_For Profit_ doesn't cut it and is buggy. The side-effects are the waste due to consumerism, unsustainability and potential application crash (climate & earth).
The variables in the model needs to be tweaked so a new system evolves.
[1]: https://infinite.ai
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-sta...
50% of the world's population live off the equivalent of $2.50 a day. I guess we can cheer that 30% of the world's inhabitants have doubled their income and call it a day.
Yes, we can very much cheer for people living off $1.25 to be living off $2.50 now. The numbers might look stupid if you're living in luxury, but it quite literally means going to bed with a full stomach instead of going to bed hungry. It's a far bigger change for them and their lives than for your income to be increased by 10x (assuming $100k to $1m).
If you're all about increasing the well-being of the most people possible on the planet, then it is something to cheer for. Having that increase to $5 might be the biggest humanitarian change for the future that we could cheer for too.
Citation needed. You have to control for other factors before you can say that.
Ugh. Don't post things that you haven't read as if they proved your point. You'll find that the word "capitalism" is used 3 times in that PDF. Let's grab those paragraphs, shall we?
"Privatization has been a major part of Mongolia’s transition to capitalism. Its move to a market economy has been accompanied by increases in poverty and income inequality. More than 10 years after it began its transition, Mongolia remains one of the poorest countries in the world."
This being an example cutout within the following quote:
"After reviewing the distributional impact of privatization activities involving utilities in a wide range of developing economies, principally in Africa and Latin America, Bayliss (2002) concluded that privatization had demonstrably harmed the poor, either through loss of employment and income, or through exclusion from, or reduced access to, basic services, as the result of private firms’ principal concern with profits, prices and costs. At the same time, weak governance and regulatory capacity in many developing countries led to poor control of market abuses by private utility companies."
The next two usages of the word capitalism is in the bibliography:
"de Soto, Hernando (2000). The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. New York: Basic Books."
"Robbins, Richard H. (1999). Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, chap. 5 (“The problem of population growth”), pp. 147-178."
I'm not sure how the second citation feels about capitalism, but the first one certainly isn't positive.
So no, your link doesn't say much about capitalism, and what it does say is that capitalism is not pulling people out of poverty; on the contrary, it sounds like that document thinks capitalism is causing some poverty.
Capitalism suffers from a plague number of social ailments, including epidemic levels of stress and mental illness, that aren't present in "poor" cultures.
Besides, terraforming our planet to make it less, not more, inhabitable, hardly counts as a big win.
LOL. Easy for you to say rich man. Go tell that to someone in Mozambique or Haiti or Nepal who is using their newfound wealth to finally be able to feed their kids a healthy diet.
Stress and mental illness.
Please.
Even if that is true. I'd rather be stressed and be wealthy than be poor and forced to make a million sacrifices a day to just merely survive.
Capitalism is pulling people out of poverty, but it is also destroying natural ecosystems. Is the reduction in poverty sustainable, or will it come back when the resources are gone?
They pull metrics tons of food out of thin air?
Maybe you should try exploring some of the rest of the world before assuming you know what's best for it.
It's very hard to find evidence to support this point of view. You might hypothesize some future change in trajectory sure. But looking at the current trajectory? Pretty hard.
A better example might be African countries where increased income has not led to better access to healthcare, but has instead fed a growing market for fake HIV/AIDS medications.
Having worked in a nonprofit that works on obtaining foreign aid, it's my opinion that these improvements have occurred despite capitalism due to the hard work of people like me, not because of capitalism.
This is a legitimate criticism of NGOs, but it's also one of the ways in which capitalism is counterproductive to reducing poverty. Many of the cases in which aid spending is misused result from corporate interests determining where the money is spent instead of the people who need aid. An ongoing example of this is the milk lobby pushing for milk in food drops in areas where nearly everyone is genetically lactose-intolerant, or water aid going to buy Coca Cola's bottled water instead of building sustainable water utilities and infrastructure. One of the reasons I left the NGO I worked at was that I felt they didn't do a good job of decoupling the aid programs they supported from corporate interests.
> where do you think the money you're obtaining comes from?
Governments, who in turn get it from taxpayers. The exact system that free market capitalists rail against. And if capitalist corporations didn't evade taxes so deftly, maybe I'd have obtained more. Certainly democratic-socialist governments give more aid per-capita than more capitalistic ones.
Instead of asking leading questions as if they proved your point, why don't you try actually making an argument? Yes, much of the revenue I've obtained is indirectly generated within a capitalist system. But if you want to argue that capitalism produces more aid than the alternatives would, that's ridiculous.
Are we doing the best we can for the billions, definitely not. Are we doing the least we could, arguably not.
"And making sure everyone's making at least $1.25 a day isn't the end of the fight either. The world's median income is still only $3 to $4 a day. By comparison, the poverty line in the US for a family of four is $16.61 per person per day. Once under-$1.25-a-day poverty is eradicated, the world needs to set about eradicating under-$15-a-day poverty, which will be a substantially harder task."
Capitalism's been 'hacked' and that's why you have consumerism and unsustainability.
The free-market is the most effective way to distribute resources in an environment, that's it. All problems come from central planning.
What happens when a child would rather work for food now than go to school and improve future income potential? Government ensuring that children have food and can't work so that they will focus on increasing future earning potential results in a better society than one where there is no government intervention, and thus some number of children have to work now instead of focusing on future earning potential, meaning that throughout their lifetime they will contribute less to society than they could have.
This is one example where pure capitalism is not the most effective.
Even if this is what society would revert to once it ran out of already trained individuals, it would be cyclic and would cause entire generations to be lost as it would always be preferable to hire some adult who has basic training over a child who needs to be built from the ground up in basics.
Consider the simple case of a programmer. Who would hire a child who would take years to train (as they would need to learn not only programming, but math and reading and writing, among other fields of knowledge)? Even if the child would work for free for those years of training (which would be problematic for other reasons, but assuming they would anyways), it is still not worth it because the cost of training other than salary would make hiring no one a far better choice.
It costs a lot to train a child from scratch and they offer no benefits except in the longest of terms, so people would always hire from elsewhere, such as children who had parents rich enough to afford them basic education costs out of pocket.
Apprenticeship would work well in today's world if you start after the basic education has been completed before specialized education begins, so that it would be quick enough to turn apprentices into employees who could produce value. But this would be later high school or early college; maybe earlier for simpler trades. It will not (and historically did not) work well for younger children with more educationally demanding jobs.
Until the resource is clean air that you can pollute for free without a central planner to limit such pollution.
Soviet rivers were some of the most polluted in the world.
A free-market has much stricter limits on pollution than any crony government agency.
Unicorns are also pretty awesome - unfortunately, they seem to suffer from the fatal defect of there not being even a single instance of such a thing in consensual reality.
That sounds even move elusive than the unicorns
I agree whole-heartedly that the free market is an awesome, powerful, often-counterintuitively-effective thing.
But isn't there something to be said for some forms of central planning? Theory of the firm, multicellular organisms sending themselves to the moon, the empirical adaptive fitness of lumbering nation-states over freemen upon the land, etc.
I'm pretty far right, but I see a lot of problems with the free market.
None of this is to imply that capitalism has not been hacked. It is to imply that it is sometimes hard to distinguish the hacking from guardrails.
EDIT: Oh wait, you're not the same person.
I come from a formerly socialist economy(India). Central planning is a scheme to create bullshit jobs which don't have to exist at the first place. This distract funds and human resources from other competing higher priority work.
Every thing is state planned starting from detergent to air planes. All services are mediocre and everything is in a state of stagnation and slow decay.
It's pretty well established that capitalism works best with a regulatory state that can correct market failures and enforce private property laws.
but don't they normally pay a dividend in the USA?
And you are not going to run a high capital coop like a telco or electricity company with out making a decent excess of income over expenditure to service you capital needs