View Full Version : What happens when capitalism is an end in itself without a social contract?
catherine
12-8-13, 10:23am
Very interesting reading (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-capitalism-marx-two-americas-wire) from David Simon, of Wired. It's hard to pick one excerpt to give you a flavor of it, but here's one:
Mistaking capitalism for a blueprint as to how to build a society strikes me as a really dangerous idea in a bad way. Capitalism is a remarkable engine again for producing wealth. It's a great tool to have in your toolbox if you're trying to build a society and have that society advance. You wouldn't want to go forward at this point without it. But it's not a blueprint for how to build the just society. There are other metrics besides that quarterly profit report.
The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile. It's a juvenile notion and it's still being argued in my country passionately and we're going down the tubes. And it terrifies me because I'm astonished at how comfortable we are in absolving ourselves of what is basically a moral choice. Are we all in this together or are we all not?
I couldn't agree more. I watch with horror. More mature countries seem to understand this.
That's exactly how I feel, but can't put things into words. I can't even read books on the subject........but it is soooooooo true.
I always wonder what other kind of blueprint could have been used from the start.? Maybe its the "want something better, something more" original immigrants who eventually populated the country. I just don't know and can't explain it. But I've always felt there has to be a better way!
Thanks for sharing this catherine.
It isn't like the Founding Fathers had capitalism in mind. Thank the robber barons.
I'm thinking the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves...........feeling sorta bad.......maybe saying "OMG!" or "WTF!".......:0!
I'm thinking the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves...........feeling sorta bad.......maybe saying "OMG!" or "WTF!".......:0!
Really? In regards to capitalism?
It seems to me that capitalism represents the best elements of personal liberty and freedom. In my view, they may be rolling over in their graves at our propensity to place the federal government and resultant bureaucracy into the country's social fabric, in many cases replacing family and community, but that's not capitalistic.
It seems to me that capitalism represents the best elements of personal liberty and freedom. In my view, they may be rolling over in their graves at our propensity to place the federal government and resultant bureaucracy into the country's social fabric, in many cases replacing family and community, but that's not capitalistic.
In my mind, without the checks and balances of people looking out for other people, you get exploitation. I do not trust anyone who uses only the profit motive as his/her True North to look out for my best interests.
This bears repeating: "t's a great tool to have in your toolbox if you're trying to build a society and have that society advance. You wouldn't want to go forward at this point without it. But it's not a blueprint for how to build the just society. There are other metrics besides that quarterly profit report."
Capitalism has no business in areas like health care or road building (private roads, anyone?) that redound to the commons.
gimmethesimplelife
12-8-13, 2:56pm
It seems to me that capitalism represents the best elements of personal liberty and freedom. In my view, they may be rolling over in their graves at our propensity to place the federal government and resultant bureaucracy into the country's social fabric, in many cases replacing family and community, but that's not capitalistic.
In my mind, without the checks and balances of people looking out for other people, you get exploitation. I do not trust anyone who uses only the profit motive as his/her True North to look out for my best interests.Your last sentences? I couldn't agree more. + an absurdly high number! Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-8-13, 2:58pm
This bears repeating: "t's a great tool to have in your toolbox if you're trying to build a society and have that society advance. You wouldn't want to go forward at this point without it. But it's not a blueprint for how to build the just society. There are other metrics besides that quarterly profit report."
Capitalism has no business in areas like health care or road building (private roads, anyone?) that redound to the commons.And your last sentence? This is basically my philosophy that drives my ideas re healthcare. I love how you summarized something that is a basic philosophy of mine in one neat, concise sentence. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-8-13, 3:00pm
Really? In regards to capitalism?
It seems to me that capitalism represents the best elements of personal liberty and freedom. In my view, they may be rolling over in their graves at our propensity to place the federal government and resultant bureaucracy into the country's social fabric, in many cases replacing family and community, but that's not capitalistic.I have never felt free under US capitalism. On paper it sounds great, that much I will give you, but the reality I have experienced is without large amounts of money backing you, one is not free. Most of us live a life vulnerable to the whims of a winner takes all system that we have no real control over. I was fourteen when that one dawned on me. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-8-13, 3:05pm
I'm thinking the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves...........feeling sorta bad.......maybe saying "OMG!" or "WTF!".......:0!You know who I feel sorry for? The very elderly among us who fought in World War 2 and still have sharp minds. To have endured that hell, and then came home to an economy that was so much fairer that what we have today and then to see that economy morph into what we have now - I wonder if these elderly every wonder WTF did they fight for and was any of what they suffered in World War 2 worth it. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them thought that if things were going to eventually morph into this, they would have fled as to not fight in the first place. Those brave, brave souls - for them I have true sympathy. Rob
Capitalism has no business in areas like health care or road building (private roads, anyone?) that redound to the commons.
By capitalism, do you mean profit? If so, I'm not sure this example makes sense. Public roads are public property and the creation, maintenance & upkeep is farmed out to for profit companies. If you consider healthcare to be a public enterprise, would you take profit away from private practitioners?
There is quite a difference between Wired and The Wire. Your link is to information about The Wire and not Wired.
Without attention to the bottom line, we have ended up with a $17 Trillion deficit. Using just your heart can be just as dangerous as using (or not using) your brain.
There is NO substitute for individual freedom - the freedom to choose who to help and when to help. Like it or not, the individual is the sole actor.
ApatheticNoMore
12-8-13, 3:12pm
I do not trust anyone who uses only the profit motive as his/her True North to look out for my best interests.
of course, but I'm not sure they even look after their own best interest in any way that matters (those born into it defend class interest). But middle class strivers: money is necessary, money buys advantage, if you get fantaboulsly rich it's a nice position to be in, but anyone for whom money is the main thing they want out of life is empty. Though making money may take more out of one than one likes, why would anyone choose to make money thier True North? However I doubt most people have much experience with the "people looking out for other people" thing either though. Not now.
I have never felt free under US capitalism. On paper it sounds great, that much I will give you, but the reality I have experienced is without large amounts of money backing you, one is not free. Most of us live a life vulnerable to the whims of a winner takes all system that we have no real control over. I was fourteen when that one dawned on me. Rob
The fault is not with capitalism. You have more control, and its corresponding responsibility, than you take credit for.
I believe capitalism has brought more people out of poverty and oppression than any other economic system, although I'm open to arguments otherwise.
flowerseverywhere
12-8-13, 3:19pm
I have always felt my life here in the us has given me the most freedom I could ever have attained in the world. Despite growing up in foster care, being mixed race and female I was able to become educated and with my natural subs we were all lifted out of poverty. At one time a sister and I shared a rented room, worked full time in a nursing home and went to nursing school. Then we helped support a younger sis so she could do the same. The brothers helped each other and us. We limited family size, not one of us had an unintended pregnancy and none of us have depended on the federal government but have paid taxes all these years. Maybe some if the european
countries. But I do know I am thankful for the opportunities here
gimmethesimplelife
12-8-13, 3:28pm
The fault is not with capitalism. You have more control, and its corresponding responsibility, than you take credit for.
I believe capitalism has brought more people out of poverty and oppression than any other economic system, although I'm open to arguments otherwise.I might have had more leanings towards this view had not NAFTA and other free trade agreements taken place that helped escalate the fleeing of mid wage, middle class jobs to countries with lower wages and fewer regulations. What control do I have over this reality? I'm all ears on this one. Rob
If you consider healthcare to be a public enterprise, would you take profit away from private practitioners?
Yes, a not-for-profit health care system would be the most accessible & effective for all, in my opinion. Many folks think not-for-profits don't or cannot make a profit; that's not the case. Profits are necessary in the NFP sector to reinvest in the enterprise. NFP's can pay a living wage, though some still live in the 19th century and the Lady Bountiful, doing good is all that matters backwards mindset. Professionally competitive wages are now the norm for larger and more mature, stable NFP's. (I'm working on moving that one forward at my own workplace!)
The differences between the for-profit sector & NFP sector are these (not an exhaustive list) -- NFP's have their mission as the driving principle, FP's have profit & shareholder benefit, if publicly traded, as their driving principle. Each has a role in a democratic society, and the driving principle organizes the activities of the enterprise. NFP's reinvest their proceeds back into the organization to better meet the mission. FP's also often reinvest in their operations, again to the end of making more money, not of serving the community.
NFP's also have tax advantages. In return for paying no business taxes, they must demonstrate that they create a community benefit. This is very important, and one of the gold standards by which NFP's must be held accountable. It's why the Board of a NFP is so important, and why those on the Board are held personally liable for the NFP's fiduciary health & behavior. FP's pay a range of taxes; IMO, small businesses pay too much, while large corporations generally pay not enough. These taxes are how a public good is realized from privately held profits.
I definitely believe that a healthy mature society must work towards a balance of private, for-profit enterprises, private, not-for-profit enterprises, and public enterprise. Since I believe that human society is strongest when organized around meeting the needs of all, basic human needs should not be met in the FP sector. These should be met in a combination of NFP's and public sector organizations. I definitely want the FP sector to work to provide for the luxuries of our society, and to be free to make a profit within the constraints of the law.
I've been a small business owner, worked for small businesses, for state government, and for the NFP sector. Each has something to contribute to the well-being of our communities and our overall social health.
gimmethesimplelife
12-8-13, 3:34pm
I have always felt my life here in the us has given me the most freedom I could ever have attained in the world. Despite growing up in foster care, being mixed race and female I was able to become educated and with my natural subs we were all lifted out of poverty. At one time a sister and I shared a rented room, worked full time in a nursing home and went to nursing school. Then we helped support a younger sis so she could do the same. The brothers helped each other and us. We limited family size, not one of us had an unintended pregnancy and none of us have depended on the federal government but have paid taxes all these years. Maybe some if the european
countries. But I do know I am thankful for the opportunities hereThere were some good years here, I won't deny that at all. I'm glad you had the chance to achieve what you did and more power to you. I mean that sincerely. OTOH, try pulling off what you have described above today in this Darwinistic economy. A scattered few here and there may just pull it off - but the majority? I don't have much faith that your experiences can be had with hard work and determination in this economy we have now. Rob
I might have had more leanings towards this view had not NAFTA and other free trade agreements taken place that helped escalate the fleeing of mid wage, middle class jobs to countries with lower wages and fewer regulations. What control do I have over this reality? I'm all ears on this one. Rob
Use your vote wisely.
I might have had more leanings towards this view had not NAFTA and other free trade agreements taken place that helped escalate the fleeing of mid wage, middle class jobs to countries with lower wages and fewer regulations. What control do I have over this reality? I'm all ears on this one. Rob
Not much, I'm afraid. The fix is in. ALEC, Citizens United, Crossroads GPX and all the other heads of the hydra are spending plenty to assure their vision of reality will win. Such is the beauty of capitalism.
flowerseverywhere
12-8-13, 3:48pm
There were some good years here, I won't deny that at all. I'm glad you had the chance to achieve what you did and more power to you. I mean that sincerely. OTOH, try pulling off what you have described above today in this Darwinistic economy. A scattered few here and there may just pull it off - but the majority? I don't have much faith that your experiences can be had with hard work and determination in this economy we have now. Rob
You really have to want it. You have to be willing to work the jobs and shifts no one else wants. We have a friend who escaped Cambodia and one who was part of the Haitian boat lift. Both soldiered on and are middle class today. When my son graduated from college he sent out 128 resumes with links to websites and animations he had designed. When he got a great job everyone said how"lucky" he was. It is really hard, but with hard work and determination you might not ever be rich, but I believe a middle class lifestyle is attainable. We never had a new car and almost never ate out, but I consider us all to have attained middle class. Once you stop believing it is attainable it becomes so
Use your vote wisely.
Both the ballot box and your checkbook.
By capitalism, do you mean profit? If so, I'm not sure this example makes sense. Public roads are public property and the creation, maintenance & upkeep is farmed out to for profit companies. If you consider healthcare to be a public enterprise, would you take profit away from private practitioners?
Redfox did a much better job than I could explaining the difference between for-profit and not-for-profit (healthcare was largely non-for-profit in my youth), but as far as roads go--there are people who (seriously) think "free-market roads" are a good idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_roads
ApatheticNoMore
12-8-13, 4:04pm
but as far as roads go--there are people who (seriously) think "free-market roads" are a good idea
toll roads? They probably have their plusses (managing congestion etc.). It goes without saying that public transportation should be more of a priority (actually I'm sick of car dependency and never even vote to fund roads unless they sneak public transportation funding in there - blackmailing us I tell you, and even then the plans to turn everywhere into a giant freeway, I just can't vote for it anymore). Of course mere roads may be one thing and freeways quite another. It's more the latter that are the problem.
Redfox did a much better job than I could explaining the difference between for-profit and not-for-profit (healthcare was largely non-for-profit in my youth)...
Yes, Redfox did a great job of differentiating between FP and NFP, although I'm still confused on how forcing all healthcare providers, including research, development, medical device manufacturers, etc., into a non-profit business model will improve accessibility or quality of care to a level which would offset the decline in innovation, availability and quality of care.
I'll have to take your word for that "healthcare was largely non-for-profit in my youth" belief. I was one of those people who never saw a medical professional until I was old enough to take responsibility for my own care. If my parent's had known it was non-profit, maybe things would have been different.
For me there were multiple issues brought up in the article. One was the gap between the haves and have nots with Simon using his home town of Baltimore and some of the elements of The Wire as examples. On this issue, I would propose that the gap may be widening, but the living standards of what we consider "poor" have been consistently improving over time and much of that is due to the system and incentives of global capitalism where goods and services, including housing, food, and items of discretionary spending have become more affordable and available. Not that it is good, but it is better time-wise. I think the widening gap is more cultural and social in it's roots rather than being one of socialism or capitalism.
Freeways are publicly funded because they're a key part of the national defense system. They support commerce too, but the day is coming when trucking stuff long distances will be revealed as the unaffordable business that it is. This is where a full cost pricing system would be immediately useful, revealing the actual costs of my being able to drink coffee with cane sugar, or eat fresh avocados in Seattle.
Yes, Redfox did a great job of differentiating between FP and NFP, although I'm still confused on how forcing all healthcare providers, including research, development, medical device manufacturers, etc., into a non-profit business model will improve accessibility or quality of care to a level which would offset the decline in innovation, availability and quality of care.
NFP's are just as innovative as FP's. Quality is also not reliant upon being FP. Why do you believe that these qualities are more prominent in FP's? Regarding "forcing" all healthcare providers into a NFP business model, I believe that is best done by incentive. My own HMO is a coop, and a model health care provider nationally. Access would be greatly improved under a NFP structure, as any profits would be reinvested to meet greater service delivery across economic strata, and overall mission effectiveness.
ApatheticNoMore
12-8-13, 4:52pm
This is where a full cost pricing system would be immediately useful, revealing the actual costs of my being able to drink coffee with cane sugar, or eat fresh avocados in Seattle.
yes and toll roads are much closer to full cost pricing than freeways, so I see what they are getting at. Although to pay to use every stupid two lane road to get from point A to point B would be too much (because at a certain point it infringes on all freedom of movement although public transportation mitigates against this some).
I might be near as cynical about large non-profits as I am about for-profits (wow that's cynical) but I have less experience with them (co-ops are another matter, they are member or worker owned rather than getting money from donations. Co-ops are a model I actually DO like - though if it was going to revolutionize the world, well why hasn't it? people have been trying to do that for what 150 years?). I do agree non-profit healthcare would work much better, but it would have to be true non-profits, Kaiser is non-profit in name only, several little kaisers (haha) probably wouldn't help much.
Most of the roads in my county are privately-owned-and-operated roads, that charge fees or allow use to non-participants of the fee scheme for specific purposes. Those roads are often in better shape, better maintained, and better designed than the few "free" government roads here.
So, raising the spectre of "free-market roads" isn't really convincing.
I found Beito's "The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society" quite interesting.
iris lilies
12-8-13, 5:40pm
Really? In regards to capitalism?
It seems to me that capitalism represents the best elements of personal liberty and freedom. In my view, they may be rolling over in their graves at our propensity to place the federal government and resultant bureaucracy into the country's social fabric, in many cases replacing family and community, but that's not capitalistic.
The Founding Fathers would be skeeved about replacing King and the aristocracy with today's far reaching Governmental power over our lives. It's all the same thing --the much vaunted knowledge of men who know what is best for the citizenry. The leaders are all of a Higher Order be it King or Congressman.
Here's capitalism without a social contract:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos?term=story+on+blackstone&start=0
The Wall St casino gambling continues unfettered by anything so inconvenient as "regulations." Yay, freedom!!
gimmethesimplelife
12-8-13, 10:10pm
Both the ballot box and your checkbook.I completely agree with the checkbook part of this - I have a list of places I will not shop and manafacturers whose products I will not buy, not even secondhand. It's what little I can do. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-8-13, 10:15pm
Here's capitalism without a social contract:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos?term=story+on+blackstone&start=0
The Wall St casino gambling continues unfettered by anything so inconvenient as "regulations." Yay, freedom!!What really scares me is the exposure that the too big to fail banks have to derivatives. Not to plug someone else's website BUT if anyone wants to get an idea of how exposed the big banks are to financial derivates, on theeconomiccollapseblog.com there are articles in regards to this. And stated much better than I could ever put it. And I do agree that Wall Street these days is one big casino as share prices do not reflect market realties but have been inflated by quantitative easing, which has really benefited the top strata, dare I say the top 1%? Rob
catherine
12-8-13, 11:03pm
The Wall St casino gambling continues unfettered by anything so inconvenient as "regulations." Yay, freedom!!
"Unfettered" is the key word here.. and it reminds me that is it the word Pope Francis used to describe the "scary" brand of capitalism. Despite being so maligned by Rush Limbaugh, unfettered suggests capitalism run rampant does not do the majority good. Capitalism is not a bad thing.. and the article I started with specifically states that capitalism is a force for good in many instances. But unfettered capitalism requires that one puts aside any concern for the worker, even though he/she is cannot live on their wage; it requires that you can just rape and pillage natural resources in order to profit from the output; it requires that you can dupe the masses with marketing and advertising; it requires that you provide a product that is substandard but profitable and then you can hide the truth about the product quality from the buyer. All bets are off with unfettered capitalism. Tobacco companies can kill people unless they are called on it; chemical companies can destroy our soil unless they are called on it; Coca-cola can tell people it's a "health drink" (which they did at the turn of the centuray) unless they are called on it; and pharmaceutical companies can create diagnoses out of thin air unless they are called on it.
So capitalism is great--it allowed invention, innovation, growth, and higher standards of living. But who is there to call them on it? Who is there with any power at all to rein in the sheer compulsion to make money?
Who is there with any power at all to rein in the sheer compulsion to make money?
Who should be there?
The Founding Fathers would be skeeved about replacing King and the aristocracy with today's far reaching Governmental power over our lives. It's all the same thing --the much vaunted knowledge of men who know what is best for the citizenry. The leaders are all of a Higher Order be it King or Congressman.
All governments become oligarchies. And that will eventually trump whatever "ism" there is out there.
Both far ends of the spectrum aren't good. Uncontrolled capitalism/free market enterprise AND the government can go bad at both ends of the continuum.
And government can end up being composed of the same type of greedy thinking (or overly liberal thinking).
Considering human nature (and the never-being-satisfied aspect of it), I'm not sure it can ever be balanced out to a reasonable degree.
Who should be there?
The government to some degree, but also labor unions and consumer advocacy groups. But the key is to make the balance of power just as equal as the three branches of the government with similar checks and balances. Right now that balance of power is out of whack because whoever has the most money wins.
ApatheticNoMore
12-9-13, 5:30pm
hooray, website is up again, thank you Alan, or whoever fixed it.
anyway just this, quote to the point of this thread:
"they are creating systems in terms of exploitation not only of us but of the ecosystem that, if left unchecked, will ensure the extinction of the human species. It may already be too late, of course. But, you know, allowing the fossil fuel industry or these corporations to determine our relationship to the environment is a form of collective insanity at this point."
Chris Hedges
Isn't that kind of just it and well put? Allowing the fossil fuel industry to determine our (the human race's) relation to our environment is a form of collective insanity at this point.
Freeways are publicly funded because they're a key part of the national defense system. They support commerce too, but the day is coming when trucking stuff long distances will be revealed as the unaffordable business that it is. This is where a full cost pricing system would be immediately useful, revealing the actual costs of my being able to drink coffee with cane sugar, or eat fresh avocados in Seattle.
Remember, transportation is but one of several subsidies that allow the cost of almost anything purchased in the US to remain artificially low. The government already has a hand deep inside every industry there is and the resulting spider web is not something that can be easily, or painlessly, unraveled. You cuppa's cane sugar arrived in port thanks to trade agreements. Its processed and packaged in facilities that get tax breaks for a multitude of things. Its loaded on a truck made by a bailed out auto industry. The truck's gas tank is full of the planet's most highly subsidized commodity (think the military presence in the middle east, discount leases on federal land, etc.). It drives along roads that are paid for and maintained with public dollars. The people who handle that sugar get social security, Medicare, unemployment and maybe someday even healthcare. The links go on and on. IMO its a very elaborate and expensive house of cards. It is not pure capitalism that we have, but some kind of unsustainable quasi-governmental hybrid.
IMO its a very elaborate and expensive house of cards. It is not pure capitalism that we have, but some kind of unsustainable quasi-governmental hybrid.
Agreed. Messy, messy, messy - dangerously messy.
Interestingly, this came through my inbox today:
http://www.ted.com/talks/toby_eccles_invest_in_social_change.html?utm_sourc e=newsletter_weekly_2013-12-06&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=bottom_right_button
"Toby Eccles shares an imaginative idea .... the Social Impact Bond. It's an unusual bond that helps fund initiatives with a social goal through private money -- with the government paying back the investors (with interest) if the initiatives work.
Toby Eccles has created a radical financial instrument that helps private investors contribute to solving thorny public problems"
Remember, transportation is but one of several subsidies that allow the cost of almost anything purchased in the US to remain artificially low. The government already has a hand deep inside every industry there is and the resulting spider web is not something that can be easily, or painlessly, unraveled. You cuppa's cane sugar arrived in port thanks to trade agreements. Its processed and packaged in facilities that get tax breaks for a multitude of things. Its loaded on a truck made by a bailed out auto industry. The truck's gas tank is full of the planet's most highly subsidized commodity (think the military presence in the middle east, discount leases on federal land, etc.). It drives along roads that are paid for and maintained with public dollars. The people who handle that sugar get social security, Medicare, unemployment and maybe someday even healthcare. The links go on and on. IMO its a very elaborate and expensive house of cards. It is not pure capitalism that we have, but some kind of unsustainable quasi-governmental hybrid.
Agreed--hard to see the dividing line between government and business now.
http://www.ted.com/talks/toby_eccles_invest_in_social_change.html?utm_sourc e=newsletter_weekly_2013-12-06&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=bottom_right_button
"Toby Eccles shares an imaginative idea .... the Social Impact Bond. It's an unusual bond that helps fund initiatives with a social goal through private money -- with the government paying back the investors (with interest) if the initiatives work.
Toby Eccles has created a radical financial instrument that helps private investors contribute to solving thorny public problems"
Fascinating, thanks for posting. It's a cliche, but there's someone who's thinking out of the box.
Fascinating, thanks for posting. It's a cliche, but there's someone who's thinking out of the box.
Exactly what I thought. Thanks for posting pug!
puglogic
12-10-13, 11:56am
I thought it was an interesting concept.
I think we can save ourselves if we do two things: Ask the right questions, and be willing to look for that place where productivity/commerce and the Greater Good intersect. (Capitalism seems to me to simply be commerce on steroids....and commerce isn't going anywhere )
I am not betting on this happening, because it takes only a little bit of powerful greed to suck up any fiscal benefit generated. But I am, as always, hopeful. Hope doesn't cost me anything and it feels better than despair.
I am not betting on this happening, because it takes only a little bit of powerful greed to suck up any fiscal benefit generated.
I think we need to take a kind of Sun Tzu approach. My thought has always been that as soon as saving the world becomes more profitable than destroying it the world will be saved. Intellectually we all know that has always been the case anyway, but I don't think humans are hard wired to look at the long view so we have to come up with ways to speed up the process. Sounds simple enough, aye?
I also think it pays to remember that capitalism is a system we can use to produce a desired result, not the end result in and of itself. Like it or not there isn't much room to argue that a competitive environment offering the possibility of great rewards for proven results has been far more successful at generating innovation than other approaches. If the girl who saves the world also becomes the richest person in it, I'm ok with that. It does not imply that either a complete lack of oversight or a win at all costs mentality is desirable. We know that won't work. The notion of producing tangible as well as profitable results from 'doing the right thing' is, IMO, a big step in the right direction.
Sadly, Gregg, I think saving the world is never going to be more profitable than destroying it, not in terms that many shareholders can grok, anyway. Yes, with such people you can argue externalities until you're blue in the face, you can talk about the effects of scarce/disappearing resources on the ten-year bottom line, you can point to the cascading effect of forest death on carbon emissions, which will eventually kill us all....but today, the shareholder, or the billionaire invested in ensuring a certain level of luxury for himself and his heirs, will simply wave his hand and demand improvement in the next quarterly report. Deliver, or you will be fired, to be replaced by someone who is willing to deliver.
There are more benevolent forms of capitalism, naturally. But no one can disagree that this happens in boardrooms across the globe.
If I had any faith that immediate gain could ever be trumped by the greater good, or even by the threat of impending catastrophe, then we'd have the basis for a nice chat. It never will (though we can still chat :D) That's why I speculate that finding some overlap is the best we can expect, and may buy us some time.
One of the gifts I'm giving this year to someone is the gift of clean water for an entire village. Forever. There are individuals on this planet who are infinitely more capable of giving such a gift, or otherwise permanently improving the greater good, a million times over, and yet they instead build 20,000 square foot dwellings and collect dozens of exotic automobiles and other toys, and order tankers of Scotch for their parties. They watch their citizens starve and prey on one another, when they hold in their hands the means to avert so much suffering. This minority owns our political systems and the mass media. There can never be enough profit in saving the world to support this subspecies of human being. The world is a resource to be consumed.
But I'd be game to try to find enough common ground between everyday commerce and the greater good, to stretch things out for a while, until the wealth addicts consume everything there is to consume, and contaminate the rest beyond recovery.
It is fascinating living at this stage of human "evolution." I am very glad I don't have children or grandchildren. It would break my heart.
It is fascinating living at this stage of human "evolution." I am very glad I don't have children or grandchildren. It would break my heart.
I was just talking to DS over the weekend and lamented that I would LOVE to be his age. Not to stave off my impending doom, mind you, but to have the opportunity to see some of the cutting edge developments through to implementation. I'm not the Luddite my kids think I am, but I also haven't dealt with developing technologies enough to really be in the game. I do think that technology will save humanity by extending the time frame in which we live on this little planet. I also think there are people in that younger generation who realize life will be better if we are not the only life forms left on the Earth. My generation is probably responsible for as much raping and pillaging as all the other generations that came before us. That is a sad legacy, but not one that needs to be passed on. Human nature isn't going to do an about face, but I firmly believe that our kids are going to be much better stewards of the world than we were and that they will be able to use technology to advance their cause further than we ever dreamed of. The glass is 3/4 full, IMO.
May your DS' generation see what we could not see, and do what we could not do.
And refuse to tolerate what we have tolerated for so long.
I hope you are right, and will be pulling for the next generation to roll its eyes, jump in, and say, "Here, let US do that. Jeez."
Like Derrick Jensen says, we are pretty screwed - but life is very, very good.
ApatheticNoMore
12-10-13, 5:42pm
May your DS' generation see what we could not see, and do what we could not do.
And refuse to tolerate what we have tolerated for so long.
I hope you are right, and will be pulling for the next generation to roll its eyes, jump in, and say, "Here, let US do that. Jeez."
Why don't we? If not us, then who? If not now, then when?*
* I just don't think it's ok to leave young people with all the responsibility mostly. Obviously most people aren't born great leaders (a MLK comes along rarely and then gets shot for their efforts), but there are other things, less than that.
I have a friend who helps company achieve "B Corp" or benefit corporation status. It is not well known but really an interesting concept. As I understand it, for- profit companies include certain commitments to help the community and the environment in their corporate charter, as well as fair treatment of their employees to include health care. There are some obvious expenses beyond normal operating costs that the companies hope be compensated for by increased sales from discerning shoppers. There are some legal implications that are slightly beyond me where-by the companies have some legal obligations to observe their charter and added transparency to accounting methods. It seems at least on the surface as an ideal model for corporations of the future.
There are about 800 B Corps world wide. Here in Colorado there is New Belgium Brewing which is employee owned and gets all of their energy from wind sources, among other things, and Go Lite which makes lightweight travel gear and clothing. Ben and Jerry's is a B Corp. About the closest I could find for a simple introduction is here: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20070701/priority-a-new-kind-of-company.html . Or a little more in depth on their web site. http://www.bcorporation.net/what-are-b-corps
There are small signs of hope. I think it is a great concept that is actually a working reality for some companies. It is a little too bad it is not more widely publicized.
I don't think its a matter of dumping the responsibility on the next generation although the argument can be made that politically that is exactly what we're doing. I see my kids and many of their friends with different priorities than the ones I was raised with. Obviously that is, to at least some degree, because I, as a parent, worked to instill a different set of values in them than my parents (the greatest generation) passed on to me. Quantum shifts don't happen without a lot of ground work being laid first.
The future will have leaders just like the past had, but I do think the shifts that happen will be less centralized. Social media will probably have a lot to do with it. We have plenty of evidence showing how well central authority works so in many ways it is time for the pendulum to swing back the other way. Its not that the next generations have any more responsibility to change things than we did. What they have is a set of tools that are far more conducive to making things happen than we did at their age. And the age is the key because those tools are part of their fabric, not just an add on like they are for me. My kids can disseminate information faster and in a far more targeted sense than I will ever know how to. My 16 month old great-niece is already more comfortable with an iPhone than I was in my first year with a smart phone. It is that kind of technology and connectivity that will enable the world to rely less on central powers and help insure transactions of all kinds are less....corrupt.
I am currently reading "The Rational Optimist" which some here on the forums recommended. I believe there is some truth to the thought that our collective consciousness becomes dissociated with most things longer than two generations before us. Sure, our infrastructure may be in disrepair, but two generations ago (at least for me) it wasn't possible to drive from coast to coast without using dirt back roads, and a significant portion of the family income went to buy food, or the average lifespan was maybe somewhere in the 60's. There were scandals like the Teapot Dome Scandal which was thought of as the biggest political scandal until Watergate. Even going back 40 or fifty years there has been significant progress in how comfortable most of us live. The electronic age has enabled us to be more connected with our family, friends, and the rest of the world than I would not have dreamed of 15 years ago. Call it what you like...capitalism or some hybrid, something is working.
If I had any fears for the generations one or two down the line, it's not whether we are socialists or capitalistic or some variation, but how the global 9 billion people are going to share limited resources, the irreversible loss of the natural world our generation has known, and the life limiting effects we might have on the climate.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.