I do believe that capitalism best represents (and promotes) the best qualities of human nature.
Unfortunately, it also best represents the worst qualities of human nature.
(And promotes)
Stadler hasn't said it, but I think he'd agree that it's the best system we can hope for, but that's honestly not saying much. It's like Churchill and democracy. The problem is that we insist on being so dogmatic about it, rather than simply applying the best system for the matter at hand.
I agree with that.
I mean, I have a sort of real politik view of things. Greed; there is "greed" in so much of what we do in one form or another. I think the the feelings that feed greed are the same that feed road rage or the asshole that waits until they stand in front of the order taker at McDonald's to look at the menu and decide what he wants. Never going to get rid of it. So we trade off; I think capilitalism has led to so many great endeavors and developments, from the advancements in computers, to travel, to medicine... and if we have to live with a company price gouging on, say, coffee, well, we'll live as a society. For those things that simply matter too much, like healthcare, well, I'm for single payer. Yes, it goes against every fibre of my being - libertarian, capitalist - but I'm also a PRAGMATIST and it's the quickest way to get to win with the least amount of bodies in the closet.
Yeah, that's certainly fair, and I mostly agree with you (and figured this would be the case).
Out of curiosity, was the Apollo program capitalistic? That led to a tremendous number of advances and developments.
I think it's a combination of things; I think tactically, the Apollo program was a government program, but I think the capitalist nature of the private firms doing the work, and the funding that went into it based on the burgeoning military/industrial complex did a lot to fuel it. Let's put it this way; other countries pursued those avenues and weren't - overall - as successful as we were, and I think the difference was the capitalist base of our society and government.
In any case, I think the problem is that the greed we're talking about applies to your next door neighbor as much as it does the C suite of Raytheon. There's a constant need to keep finding bigger and better ways to make money, so we keep inventing them. Middle men were none are needed. It's not the price gouging on coffee, it's the need to have an intermediary coffee broker insert himself into the model so he can get a few cents for himself. If I invent a better widget, I can patent it, pay to have it produced, and then sell it for a nice profit. Twenty years from now the cost of that widget will be far, far greater than what you could expect from basic inflation. Consumers will be paying for distributors. They'd be paying for the transportation to the distributors. They'd be paying for the guy who sells his transportation service to the distributor. They'd be paying for the leggy blond sales reps and the catered meals that convince people to sell their widget. It goes on and on.
In any case, as for the example at hand, the problem is that some venture capitalists have decided that it's worth gambling on whether or not they can squeeze a few more pennies from an existing business, and Cram/Peart are the fodder. Maybe they can and maybe they can't. Given the unfamiliarity with the business they get into it really is a toss up, as they're describing. Capitalism and greed turn the livelihoods of normal people, who weren't invited into the game, into poker chips.
Well, there's a lot there, but I agree, and that was the impetus of the reference to road rage and Mickey D's. Those are not corporate things, those are interpersonal things. I think to a degree, the "transaction costs" that you reference are part and parcel with the system and a form of social welfare. Yeah, you are paying more, but you pay that, and it goes directly to the middle man, or you pay taxes and it goes to the government for redistribution. You'll notice I never rag on "the socialists" as a concept; I do rag on the connect of "government doing everything for us". I wanted to punch my television when I heard that quite from Michelle Obama a couple weeks ago: ‘
Oh my God, does government do everything for us, and we cannot take this democracy for granted.’ that was an anathema to every part of my core philosophy (and made worse that she was "terrified".
).
I think the one of the benefits - but also one of the drawbacks - of that system, the system of the middle man, is that it's less controllable. It can't be gamed for political benefit - a benefit - but it can't be targeted for those really in need - a drawback. But it's part of the system, and part of why it works, much like the built-in bureaucracy in our government. It's not SUPPOSED to move at the speed of social media; it's MEANT to be deliberate and contemplative. A good idea today, if it really is a good idea, will still be a good idea tomorrow or next Tuesday.
You know, look; you're talking about my friends now, and being clinical and objective doesn't always work there. I want Prof and Cram to find a path forward at their jobs, and it sucks that they might bear the brunt of someone else's business decision. But speaking broadly, I've been bought/sold now at least three times now in my career and it blows. It does. But "changes aren't permanent, only change is". Small consolation, but whether it's a market change, or a private equity change or something else, how do you stop it? One can only really accept it, and try to use every opportunity to come out better. I do get it; circumstances sometimes control; I've moved a lot in my life, and left jobs when they didn't work for me, but I'm in a spot now that I cannot move. I just can't. And just changing jobs isn't in the cards. It's precarious. But if it happens, we figure it out.
Topic: What pissed you off today? (Read 137259 times)
