how long can global capitalism last?

[reggie jax]

You're confusing cause and effect when it comes to consumption. Economics is about consuming scarce goods. We don't need consumption for capitalism. We need capitalism for consumption. People pay their rent because they need shelter. Capitalism didn't cause that, it simply provided a means to produce the shelter.

capitalism is the means by which we allocate resources for consumption. we don't actually need capitalism to consume resources, it just happens to be the system we currently use. i'm not confused as to the cause and effect. we need to consume to survive.. but we don't need to consume all the resources that it takes to fuel global capitalism to survive. we have a consumerist culture. once we became able to provide enough resources to survive with relatively little work, instead of decreasing our work load and continuing to provide the essential resources in an increasingly efficient way we decided to just have more stuff. when consumers don't buy enough shit for a protracted period of time, they call that a recession. it's not like the resources contract every time we have economic troubles. it's just not enough people buying shit.

This is just the broken window fallacy. Companies may design obsolescence in to their products, but I don't see how this makes their product more valuable. Shitty stuff simply doesn't sell over good stuff if it is priced competitively. You recognize it yourself that shitty headphones are not something good. So why would you value them over good headphones? If you can't find good headphones, then why can't you make them? In a free market there should be nothing to stop you. So maybe either everlasting headphones don't exist or they aren't more cost effective than shitty disposable headphones. As I said people aren't still making horse buggies and the sky hasn't fallen. People spend their money on what they value.

Firms may want you to keep buying their product, but that doesn't mean that you want to keep spending money on the same thing. You're ignoring the consumer's own agency in this equation.

i looked up your fallacy, and i don't think it holds. they are talking about what is best for the economy in general. companies are only concerned with what is best for them. they don't add value to the product by designing obsolescence into it. what they do is they make sure the customer has to come back more often, which is more lucrative than selling a more durable product for the same price less frequently. i'm not ignoring the consumer's agency, the consumer wants the product and basically has a limited practical range of options available to them. if they are poor they are likely to keep buying the cheap shit even if it breaks more frequently or becomes obsolete in a shorter time span. if they are rich they will buy the top brand and usually won't think twice about buying it again should it fail. chances are in either case the consumer knows fuck all about the actual engineering of the product.

i don't actually know if the headphones example is planned obsolescence... that was just to demonstrate the concept. but the strategy does exist and companies do make money doing it. i only brought up the example to demonstrate that the incentive is to keep people consuming as much as possible, not to allocate resources in the most efficient way possible.

A company's interest might be to continue doing nothing and just have you give them money forever, but that is not how markets work. Your interest might be just to get free shit for no effort. Again you're not the only person in the equation.

And we have figured out other ways to get around. We just haven't done it in a way that beats cars in terms of cost-effectiveness. Also, while we're discussing this, the auto market is not exactly a free market. The government has subsidized roads, gas, the cars themselves. That's how monopolies form.

ok that's a fair point. to me it seems like there should be higher priorities than cost-effectiveness in some cases. like if all that global warming shit is true then isn't it worth it to spend a little more and switch everything over to electric.

 

[FenderBender]

Fender, I'm not sure why you keep denying this, but capitalism is absolutely predicated on growth. If growth stops, the system fails; revolutions happen, people die. While growth isn't in the definition of the term, it is one of the most basic tenets that allows that particular system to function smoothly. Contractions, which do occur, lead to calamity. If the correction turns itself, you are back to, wait for it, growth.

Capitalism cannot function in a stasis, and the success of it is tied directly to growth.

You're not describing anything unique to capitalism. You're describing life. If a socialist government has a severe contraction people might (and have in the past) revolted. Bad economic situations are not some fatal flaw to capitalism. If anything, capitalist societies are better protected against this, because a truly free market doesn't have anyone to revolt against.

capitalism is the means by which we allocate resources for consumption. we don't actually need capitalism to consume resources, it just happens to be the system we currently use. i'm not confused as to the cause and effect. we need to consume to survive.. but we don't need to consume all the resources that it takes to fuel global capitalism to survive. we have a consumerist culture. once we became able to provide enough resources to survive with relatively little work, instead of decreasing our work load and continuing to provide the essential resources in an increasingly efficient way we decided to just have more stuff. when consumers don't buy enough shit for a protracted period of time, they call that a recession. it's not like the resources contract every time we have economic troubles. it's just not enough people buying shit.

It's wrong to think that a) all recessions are bad for society as a whole, and b) that capitalism relies on infinite sustained growth. Recessions are necessary when an "economy" is improperly invested and working inefficiently. They suck in the short term, but in the long term the effect is usually good. The capitalist system is not a panacea, and it's not a promise that the economy will also grow. A real capitalist system has expansion and contraction as well, and if the cost of consumption rises, markets equilibrium will adjust to reflect new outcomes.

i looked up your fallacy, and i don't think it holds. they are talking about what is best for the economy in general. companies are only concerned with what is best for them. they don't add value to the product by designing obsolescence into it. what they do is they make sure the customer has to come back more often, which is more lucrative than selling a more durable product for the same price less frequently. i'm not ignoring the consumer's agency, the consumer wants the product and basically has a limited practical range of options available to them. if they are poor they are likely to keep buying the cheap shit even if it breaks more frequently or becomes obsolete in a shorter time span. if they are rich they will buy the top brand and usually won't think twice about buying it again should it fail. chances are in either case the consumer knows fuck all about the actual engineering of the product.

i don't actually know if the headphones example is planned obsolescence... that was just to demonstrate the concept. but the strategy does exist and companies do make money doing it. i only brought up the example to demonstrate that the incentive is to keep people consuming as much as possible, not to allocate resources in the most efficient way possible.

The point of capitalism is acknowledging the spontaneous order of a free market. These companies don't have a gun to your head. You can buy the product or not. If you are buying it you see some value in it. If not the company will go under but society doesn't fall apart. Instead the free market will produce a different outcome. Go back 20 years and look at Walkmans. They are obsolete now. You don't see people grudgingly going to radio shack to buy Walkmans year in and year out. You're making it sound like you have absolutely no options, and in a capitalist society you have to expect companies to water down their products, because it's good for them. What I'm saying is that in a competitive market the company making the "best" product is the company that does the best. Best can mean a lot of things like cheap, durable, high quality, etc. But in a free market the people have the choice over what product is best for them.

ok that's a fair point. to me it seems like there should be higher priorities than cost-effectiveness in some cases. like if all that global warming shit is true then isn't it worth it to spend a little more and switch everything over to electric.

Cost-effectiveness is just one way of saying that if you want it at that price, you'll buy it. Some people are most concerned about emissions. That is why there is a small fraction of cars that run on solar, hydrogen, etc. Some people want muscle cars, that is why there is a small fraction that want v8 engines. The different types of cars in the world are just a reflection of the fact that people place different value on different things. Right now gas is cheap, and the world is built for gas-powered cars. This doesn't mean that it will always be that way. But if your solution is that everyone should just go out and by a $100k Tesla, and change their lifestyles based on the lack of refueling options then it's clear that most people just can't do that. A better approach might be to stop taking our tax money and giving it to the people who produce gas-powered cars and who mine fossil-fuels.

 

[chalupa]

You're not describing anything unique to capitalism. You're describing life. If a socialist government has a severe contraction people might (and have in the past) revolted. Bad economic situations are not some fatal flaw to capitalism. If anything, capitalist societies are better protected against this, because a truly free market doesn't have anyone to revolt against.

The title of the thread is "how long can global capitalism last?" and I'm answering in response to that question. For the life of me, I can't figure out why you keep arguing about other systems as though I espoused any of them as being immune to this issue, or somehow better than capitalism. This entire time, as a matter of fact, you keep saying the equivalent of "well, every other system depends on growth" and I keep saying "so fucking what?"

Capitalism, in order to be a successful system, is predicated on infinite growth. Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible, therefore the system is eventually doomed to fail. I stated I don't know how long ago that capitalism is, however, nimble, and we will get good at addressing the problem of diminishing resources because it is actually a really big planet and we will adjust accordingly (did I use my "we will get really good at eating jellyfish" line?).

Infinite growth won't actually be the thing that brings down capitalism on a shorter timeline, though. Regardless of the inevitability, instead it will be the environment. There is no real incentive in a capitalist system to be good stewards of the environment, particularly when the environmental issues are larger than a local problem. The system will be reworked or destroyed and won't resemble the unbridled capitalism we see today. The proof is in existing systems where people are actually incentivized to work against their own best interests from an economic sense when environmental problems trump all.

 

[FenderBender]

The title of the thread is "how long can global capitalism last?" and I'm answering in response to that question. For the life of me, I can't figure out why you keep arguing about other systems as though I espoused any of them as being immune to this issue, or somehow better than capitalism. This entire time, as a matter of fact, you keep saying the equivalent of "well, every other system depends on growth" and I keep saying "so fucking what?"

Capitalism, in order to be a successful system, is predicated on infinite growth. Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible, therefore the system is eventually doomed to fail. I stated I don't know how long ago that capitalism is, however, nimble, and we will get good at addressing the problem of diminishing resources because it is actually a really big planet and we will adjust accordingly (did I use my "we will get really good at eating jellyfish" line?).

Infinite growth won't actually be the thing that brings down capitalism on a shorter timeline, though. Regardless of the inevitability, instead it will be the environment. There is no real incentive in a capitalist system to be good stewards of the environment, particularly when the environmental issues are larger than a local problem. The system will be reworked or destroyed and won't resemble the unbridled capitalism we see today. The proof is in existing systems where people are actually incentivized to work against their own best interests from an economic sense when environmental problems trump all.

Ok, I guess there was some confusion, because the OP also talks about what system would replace capitalism. So I'll clarify. Capitalism is not predicated on infinite growth. We measure the growth of a capitalist society, because in our current state the growth of the economy is the best indicator for the overall health of the economy. In a world where our need for production is fully met (and I don't ever see this happening), the measure of economic growth doesn't reflect our overall health. The result would be that markets would favor things other than growth, not that markets would cease to exist. From the user's point-of-view, Youtube is essentially a free market of ideas, where it costs me the same to produce 1 video as it does to produce 100 videos. The ideas don't stop coming simply because they don't cost anything to produce. Instead the market of Youtube videos is valued according to a different set of rules.

 

[chalupa]

Cool -- now that we're on the same page, I'd like to argue about capitalism being predicated on growth:

I'll update my argument to say this -- in its truest form, capitalism does not require unlimited growth, as the most basic of our resources (the sun) provides a constant, free input. Eventually we will figure out how to harness this power efficiently, and a perfect capitalist society could continue indefinitely. However, we do not live in a perfect capitalist society, so I change my claim to "our current capitalist-ish society is predicated on waste" and we are screwing ourselves.

However, before the rate of our waste exceeds the resources we are consuming (because the planet is so big), the negative environmental impact of our waste will force the changing of the system.

Make sense?

 

[reggie jax]

It's wrong to think that a) all recessions are bad for society as a whole, and b) that capitalism relies on infinite sustained growth. Recessions are necessary when an "economy" is improperly invested and working inefficiently. They suck in the short term, but in the long term the effect is usually good. The capitalist system is not a panacea, and it's not a promise that the economy will also grow. A real capitalist system has expansion and contraction as well, and if the cost of consumption rises, markets equilibrium will adjust to reflect new outcomes.

that's not even what we were discussing. this stemmed from a disagreement over whether capitalism encourages consumption for the sake of consumption. that is the discussion my arguments were geared towards.

The point of capitalism is acknowledging the spontaneous order of a free market. These companies don't have a gun to your head. You can buy the product or not. If you are buying it you see some value in it. If not the company will go under but society doesn't fall apart. Instead the free market will produce a different outcome. Go back 20 years and look at Walkmans. They are obsolete now. You don't see people grudgingly going to radio shack to buy Walkmans year in and year out. You're making it sound like you have absolutely no options, and in a capitalist society you have to expect companies to water down their products, because it's good for them. What I'm saying is that in a competitive market the company making the "best" product is the company that does the best. Best can mean a lot of things like cheap, durable, high quality, etc. But in a free market the people have the choice over what product is best for them.

no... i gave a realistic description of the situation. you do have a range of options available to you for any given product... that range is also relatively limited. i was explaining how planned obsolescence can work and can be a lucrative strategy for companies. my point was basically once again capitalism creates the incentive to keep people consuming for the sake of consumption. if you are conceding that companies do make products to fail and/or become obsolete within a given time on purpose then i don't know how you can turn around and say the best product always wins. by definition the product in question is inferior to one manufactured at the same cost that doesn't have planned obsolescence built into it... it is only the best product from the p.o.v. of the vendor.

Cost-effectiveness is just one way of saying that if you want it at that price, you'll buy it. Some people are most concerned about emissions. That is why there is a small fraction of cars that run on solar, hydrogen, etc. Some people want muscle cars, that is why there is a small fraction that want v8 engines. The different types of cars in the world are just a reflection of the fact that people place different value on different things. Right now gas is cheap, and the world is built for gas-powered cars. This doesn't mean that it will always be that way. But if your solution is that everyone should just go out and by a $100k Tesla, and change their lifestyles based on the lack of refueling options then it's clear that most people just can't do that. A better approach might be to stop taking our tax money and giving it to the people who produce gas-powered cars and who mine fossil-fuels.

i agree... another solution is to take tax money and fund engineers to help come up with a solution before we cause irreversible damage to the planet. i have a hard time believing that no such solution is possible with current scientific and technological capacity.... i think the free market simply doesn't provide the proper incentives for such a solution just yet because the up-front research costs might make such an endeavor unprofitable. problem being that if we wait for oil to become scarce enough for the free market to create this incentive it might be too late.

 

[FenderBender]

that's not even what we were discussing. this stemmed from a disagreement over whether capitalism encourages consumption for the sake of consumption. that is the discussion my arguments were geared towards.

Yeah, my point is that it doesn't. Recessions are what happen when we don't consume for the sake of consumption, the market shrinks. Price naturally indicates the rate at which people produce and consume.

no... i gave a realistic description of the situation. you do have a range of options available to you for any given product... that range is also relatively limited. i was explaining how planned obsolescence can work and can be a lucrative strategy for companies. my point was basically once again capitalism creates the incentive to keep people consuming for the sake of consumption. if you are conceding that companies do make products to fail and/or become obsolete within a given time on purpose then i don't know how you can turn around and say the best product always wins. by definition the product in question is inferior to one manufactured at the same cost that doesn't have planned obsolescence built into it... it is only the best product from the p.o.v. of the vendor.

I can say that the best product wins because the best product means something different from every different person. Look at Apple. If you asked a fanboy what the best laptop is they would say a Macbook is the best. I hate the fact that every time they roll out a new model, they change the video adaptor. It's enough that I won't buy the product. There are other laptop models and the demands and supply determine the prices for each.

i agree... another solution is to take tax money and fund engineers to help come up with a solution before we cause irreversible damage to the planet. i have a hard time believing that no such solution is possible with current scientific and technological capacity.... i think the free market simply doesn't provide the proper incentives for such a solution just yet because the up-front research costs might make such an endeavor unprofitable. problem being that if we wait for oil to become scarce enough for the free market to create this incentive it might be too late.

Yes, but aside from the fact that taxation for whatever you want violates the producers right to their own property, and it got us in to the problem in the first place, by tooling our market so heavily gas-powered cars.

 

[Nocturnal]

Yes, but aside from the fact that taxation for whatever you want violates the producers right to their own property, and it got us in to the problem in the first place, by tooling our market so heavily gas-powered cars.

How is that?

Gasoline vehicles contribute a large amount of negative externalities in the form of pollution, road wear and tear etc. - fact
Why should the public at large pay for this? Those costs should be distributed among the producers and consumers of those items.

 

[FenderBender]

How is that?

Gasoline vehicles contribute a large amount of negative externalities in the form of pollution, road wear and tear etc. - fact
Why should the public at large pay for this? Those costs should be distributed among the producers and consumers of those items.

Well firstly, the roads you're speaking of were paid for by taking people's money in the first place. They were already paid for. Secondly, the issue of "externalities" has actually been discussed heavily by economists. The Coase Theorem describes how externalities can and have been resolved by clear delineable property rights. In any case it is wrong to assume that simply because externalities have the ability to produce inefficient market results, that taxes and regulations resolve the problem. Taxes and regulations just produce other inefficient market outcomes.

 

[Hambone]

what do you think the life expectancy of global capitalism is, and what kind of system do you think will replace it? or do you think this is the last system we will have?

if you take the last option, keep in mind that economic systems have been changing throughout the ages. it seems kind of naive to me that in the face of history we could think we finally stumbled on to the system to end all systems when we haven't ended some of humanity's most severe problems such as systemic poverty, environmental doom, and violent resource-based conflicts which with current and future technology could possibly escalate to the point of the extinction of the human species and possibly even the extinction of life on earth.

so how will we overcome these problems, and when, or will we sink with the ship while the band still plays?

So long as the over taxed man slings money at the overwhelming problem...capitalism will tread on. Fact is w/o capitalism 99% of the USA would not know what to do if the Gov was not telling them what to do with their money. So the answer to your question is ...a long time

Until barbarism is the rule once again

 

[reggie jax]

Yeah, my point is that it doesn't. Recessions are what happen when we don't consume for the sake of consumption, the market shrinks. Price naturally indicates the rate at which people produce and consume.

there are several points to unpack here.

a) 'recession is what happens when we don't consume for the sake of consumption.' that isn't self evident. i'd like you to do some more work demonstrating this if you're going to assert it. from my point of view in the recession people don't necessarily abstain from consumption out of principle but rather their purchasing power shrinks.

b) so you are arguing that a recession is not necessarily a less healthy capitalist economy than a period of growth? would you say the same about a depression? how do you define a healthy capitalist economy?

I can say that the best product wins because the best product means something different from every different person. Look at Apple. If you asked a fanboy what the best laptop is they would say a Macbook is the best. I hate the fact that every time they roll out a new model, they change the video adaptor. It's enough that I won't buy the product. There are other laptop models and the demands and supply determine the prices for each.

this is circular reasoning. the product that wins is best because it won, thus the best product wins. it is then an utterly empty claim that capitalism produces the optimal product for the consumer. even if a pair of headphones that produces the same quality of sound and lasts longer doesn't win, it's because the shorter lived pair is the best product.

Yes, but aside from the fact that taxation for whatever you want violates the producers right to their own property, and it got us in to the problem in the first place, by tooling our market so heavily gas-powered cars.

they have no right not to be taxed... and they wouldn't have their property if we didn't all participate in the system.

 

[FenderBender]

there are several points to unpack here.

a) 'recession is what happens when we don't consume for the sake of consumption.' that isn't self evident. i'd like you to do some more work demonstrating this if you're going to assert it. from my point of view in the recession people don't necessarily abstain from consumption out of principle but rather their purchasing power shrinks.

You're point is essentially the same as mine. People shouldn't consume when they can't afford it. People consume because they have needs, and they produce because through trade that is how they can consume. That doesn't cause/or change from recessions or depressions. Recessions come from a big change in the supply or demand of a product, when the price equilibrium changes fairly dramatically. It sucks because companies make investments on expectation of what supply and demand will be so good investments become bad investments and corrections have to happen. My point is that is unprincipled to consume when you can't afford it.

b) so you are arguing that a recession is not necessarily a less healthy capitalist economy than a period of growth? would you say the same about a depression? how do you define a healthy capitalist economy?

Economics is an entire study of this field, but I think a basic idea is a healthy market is one where price accurately reflects supply and demand. It gives buyers and sellers a consistent language for them to make their decisions on.

this is circular reasoning. the product that wins is best because it won, thus the best product wins. it is then an utterly empty claim that capitalism produces the optimal product for the consumer. even if a pair of headphones that produces the same quality of sound and lasts longer doesn't win, it's because the shorter lived pair is the best product.

It is somewhat tautological, but it's an important thing to understand. The best product means something different to everyone, and it's clearly represented in the fact that we have so many choices. If there was one universal best, there would be no competitors, but it rarely works that way. What's important means something different to everyone, and so people buy what is best for them.

they have no right not to be taxed... and they wouldn't have their property if we didn't all participate in the system.

Well that is certainly a nihilistic way to look at things, but I think even a thief relies on the basic idea of property rights. We don't have to respect people's rights, but history has demonstrated that really bad shit happens when we don't.

 

[reggie jax]

You're point is essentially the same as mine. People shouldn't consume when they can't afford it. People consume because they have needs, and they produce because through trade that is how they can consume. That doesn't cause/or change from recessions or depressions. Recessions come from a big change in the supply or demand of a product, when the price equilibrium changes fairly dramatically. It sucks because companies make investments on expectation of what supply and demand will be so good investments become bad investments and corrections have to happen. My point is that is unprincipled to consume when you can't afford it.



Economics is an entire study of this field, but I think a basic idea is a healthy market is one where price accurately reflects supply and demand. It gives buyers and sellers a consistent language for them to make their decisions on.

ok. so it seems like to you, the economy can be healthy without the individuals in said economy being very prosperous. maybe that is why we are having trouble understanding each other? because it seems to me like an unspoken assumption that growth in the economy is always good and recessions and depressions are bad because they are associated with poverty and a lack of jobs. and to me it seems like from an objective p.o.v. the economy is really a modern survival strategy and thus the ultimate objective would always seem to be to raise the standard of living and wealth, not just to have an accurate pricing system which is more of a means to an end.

It is somewhat tautological, but it's an important thing to understand. The best product means something different to everyone, and it's clearly represented in the fact that we have so many choices. If there was one universal best, there would be no competitors, but it rarely works that way. What's important means something different to everyone, and so people buy what is best for them.

yes but my point is this definition of 'best' doesn't necessarily coincide with the common usage of the term. common sense dictates that a pair of headphones that lasts longer with the same quality and the same price is a better product, yet if the market goes the other way then people purchasing the shorter lived alternative are purchasing what is 'best' for them? in reality, the reason why the headphones might be made to fail is because the company has the incentive to do so to make money, not because the consumer has any sort of preference to that end.

Well that is certainly a nihilistic way to look at things, but I think even a thief relies on the basic idea of property rights. We don't have to respect people's rights, but history has demonstrated that really bad shit happens when we don't.

well now you are being sensational. if we're being pragmatic you know as well as i do that taxation isn't going to lead to an abolition of all property rights. i don't resent being called nihilistic because i do think there is some truth to that. because i feel like a lot of these ideals that prop up our political and economic ideologies are just that... ideals. they aren't real rules that apply in any absolute sense. you only have to provide a certain level of property rights to have a functioning society... it's not an all or nothing decision. and if you can tax earnings to build an infrastructure that benefits society as a whole and allows the system to advance then i am all for it. at the end of the day we have had people with weapons declaring control over territory and resources for as long as we have had civilization. if we somehow magically managed to take their weapons away people would just dominate through other means, especially in a system built on competition.

 

[Brian]

ok. so it seems like to you, the economy can be healthy without the individuals in said economy being very prosperous. maybe that is why we are having trouble understanding each other? because it seems to me like an unspoken assumption that growth in the economy is always good and recessions and depressions are bad because they are associated with poverty and a lack of jobs. and to me it seems like from an objective p.o.v. the economy is really a modern survival strategy and thus the ultimate objective would always seem to be to raise the standard of living and wealth, not just to have an accurate pricing system which is more of a means to an end.
yes but my point is this definition of 'best' doesn't necessarily coincide with the common usage of the term. common sense dictates that a pair of headphones that lasts longer with the same quality and the same price is a better product, yet if the market goes the other way then people purchasing the shorter lived alternative are purchasing what is 'best' for them? in reality, the reason why the headphones might be made to fail is because the company has the incentive to do so to make money, not because the consumer has any sort of preference to that end.
well now you are being sensational. if we're being pragmatic you know as well as i do that taxation isn't going to lead to an abolition of all property rights. i don't resent being called nihilistic because i do think there is some truth to that. because i feel like a lot of these ideals that prop up our political and economic ideologies are just that... ideals. they aren't real rules that apply in any absolute sense. you only have to provide a certain level of property rights to have a functioning society... it's not an all or nothing decision. and if you can tax earnings to build an infrastructure that benefits society as a whole and allows the system to advance then i am all for it. at the end of the day we have had people with weapons declaring control over territory and resources for as long as we have had civilization. if we somehow magically managed to take their weapons away people would just dominate through other means, especially in a system built on competition.

You're point is essentially the same as mine. People shouldn't consume when they can't afford it. People consume because they have needs, and they produce because through trade that is how they can consume. That doesn't cause/or change from recessions or depressions. Recessions come from a big change in the supply or demand of a product, when the price equilibrium changes fairly dramatically. It sucks because companies make investments on expectation of what supply and demand will be so good investments become bad investments and corrections have to happen. My point is that is unprincipled to consume when you can't afford it.



Economics is an entire study of this field, but I think a basic idea is a healthy market is one where price accurately reflects supply and demand. It gives buyers and sellers a consistent language for them to make their decisions on.



It is somewhat tautological, but it's an important thing to understand. The best product means something different to everyone, and it's clearly represented in the fact that we have so many choices. If there was one universal best, there would be no competitors, but it rarely works that way. What's important means something different to everyone, and so people buy what is best for them.



Well that is certainly a nihilistic way to look at things, but I think even a thief relies on the basic idea of property rights. We don't have to respect people's rights, but history has demonstrated that really bad shit happens when we don't.

there are several points to unpack here.

a) 'recession is what happens when we don't consume for the sake of consumption.' that isn't self evident. i'd like you to do some more work demonstrating this if you're going to assert it. from my point of view in the recession people don't necessarily abstain from consumption out of principle but rather their purchasing power shrinks.

b) so you are arguing that a recession is not necessarily a less healthy capitalist economy than a period of growth? would you say the same about a depression? how do you define a healthy capitalist economy?

this is circular reasoning. the product that wins is best because it won, thus the best product wins. it is then an utterly empty claim that capitalism produces the optimal product for the consumer. even if a pair of headphones that produces the same quality of sound and lasts longer doesn't win, it's because the shorter lived pair is the best product.

they have no right not to be taxed... and they wouldn't have their property if we didn't all participate in the system.

your wrong

 

[FenderBender]

ok. so it seems like to you, the economy can be healthy without the individuals in said economy being very prosperous. maybe that is why we are having trouble understanding each other? because it seems to me like an unspoken assumption that growth in the economy is always good and recessions and depressions are bad because they are associated with poverty and a lack of jobs. and to me it seems like from an objective p.o.v. the economy is really a modern survival strategy and thus the ultimate objective would always seem to be to raise the standard of living and wealth, not just to have an accurate pricing system which is more of a means to an end.

Yes, and empirically, capitalism has raised the standard of living and wealth by leaps and bounds over any other commercial system. You expect food and healthcare not because of generosity, but because of the self interest of grocery store owners and doctors.

yes but my point is this definition of 'best' doesn't necessarily coincide with the common usage of the term. common sense dictates that a pair of headphones that lasts longer with the same quality and the same price is a better product, yet if the market goes the other way then people purchasing the shorter lived alternative are purchasing what is 'best' for them? in reality, the reason why the headphones might be made to fail is because the company has the incentive to do so to make money, not because the consumer has any sort of preference to that end.

But why would people buy something that is equal in all rights with the one exception being that it breaks more easily. Your scenario requires the world as a whole to collude to produce a substandard product when they don't need to. If there are no barriers to entry in to the market then all it takes is one person to fix the wrong and they have the market cornered. You're leaving out the agency of the consumer in your calculation.

well now you are being sensational. if we're being pragmatic you know as well as i do that taxation isn't going to lead to an abolition of all property rights. i don't resent being called nihilistic because i do think there is some truth to that. because i feel like a lot of these ideals that prop up our political and economic ideologies are just that... ideals. they aren't real rules that apply in any absolute sense. you only have to provide a certain level of property rights to have a functioning society... it's not an all or nothing decision. and if you can tax earnings to build an infrastructure that benefits society as a whole and allows the system to advance then i am all for it. at the end of the day we have had people with weapons declaring control over territory and resources for as long as we have had civilization. if we somehow magically managed to take their weapons away people would just dominate through other means, especially in a system built on competition.

Rights don't work this way. You either have the right to your property or you don't. If someone can say they're only going to take 30% of your things, they're not acknowledging you're right to them. And what is not figured out in the equation is what would have happened to the money that was stolen. Yes, taxes built a bridge or a stadium or whatever. But you can't say where that money was going and whether it would've been used better by the actual owner. All you're saying is that you know better than them what they should do with their money and you have the right to do it.

And people might try to dominate others, but that doesn't mean we have to codify the method that they will do it. If you need my money to oppress me, the most empowering thing you can do for me is give me the right keep my money.

 

[chalupa]

I'm sorry, fender, but are you really claiming people are rational economic actors who operate only in self-interest?

But why would people buy something that is equal in all rights with the one exception being that it breaks more easily.

Madison Avenue is laughing its collective asses off at you.

 

[FenderBender]

I'm sorry, fender, but are you really claiming people are rational economic actors who operate only in self-interest?



Madison Avenue is laughing its collective asses off at you.

You're not really adding anything to the conversation. If you want to add style to the list of reasons people might buy something that is fine. It doesn't change my point at all. If two products are exactly the same in all regards except durability, then that is to say that the consumer doesn't view one product as more stylish than the other.

 

[reggie jax]

Yes, and empirically, capitalism has raised the standard of living and wealth by leaps and bounds over any other commercial system. You expect food and healthcare not because of generosity, but because of the self interest of grocery store owners and doctors.

well, it is not like there has been any other commercial system that has really been put to the test the way capitalism has. communism was attempted in some states but in a completely haphazard manner. but my point is we associate a 'good' economy with growth and a 'bad' economy with recessions and depressions. so it would seem an inherent goal of a capitalist society is perpetual commercial growth.

But why would people buy something that is equal in all rights with the one exception being that it breaks more easily. Your scenario requires the world as a whole to collude to produce a substandard product when they don't need to. If there are no barriers to entry in to the market then all it takes is one person to fix the wrong and they have the market cornered. You're leaving out the agency of the consumer in your calculation.

no.. my scenario involves a company determining they will make slightly more money from product x if they build it with planned obsolescence because that will result in faster turnover. there is no collusion required. the competitor might sell an equivalent product which lasts longer and make less money.

Rights don't work this way. You either have the right to your property or you don't. If someone can say they're only going to take 30% of your things, they're not acknowledging you're right to them. And what is not figured out in the equation is what would have happened to the money that was stolen. Yes, taxes built a bridge or a stadium or whatever. But you can't say where that money was going and whether it would've been used better by the actual owner. All you're saying is that you know better than them what they should do with their money and you have the right to do it.

And people might try to dominate others, but that doesn't mean we have to codify the method that they will do it. If you need my money to oppress me, the most empowering thing you can do for me is give me the right keep my money.

rights do work like that... in the real world. again, you can make a philosophical stance of this if you like, but pragmatically it's a non-issue.

 

[FenderBender]

well, it is not like there has been any other commercial system that has really been put to the test the way capitalism has. communism was attempted in some states but in a completely haphazard manner. but my point is we associate a 'good' economy with growth and a 'bad' economy with recessions and depressions. so it would seem an inherent goal of a capitalist society is perpetual commercial growth.

Well we've had all sorts of authoritarian governments. And again perpetual growth comes from production not capitalism. Sometimes production slows when people are poorly invested. That doesn't mean that the trend isn't generally positive. Short term fluctuations don't take away from the fact that over the past 200 years there has been more economic progress than in all of human existence.

no.. my scenario involves a company determining they will make slightly more money from product x if they build it with planned obsolescence because that will result in faster turnover. there is no collusion required. the competitor might sell an equivalent product which lasts longer and make less money.

If a company makes a shittier product with no other redeeming value, then you're still not explaining how this company is going to continue to exist. If people are buying it, they're doing it for a reason, whatever that reason is. You said so yourself you buy headphones that break. If something better exists why don't you buy it? If it doesn't exist, but you know how to make it, then why don't you start the company and make the profit that is sitting there to be taken. In my opinion, this type of argument comes from a lack of practical experience with markets. Look at what it takes to be a start up company and see how hard it is to meet customer demand and hit your bottom line. People don't get rich from offering shit nobody wants. That's why there isn't a Nigerian Princes Inc.

rights do work like that... in the real world. again, you can make a philosophical stance of this if you like, but pragmatically it's a non-issue.

You can call it semantic if you want, but I don't have a right to my property if someone else can determine how much of it they own. The fact that they've let me keep a portion doesn't mean I have a right to it since, that percentage is clearly subject to change according to their desires. I either own my property or someone else does, by definition. If they don't have to ask me for it, then I don't own it.

 

[chalupa]

You're not really adding anything to the conversation. If you want to add style to the list of reasons people might buy something that is fine. It doesn't change my point at all. If two products are exactly the same in all regards except durability, then that is to say that the consumer doesn't view one product as more stylish than the other.

Touchy much when someone points out a pretty big flaw in what you are saying?

People buy inferior shit all the time, they operate against their own self-interest, and they are so easily manipulated that scientific studies have shown how easy it is to get them to do what YOU want. Read anything by Robert Cialdini on the subject.

You asked why people would buy an inferior product; there's your answer.

You keep arguing that capitalism is the ideal application of self-interest being mutually beneficial to all in society, but you fail to realize one thing: people are dumb. A person is smart, so on the micro scale all of your arguments are true. On the macro scale, capitalism is nowhere near the best system to raise everyone's standards, because everyone is not a rational actor.

Before you get all huffy, I'm not saying capitalism isn't the best we have seen so far, I'm just saying that you need to stop arguing shit in a black and white, idealized world.