The Problems with Capitalism

Capitalism gets a lot of heat from those who believe that something else is better. As previously discussed, any belief is a myth unless proven to be true. So, most who oppose capitalism oppose it on the grounds of belief and myth, not truth or even statistics. What follows is a critique of capitalism from a reasoned position.

1. If you don't do something that other people value (or you aren't aided by someone who does/did something of value) then you will starve. Those who cannot, will not or are excluded from producing something that others are willing to pay for will be at the mercy of those who produce. Capitalism gives no intrinsic "value" to a human except in how that person is able to add something that is valued. Children, the severely disabled, and those excluded by reason of social bias (ie, minorities in the past, now some majority due to affirmative action) are dependent upon a moral or ethical value system within the society to maintain their lives. If you happen to believe that all lives are of equal value, this would seem unfair.
2. What is valued may not fit one's particular moral code; there may be a disconnect between the value of the service and the respect for the provider. For example, prostitution has been a valued service for eons, but the prostitute usually does not achieve respect. One could apply the same logic to garbage collectors and other occupations that do good but are not highly esteemed.
3. Capitalism does not reward flow. Flow, or the feeling one gets while solving moderately hard problems, often is not part of the work experience. Flow is one of the key drivers to the open source movement in software and on the internet. People do things that makes them feel "flow" even if that does not produce capital gain. It is the lucky person who can make their occupation one that is replete with flow. The absence of flow is what makes jobs so stressful and unfulfilling and creates the need for leisure and hobbies.
4. Capitalism is time fixed. Reward must be provided within a specific time frame. Profits must occur within a time window. For a publicly traded corporation, it may be 3 months. For an employee, it would be a pay period or perhaps a year. For a person, it would be perhaps 40 years. This limits consideration of longer term impacts on things such as employee health, the environment, raw material supplies and other sustainabilities.

It should be noted that there are counterarguments to these points. For example, capitalistic societies tend to be more wealthy, to have more distributed wealth, which can be used for social aid and valued programs (consider charities and public gifts such as the libraries and museums donated/funded by the tycoons). Further, capitalism enables the diffusion of goods and services as profits are often tied to the size of the population that can afford the item. A company that can provide a luxury at a price the average person can afford will be more profitable than one that can only provide its goods to a small elite segment.

The challenge for our societies is not to control capitalism, but to try to incorporate into capitalism interest in overcoming its shortcomings. Employees in flow will be better workers and will provide more value for less money. Societies must find ways to make us all aware of the nobility or need of occupations that normally are frowned upon. Lastly, something must be done to increase the time horizon of capitalists. One option might be to link capital gains taxes to the duration of an investment (the longer you hold a security, the lower the taxes).

Nothing I am aware of beats capitalism, and certainly central command and control is vastly inferior.

Addendum: DocBrain was paid nothing for this blog; it was written in the state of flow; I don't care if anyone reads it; and it will exist until google takes it away.

Upgrade of last post

The last post was incomplete in its discussion of knowledge. There are actually 4 stages of knowledge. All are based upon the initial assumption that we live in a real universe, not in "The Matrix"; that what we see is what we have.

1. Truth (previously defined as what is true)
2. Statistics (observations that show relative truthiness [nod to Colbert], sometimes in a controlled setting)
3. Myth (commonly held belief by a group of people)
4. Opinion (belief held by an individual or several individuals)

A fact is an observation that can be true, but most facts that we encounter in our lives are not. A fact can lead to opinions and myth, especially when the fact is thought to be a truth. A fact can only be truth if it meets the 4 criteria of truth.

The four criteria of truth
1. The truth (the fact must on its surface be true)
2. The whole truth (the fact must not leave out any parts)
3. Nothing but the truth (the fact must not have any elements within it that are untrue)
4. Only the relevent truth (the fact must not include any elements, true or not, that are not relevent)

People have rightly become wary about "facts". Indeed, psychology has shown that facts are used to support opinion and myth, rather than used to develop truths. This is particularly true in the social sciences such as politics and economics.

Many, if not all, of the conflicts in the world are based upon opinion and myth, with facts being used to support one's position. The use of facts in the support of myth and opinion is illogical, but very human. Indeed, the way to go is to use facts to find truths.

The main problem is that many myths are primary in people's minds. If you want to conduct a mind experiment, take anything you believe and trace its roots.

This gets to my final point. Since no myth is theoretically superior to any other, how can one prevail over others?
1. By force (government over people; country over country; religion over religion; race over race; etc)
2. By popularity (the more it resonates with people, the more it will be accepted)

Since success is the truest (or truthiest) measure, any success that is not based on force or popularity is the closest thing we have to reality.

Watch for the myths. See how you are being played.

Myths, opinions and reality

While we could be living in "The Matrix" where nothing is real, for a moment lets take off our philosopher's hat and assume that what we see is what we get, that the world actually exists. Then, we can say that things are either inherently true, opinions or myths.

Inherently true things

Mathematics is true. It makes no difference how you slice it, 1+1=2. Certain laws of physics and chemistry seem also to be true, based on observation. Biological science has some truths, but much of the detailed truths still need to be worked out.

Opinions

These are things which honest people can have different takes on. Usually, these take the form of opinions about quality, goodness, likability, value, and so forth. These often have "facts" to back them up, but facts are not always inherently true things. Opinions often rely on biases, points of view, and unrelated things floating in our brains, often beneath our consciousness or present only as partial emotional impressions based on partially and incompletely remembered past experiences. Opinions are not reality.

Myths

Myths are pseudoreality. They are mass opinions. Some examples: countries; God; value systems; the scientific method; equality; fairness; justice. Myths exist to help us deal with the world. They are not truly reality, but only common opinions.

These concepts are important in understanding, among other things, the Middle East conflicts around Israel.

1. Does Israel have the right to exist? No more or less than any other country. All countries are myths. Any argument about "occupied land" is applicable to every spot on earth. Israel's right to exist within whatever borders it currently has is exactly the same as any other country. One can apply one myth to another myth (ie, the Middle East is the land of the Muslim), but that is just plain silly.

2. Does Israel have the right to defend its borders and its people? No more or less than any other country, which is to say by any means necessary.

3. What about international law? If you check above, you will see that this is also a myth. Law is an application of a value system, and value systems are myths.

4. Is there anything about people interacting with people that is true? The answer seems to be yes, but this enters the field of experimental psychology, which is still at an early stage. From what can be seen so far, it may be possible to move politics, religion, and values eventually into the realm of true reality. Just as there is a law of gravity there may be laws that apply to land disputes or more specifically, how people can optimize their happiness and minimize suffering and conflict. What is known for certain is that the reflex opinion-based simple solutions are not correct. Pacifists have not prevented wars; welfare has not prevented poverty; love has not eliminated hate.

DocBrain finds it somewhat depressing to see people accepting that some things are unknowable so we must operate from the world of opinion. At least, we should develop universal myths to tide us over until we get a better understanding of reality. But that is just an opinion.