Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy

belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:09:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
has anyone else read it? i only just finished the "capitalism" section, and i have to say his argument is quite hilarious (assuming i am understanding it properly). capitalism will ultimately fail because:

1. the masses are too stupid to understand what is good for them and will reject it
2. the ceaseless process of technological advance will eventually manage to automate progress, meaning there will be no use for passionate entrepreneurs, killing the motivation of many to go into business
3. as firms get bigger, the concept of "property" will be set back to a sufficient remove, such that executives take on the mentality of a salaried employee rather than an owner- again with a deleterious effect on motivation and passion among businessmen
4. capitalism and the process of "rationalization" will eventually destroy those aspects of culture that are taken for granted and yet necessary for the working of the capitalist order (ex: the traditional family, unquestionable authority)... which kinds of ties back to one, as the masses will become disillusioned with everything and will be wont to blame the political climate (capitalism).

after all that no one will be in support of it (and i assume this will somehow pave the way to socialism? lol...)
short version: the capitalist process of "creative destruction" is so ruthlessly efficient it will eventually destroy its very basis.

what do you all think? also if you've read it, should i look forward to the last two parts?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:14:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
the traditional family
THAT socialist institution is crucial to the capitalist order?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:14:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
and nae, have nae read.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:15:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 6:14:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
the traditional family
THAT socialist institution is crucial to the capitalist order?

because people without children are less motivated to accumulate large savings apparently.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:18:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 6:14:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
and nae, have nae read.

kinda figured that from your comment. but nae? why are you scottish all of a sudden?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:23:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 6:09:08 PM, belle wrote:
has anyone else read it? i only just finished the "capitalism" section, and i have to say his argument is quite hilarious (assuming i am understanding it properly). capitalism will ultimately fail because:

1. the masses are too stupid to understand what is good for them and will reject it
Probably.
2. the ceaseless process of technological advance will eventually manage to automate progress, meaning there will be no use for passionate entrepreneurs, killing the motivation of many to go into business
Not likely, but a quick glance at the wiki reveals that the author put way too much stress on entrepreneurship.
3. as firms get bigger, the concept of "property" will be set back to a sufficient remove, such that executives take on the mentality of a salaried employee rather than an owner- again with a deleterious effect on motivation and passion among businessmen
Incoherent.
4. capitalism and the process of "rationalization" will eventually destroy those aspects of culture that are taken for granted and yet necessary for the working of the capitalist order (ex: the traditional family, unquestionable authority)... which kinds of ties back to one, as the masses will become disillusioned with everything and will be wont to blame the political climate (capitalism).
"Those aspects of culture that are taken for granted" are not necessary for the working of the capitalist order.
after all that no one will be in support of it (and i assume this will somehow pave the way to socialism? lol...)
short version: the capitalist process of "creative destruction" is so ruthlessly efficient it will eventually destroy its very basis.
what do you all think? also if you've read it, should i look forward to the last two parts?

I have not read it, nor do I intend to.

The author believes that innovation is responsible for the business cycles. Nuff said.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:25:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 6:15:43 PM, belle wrote:
At 9/20/2010 6:14:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
the traditional family
THAT socialist institution is crucial to the capitalist order?
because people without children are less motivated to accumulate large savings apparently.
People that believe in Social Security are less motivated to accumulate large savings.

The people that save for the purpose of having children are not the people that save for the purpose of starting businesses.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:33:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 6:25:18 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 9/20/2010 6:15:43 PM, belle wrote:
At 9/20/2010 6:14:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
the traditional family
THAT socialist institution is crucial to the capitalist order?
because people without children are less motivated to accumulate large savings apparently.
People that believe in Social Security are less motivated to accumulate large savings.

The people that save for the purpose of having children are not the people that save for the purpose of starting businesses.

not exactly the point... people without children will work hard to a point and then say "good enough" because they don't have to worry about accumulating savings sufficient to get their children off to a good start. so people are not driven to work as hard during their lifetimes.

also not positive, but schumpeter would probably say that social security is a populist policy instituted by a coalition between the foolish masses and the bitter intellectuals and agree with you that it ultimately harmed the working of the capitalist system.

also, what about point 3 is incoherent? if someone doesn't feel as though they have a real stake in their business, which management-style executives don't, they are again less motivated to fight as hard as they would if they had more proprietary feelings in that regard.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:38:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 6:33:10 PM, belle wrote:
At 9/20/2010 6:25:18 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 9/20/2010 6:15:43 PM, belle wrote:
At 9/20/2010 6:14:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
the traditional family
THAT socialist institution is crucial to the capitalist order?
because people without children are less motivated to accumulate large savings apparently.
People that believe in Social Security are less motivated to accumulate large savings.
The people that save for the purpose of having children are not the people that save for the purpose of starting businesses.
not exactly the point... people without children will work hard to a point and then say "good enough" because they don't have to worry about accumulating savings sufficient to get their children off to a good start. so people are not driven to work as hard during their lifetimes.
Then we have more leisure and/or less hard work. Not a bad thing.
also, what about point 3 is incoherent? if someone doesn't feel as though they have a real stake in their business, which management-style executives don't, they are again less motivated to fight as hard as they would if they had more proprietary feelings in that regard.
It wasn't coherent because I didn't understand wtf you were talking about. If there is a difference in motivation, then it is in the rational self-interest of the owner to make the worker feel he or she has a stake.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:40:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 6:18:04 PM, belle wrote:
At 9/20/2010 6:14:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
and nae, have nae read.

kinda figured that from your comment. but nae? why are you scottish all of a sudden?

Nae.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2010 7:21:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 6:09:08 PM, belle wrote:

Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy

Pros:
Representative democracy
Capitalism

Thats what I like!
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2010 7:24:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
lol the author actually believes that socialism will eventually replace capitalism in a piecewise fashion and that democracy produces inefficient career politicians who must spend most of their energy gaining and staying in power rather than getting down to the business of governing. you would probably hate it.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2010 8:22:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 6:23:27 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 9/20/2010 6:09:08 PM, belle wrote:
2. the ceaseless process of technological advance will eventually manage to automate progress, meaning there will be no use for passionate entrepreneurs, killing the motivation of many to go into business
Not likely, but a quick glance at the wiki reveals that the author put way too much stress on entrepreneurship.

No, he didn't. In fact, before Scumpeter very little work was done on the entrepeneur because they theorized in equilibrium.

I have not read it, nor do I intend to.

Bohm-Bawerk considered Schumpter his brightest student. Mises was never thought to amount to anything. And Schumpeter ended up in Harvard and Mises got an unpaid job at NYU.

Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis is cited by Rothbard quite often.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran