• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Is capitalism destined to collapse on itself?

While companies would like to get away with paying their employees nothing, their business would shutter up quickly.

A free market with competition should bring higher wages. A good worker will be looking for an environment with higher pay, if given the option, which he or she should have in a free market. This should benefit all workers, as business will have to compete for good employees, which would create a monetary benefit for the worker.

Countries/States that score high in economic freedom (Singapore, Hong Kong, USA, Australia, Switzerland) are all in the top 10 in GDP at PPP per capita.
 
Last edited:
This "race to the bottom" nonsense was disproved years ago. Employers are first and foremost concerned with labor productivity, not the price at which they employ labor. If capitalism were really pushing wages downward, then you would expect most foreign direct investment to be going into countries where the labor standards are lowest. In fact, about 90% of FDI from rich countries goes to other rich countries. This is because workers from these countries are more productive than workers from countries where wages are lower. This gives less developed countries an incentive to improve their human capital by improving education, training, and providing the support of a good infrastructure. So really, capitalism increases standard of living. If it didn't, then we wouldn't see poor, resource scarce countries attempting to develop in a global market.
 
I am OPPOSED to modern stock exchanges. I feel strongly that they magnify boom-bust cycles and are a more likely cause of a fall of free enterprise than any tendency to reduce the wage unit.

I need to read Schumpeter, though. I'm pretty sure the answer is that if capitalism is to go the way of the dodo, it will be by incremental acceptance of social safety nets and making financial instruments progressively less liquid and not by a sudden collapse. I am IN FAVOR of anything that will un-couple employment from a stock market that is akin to a casino.
 
I will take the OP doesn't understand economics for $200, Alex
 
I don't think the premise of the OP is correct, however, I do believe that unfettered capitalism without some sort of moral compass only benefits the few.
 
I will take the OP doesn't understand economics for $200, Alex

It's actually a very good understanding of the consumption function, though the premise that wages are necessarily forced lower and lower is not well-matched to reality. Capitalism's real problems lie in its inability to guarantee full employment and the social unrest caused by that.
 
Last edited:
The reason many companies immediately relocate to third world nations is the markets aren't there. In many countries there would be a backlash against producers who move all their jobs offshore.

Unfettered capitalism leads to Love Canals, what you see along the US/Mexican border and clear-cutting of the Brazillian rainforest.
 
Sailor, "pure" anything will never work until man has evolved much greater maturity and business morals.
 
Sailor, "pure" anything will never work until man has evolved much greater maturity and business morals.

+1000. Gotta give you rep for this. This is why an Austrian economic model will not work in the form Von Mises proscribed. There was a sense of duty in the upper class at the time he wrote it which does not exist today.
 
Sailor, "pure" anything will never work until man has evolved much greater maturity and business morals.

I didn't say it did. I was merely making the point that it's difficult for something to end without anything to replace it. And at this time there is no alternative to capitalism. But since all things change eventually, capitalism will surely evolve as well. Into what, I have no idea. But I can't plan that far ahead.

Consequently, we might as well do our best to mitigate the worst aspects of capitalism and try to expand its best attributes because it will likely be with us for a while. As I have said, there is no alternative.

I know my old friend bkf would disagree with this, if he posted here, but then he would be wrong.
 
Capitalism has evoloved. At the dawn of the industrial revelution through the early twentieth century, owners of businesss had all the power. They still have most of it, but it has evolved.

As to not being an alternative, the reality is we are living with alternatives at this time. A hybrid of capitalism and socialism exists in almost every industrialized nation.

Whether it's OSHA, the FDA and the EPA in the US or employee rules, environmental legislation and other statutes in the EU, what the world has now and will continue to have is this hybrid.
 
Capitalism has evoloved. At the dawn of the industrial revelution through the early twentieth century, owners of businesss had all the power. They still have most of it, but it has evolved.

As to not being an alternative, the reality is we are living with alternatives at this time. A hybrid of capitalism and socialism exists in almost every industrialized nation.

Whether it's OSHA, the FDA and the EPA in the US or employee rules, environmental legislation and other statutes in the EU, what the world has now and will continue to have is this hybrid.


I certainly agree with you that capitalism has evolved. But the base, the essence, of the overwhelmingly dominant economic system in the world today is capitalism. The effort to replace it with socialism has failed, big time. What exists of socialism today operates in a capitalist context, as do all these other things that governments do. They are in an economic sense just add ons that have little or no viability, or even meaning, outside of a capitalist context. For the moment, and probably for the long term, the world is capitalist, and even socialism, or socialist elements, today, can only exist as a subordinate, dependent on a capitalist context.
 
You are talking semantics with a predisposed point of view.

Your buddy bkf may say what we have is socialism with capitalism as a support.

The truth is they will be forever comingled.
 
You are talking semantics with a predisposed point of view.

Your buddy bkf may say what we have is socialism with capitalism as a support.

The truth is they will be forever comingled.


Some of your previous posts on this thread seemed to be near the ballpark. This one is simply incomprehensible. I simply don't understand what you are talking about. So let's call it a day. Good luck!
 
You are talking semantics with a predisposed point of view.

Your buddy bkf may say what we have is socialism with capitalism as a support.

The truth is they will be forever comingled.


I am not talking semantics.

Who doesn't have a point of view? A person who is being dishonest with himself, that's who. Your accusation of predisposition is a meaningless effort to feel superior and has nothing to do with what I have stated. Make a reasonable argument, instead of an accusation of prejudice.

I am not aware of bkf having said any such thing. His complaint seems to be the opposite.

"they will forever be commingled," is meaningless. Capitalism dominates - whether we like it or not - and socialism exists to the extent that capitalism is able to support it and allow it.
 
I didn't accuse you of being prejudiced.

I made a reasonable argument:

First I stated that "prue" capitalism was impossible to exist until man evolved.

Then I showed examples of how modern industrialized societies had a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

My last statement is that the most successful countries will have a "hybrid" or "comingling" of capitalism and socialism.

Capitalism doesn't "allow" socialism. It fights things like logical regulations.

At no point did I say either theory was better than the other. All I've done is is put forth examples which reinforce my position.

You are the one using perjorative terms like "meaningless".
 
I didn't accuse you of being prejudiced.

I made a reasonable argument:

First I stated that "prue" capitalism was impossible to exist until man evolved.

Fine, no quibbles with this statement. But why address it to me? I have said nothing to elicit this statement. You seem to be confused. If it was just a general statement, then leave it at that and leave me out of it.

Then I showed examples of how modern industrialized societies had a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

That is true, there are socialist elements in modern capitalist societies. But the system is capitalist, and the socialist elements are secondary. Simply saying mixture and commingling is misleading because the system is based on capitalism and it is capitalism that dominates. The socialist elements are subservient.

My last statement is that the most successful countries will have a "hybrid" or "commingling" of capitalism and socialism.

The system is capitalist. Whatever other elements exist, they do so because capitalism makes it possible for them to exist. Capitalism provides the economic basis for them to exist. There is no equality between them and capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't "allow" socialism. It fights things like logical regulations.

Those elements of socialism have survived that have proven to be compatible with capitalism. Consequently, socialism exists to the extent that capitalism allows it to exist.

At no point did I say either theory was better than the other. All I've done is is put forth examples which reinforce my position.

I am not aware that anyone claimed that you did. You have provided examples but none of them have successfully challenged the reality that the system is capitalist, the other elements are secondary and subordinate. If you agree with that, why don't you just say so?

You are the one using pejorative terms like "meaningless".

I am sorry but what I do not understand is meaningless to me. I am sorry if that is pejorative to you. No offense was intended, just a statement of fact.
 
Back
Top