop this debate now, your last claim is just too ridiculous.

I don't know if you are a troll or just crazy but saying that people in capitalist nations have the lowest quality of life it just plan stupid. People of the capitalist world are the ones with very highest standard of life, arguing about this a waste of my time and i prefer constructive debates.

[MigDanskeren]

"More equal nations do better"

No! Nations that do better tend to become more equal.

[MigDanskeren]

Please explain why violent crime is rising in Western Europe in spite of the extreme wealth that even the poorest enjoy, and in spite of a rising equality. In Scandinavia the violent crime rate is now higher than it was 100 years ago, when equality was extremely high.

Also please explain the fall in violent crime in many central- and eastern European nations in spite of increasing inequality?

You explanation is driven by ideology, not science.

[MigDanskeren]

No it is not. You "evidence" is simply bad science. The UK (and its poor) is richer than ever before but the crime is the highest in many years. The same is the case in mine and in many other countries.

The reason for this development is mostly due to immigration from underdeveloped countries.

Your source should learn that correlation does not automatically equal causation. As I said before: The correlation is due to underlying cultural factors.

[MigDanskeren]

I live in the most equal nation in the world, still there is more and more violence.

I'd say that murder and equality is not related but both determined by underlying factors like liberty and cultural homogenity.

[DSBrekus]

It seems people just vote down or spew out hateful comments as a knee jerk reaction without watching the video...

In any case I agree with you in large part and maybe one day science and technology can make it possible, the hardest part, as always, will be getting people to get over there prejudices...

[catgumart]

I was thinking after you said people could find ways to meet their own needs by helping others...(Im throwing out an idea here) maybe a type of social program that pays people to go clean the house of welfare recipients or trim there lawns..I saw on another video someone who was criticizing poor people for their shabby homes and yards etc..I think poor people have reasons why they don't or cant do this related to their state of poverty, so a program that could pay people to service poor people.

[MigDanskeren]

In my society everybody has much more than what they need to survive. If you can't take care of yourself the government will make damn sure you never need anything. Still more and more crimes are committed and the murder rate is the highest in at least 100 years. How do you explain that?

[catgumart]

Maybe the murder rate would be much higher if there were not socialism in place, or maybe not enough has gone into teaching values, or maybe it is a random trend that has nothing to do with the economy, or maybe because of higher population, or influx of different cultures and the stresses of the modern life...who knows, but I have a feeling that things would be worse if the people were not taken care of...

[Americaisgreat123]

By an alternative to capitalism, are you just to cowardly to call yourself fascist or socialist?

Why do bridges fall into disrepair? Because of politics. There is little political reward (incentive) to repair things. You do not have a ribbon cutting ceremony for a pot hole filling.

Your intentions are good sir, but all the evidence runs counter to your ideology. Your view, put in place, would produce misery and unintended consequences.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.