Capitalism is an inherently self defeating system to some degree, which requires outside regulation in order to make it workable. Perhaps ironically, socialism does not have the solution or answer as it's the separation of powers in capitalism that allows the governments to be able to regulate it. The government and business are in necessary conflict, where as in socialism and communism there is no regulation and it can quickly lead to authoritarianism, which is has in every case of the world. There needs to be outside regulation to make capitalism possible, as a detached third party overwatches it. However there are other issues, as well. While I myself am a capitalist, there are potential issues present that must be considered and rectified. Private businesses are not entitled to do "whatever they want" and should not censor people for example.
The entire basis of the benefit for capitalism is the perception of competition and the belief that it allows for growth; the issue for competition in a business environment is the all or nothing approach. If a business does well, it succeeds and continues to exist; if a business does poorly, it ceases to exist, since running out of money causes the business to go bankrupt, and be unable to buy enough goods for next year's produce. If the goal of competition is to win and therefore make your competition lose, there must be a loser to a competitive system. When the loser is defeated, they cease to exist, due to the all or nothing requirement of resources with no outside system providing resources, thus ending the competition. A business that cannot sell products, or sell enough products to at least break even, and make up the initial cost of business, goes bankrupt. A system that is designed for competition will ultimately have a winner, that is the only remaining candidate, and thus competition will cease to exist, and any potential gains of inventiveness, innovation or freedom of choice as a result of competition will cease to exist as well.
Thus the only way to maintain a capitalistic system is from the outside. In order for perpetual competition to remain the loser of a system must be allowed to persist in some form. Competition must exist arbitrarily and not as a direct survive or fail type of interaction. Various businesses can provide variations of the same product, such as different kinds of foods, and be made available to switch. A company may provide part of a whole, such as software or hardware in computers, in order to allow for the lack of monopolization without removing one or the other system.
But direct competition leads to a loser. Losers go bankrupt. Bankrupt companies stop producing goods. Hence if you actually succeed in the goal of capitalism, you lose your competition. Without competition, according to the basis of capitalism, there is no longer innovation, invention, etc. striving towards the best product. Hence, if capitalism is correct, then it's inherently self defeating, as it always leads to the inevitable monopolization when a successful company is produced; thus, when a well established company, with considerable accessible reserve funds from profits, finds competition, it has no struggle in defeating them unless completely met with an entirely powerful opposing force.
Competition eventually leads to a winner, and monopolies. Without trust busting, de-monopolization, government intervention, etc. capitalism cannot continue.
The degradation of monopolization may be bad in it's own right, however. Splitting up a company may cause problems with the companies capacity to produce. Indeed, working together, not competition, tends to be the best driver of benefit for all. However, capitalism is a natural regulation system in capitalism which is why it is prized; it's not necessarily that it is an end goal itself but a natural regulation system. If there are 5 gas stations and all of them sell gas for a dollar but the fifth decides to try and sell it for 5 dollars, they'll go bankrupt, and are forced to lower it to a dollar. Hence monopolies are generally bad as there is no good way to regulate them without the governments, as without competition they can charge what they want.
Some argue that monopolies can only form from governments intervention, although this is not true. Natural disasters or events may tip the favor in a company's balance even with fair competition, giving them an unearned edge and allowing for an inferior company to win despite it's problems or another company to be wiped out. Surely, yes, social safety nets like governments regulated insurance helps with this, but these would not exist without the government. Insurance would have no means of being held accountable by bankrupt people if they ever needed it without the governments (they've ran out of resources). And there are other natural advantages that aren't necessarily disasters, like hurricanes which may wipe out a business over many decades of otherwise fair competition, such as proximity. Oil wasn't valuable 200 years ago, but it's extremely valuable now, while things such as gold or diamonds have remained valuable but aren't enough to guarantee wealth (consider poor african or middle eastern countries). Monopolies will inevitably arise, and something must be put in to place to counter this. The most obvious reason is outside governments help, for example China backing a company like apple which then leads to bankrupting it's competition and then apple over charging and refusing headphone jacks which no-one can do anything about due to a lack of competition. Many will argue this is not capitalism's fault as it is a socialist country tipping the scales in the favor of a particular company, and while true, this is besides the point, it still happens and can only be countered by the outside regulation. It is not only your own governments but outside governments businesses must contend with. Even if America had a perfectly fair playing field, other countries would not and can interfere in our domestic affairs. Therefore counters by our own governments are needed to remedy this; clearly overt hostile take overs like by say an enemy military invasion also necessitate governments, or random rioters require police. Governments are needed to produce currency and act as third party arbiters in basic contract enforcement, police and military must directly protect businesses and people, and a host of other issues are required. Governments can assist by building road and other forms of public infrastructure such as water pipelines or electric lines, and usually are needed for things to first start. For example NASA or the military started programs that were immensely profitable when they later went private, such as nuclear power, various satellite programs, the internet and so on. Elon musk's spaceX may be profitable now, but it took 50 years to get to this point.
Therefore despite my support for capitalism, I feel many need to understand how much work by the governments is needed to make it possible. Much of which we take for granted like daily protection from police and military or roads and electricity. This isn't to say we shouldn't have or don't need capitalism, only that capitalism needs to be tempered by fair regulation.
For Profit
Companies may compete for "profits" without actually directly competing within a given business transaction, such as food suppliers and computers. Both benefit from each other and they may engage in friendly competition to see whom can produce the most profitable of X product proportionally.
What is profitable is also not necessarily what is best. What should be encouraged, ultimately, is the best product, capitalism or not. Therefore unless competition is arbitrary, instead of survival or extinction, the benefits of capitalism are inherently self defeating.
Profit does not always produce the best product. A product that lasts only two years, instead of twenty, may be worse, but it may generate more sales than a twenty year product. Therefore the most profitable product may not be the best product. As well, profit is not everything; the assertion that, profit driven competition will produce the best product, when money, or profit, is not the end all or be all of everything is rather silly. If a person's life as on the line, money would not seem as important; the concept that, therefore, money should be the end all be all of everything, when it's clearly not, or by trying to force money to be everything, is absurd.
The entire point of money is to get things, it's a means to an end. When money becomes your end, what's the purpose of money? When companies compete for profits they are not really competing for what is important anymore, which is to create the best product and help out the world and their respective country's the most.
An zealot is someone who redoubles their efforts while losing sight of their goal. If the goal is to have the best product, than capitalism for capitalism's sake or money for money's sake defeats the intended, over-all purpose of capitalism in the first place, which is to over-all benefit people.
Mutual Exchange
Profit is impossible to sustain in a closed system. For instance, assuming there is 1000 dollars split up among 10 people, and each person starts off with 100 dollars, what happens when someone else makes 10 dollars? One person is short 10 dollars. Or perhaps all people are short 1 dollar. And what happens the next year? And the next? By the time an individual has 300 dollars, everyone else is, on average, short 20 dollars. When a person relies on their consumers, and their consumers rely on their producers, making more money than you return ends up with a destroyed consumer base. When there is a base cost of living, for housing, water, food, etc. a certain amount of money is required every year to live. If a person cannot break even, they starve, lose their house etc., or go into debt. The only way to alleviate debt is to print more money, and forgive the debt, which either results in inflation, or to take the money from the person who is profiting and give it back to everyone else. The only way to have a sustainable economy is with mutual benefits; profit driven economies rely on outside intervention to keep the system going, whether it be growth, printed money, or other such things. Hence a for profit system is ultimately unsustainable.
Not everyone on the planet can make a profit; for someone to profit, someone else must lose out. A person who profits by 10 dollars per year inevitable makes everyone else lose out, in a closed system. Without printing more money to allow people to remain at their previous standard of living, problem occur within the system, which cause it to inevitable collapse. When money is worthless after a collapse, it is both bad for the one in debt and the profiteer. However before anyone believes this supports a socialist critique, it does not. The world is not a sinking ship with limited supplies until we all drown. You can always MAKE more supplies, which generally come from nature, such as digging up more iron ore, or growing more food, or getting rocks for concrete. Profit-based incentive measures MUST incentivize productive behavior, like growing more food or building buildings or something that is good rather than just accruing money. And so gold-standard based economies are dumb as they force people to dig up tons of gold, which is worthless to society at large, rather than focus on the production of goods which is more valuable in a fiat currency. In a for profit society the value of money cannot be permanently stable and is actually bad, so the stability of the gold standard is not a good thing, as we must print more to account for more wealth generated by a larger population with more resources being created, and we should incentivize this over gold or silver mining productions. The richest people should be farmers, electronics manufacturers, industry good makers who make things like cars and not silver or gold miners. Hence why a fiat currency is superior. This is just one example of how overly simplistic thinking pollutes the minds of many capitalist purists. Capitalism is just a system designed to produce more wealth and not a religion or code of moral ethics to live by. If capitalism is in conflict with these things than we should regulate it.
For Profit
Companies may compete for "profits" without actually directly competing within a given business transaction, such as food suppliers and computers. Both benefit from each other and they may engage in friendly competition to see whom can produce the most profitable of X product proportionally.
What is profitable is also not necessarily what is best. What should be encouraged, ultimately, is the best product, capitalism or not. Therefore unless competition is arbitrary, instead of survival or extinction, the benefits of capitalism are inherently self defeating.
Profit does not always produce the best product. A product that lasts only two years, instead of twenty, may be worse, but it may generate more sales than a twenty year product. Therefore the most profitable product may not be the best product. As well, profit is not everything; the assertion that, profit driven competition will produce the best product, when money, or profit, is not the end all or be all of everything is rather silly. If a person's life as on the line, money would not seem as important; the concept that, therefore, money should be the end all be all of everything, when it's clearly not, or by trying to force money to be everything, is absurd.
The entire point of money is to get things, it's a means to an end. When money becomes your end, what's the purpose of money? When companies compete for profits they are not really competing for what is important anymore, which is to create the best product and help out the world and their respective country's the most.
An zealot is someone who redoubles their efforts while losing sight of their goal. If the goal is to have the best product, than capitalism for capitalism's sake or money for money's sake defeats the intended, over-all purpose of capitalism in the first place, which is to over-all benefit people.
Mutual Exchange
Profit is impossible to sustain in a closed system. For instance, assuming there is 1000 dollars split up among 10 people, and each person starts off with 100 dollars, what happens when someone else makes 10 dollars? One person is short 10 dollars. Or perhaps all people are short 1 dollar. And what happens the next year? And the next? By the time an individual has 300 dollars, everyone else is, on average, short 20 dollars. When a person relies on their consumers, and their consumers rely on their producers, making more money than you return ends up with a destroyed consumer base. When there is a base cost of living, for housing, water, food, etc. a certain amount of money is required every year to live. If a person cannot break even, they starve, lose their house etc., or go into debt. The only way to alleviate debt is to print more money, and forgive the debt, which either results in inflation, or to take the money from the person who is profiting and give it back to everyone else. The only way to have a sustainable economy is with mutual benefits; profit driven economies rely on outside intervention to keep the system going, whether it be growth, printed money, or other such things. Hence a for profit system is ultimately unsustainable.
Not everyone on the planet can make a profit; for someone to profit, someone else must lose out. A person who profits by 10 dollars per year inevitable makes everyone else lose out, in a closed system. Without printing more money to allow people to remain at their previous standard of living, problem occur within the system, which cause it to inevitable collapse. When money is worthless after a collapse, it is both bad for the one in debt and the profiteer. However before anyone believes this supports a socialist critique, it does not. The world is not a sinking ship with limited supplies until we all drown. You can always MAKE more supplies, which generally come from nature, such as digging up more iron ore, or growing more food, or getting rocks for concrete. Profit-based incentive measures MUST incentivize productive behavior, like growing more food or building buildings or something that is good rather than just accruing money. And so gold-standard based economies are dumb as they force people to dig up tons of gold, which is worthless to society at large, rather than focus on the production of goods which is more valuable in a fiat currency. In a for profit society the value of money cannot be permanently stable and is actually bad, so the stability of the gold standard is not a good thing, as we must print more to account for more wealth generated by a larger population with more resources being created, and we should incentivize this over gold or silver mining productions. The richest people should be farmers, electronics manufacturers, industry good makers who make things like cars and not silver or gold miners. Hence why a fiat currency is superior. This is just one example of how overly simplistic thinking pollutes the minds of many capitalist purists. Capitalism is just a system designed to produce more wealth and not a religion or code of moral ethics to live by. If capitalism is in conflict with these things than we should regulate it.
No comments:
Post a Comment