"In capitalism, the winners do not eat the losers but teach them how to win through the spread of information."
This certainly casts patents in an anti-capitalist light...
This certainly casts patents in an anti-capitalist light...
The problem with capitalism is that it's not stable. People who become rich and powerful (and their generally useless heirs, friends, and hired-gun managers) don't actually want to live in a capitalist world, so they use their social connections to build a private safety net, which hampers innovation. Corporate bureaucracies have more in common with the Kremlin than a Silicon Valley startup, and even Silicon Valley isn't that innovative, because it's increasingly controlled by a well-connected VC/media social elite. Most people wouldn't want to live in pure capitalism, and the corporate elite especially doesn't want it. They want to keep what they've got.
The problem with the problem with capitalism (or the problem with not-capitalism) is that every alternative to an at least mostly capitalistic economy is terrible. Command economies are not desirable.
Most thinking people are essentially (small-l) libertarian. My use of this word has nothing to do with the current usage (conservative who likes pot). By libertarian, I mean the opposite of authoritarian: belief that people should, all else being equal, be free to do as they wish rather than controlled by a governmental or corporate authority. (Authoritarians believe it's intrinsically impossible for most people to do anything good unless told to do so by a central authority.) The problem is that libertarianism begets capitalism begets conglomeration begets corporatism. It's the Iron Law of Oligarchy. The only solution I can see is the Western European social democracy (i.e. a socialist infrastructure to provide a safety net, but a capitalist engine for innovation and to maintain individual freedom). You need enough of a welfare state to keep people from being exploited by emergent corporate power, but enough capitalism (economic freedom) to keep innovation alive.
Not if the state actually does it's job. For a free-market to exist the state must necessarily prevent anti-competitive practices.
In the U.S., unfortunately, the notion that social democracy is necessary arose during the great depression (because capitalism clearly failed /s) and resulted in the New Deal, which was, of course, socialist policy. It was that which started our slow and steady path towards heavy government involvement into the economy and, as a result, corporatism.
Yes, it did arise then.
> (because capitalism clearly failed /s)
Not so fast. The interesting question until recently was "why did the great depression last so long?". Remember, all previous depressions and panics ended fairly quickly.
The current answer is FDR's policies, specifically industry and production controls. (To be fair, FDRs policies were actually a continuation of Hoover's, but everyone "forgets" that Hoover was a progressive, so let's credit FDR.) The great depression didn't really end until those policies did, which happened when it became obvious that an "arsenal of democracy" had to produce lots of stuff.
Yes, Hoover started huge stimulus spending, aid progorams and the like, borrowing money, doing the whole Keynes thing. FDR actually campaigned (somewhat) against the resulting deficits. (He also campaigned against Prohibition.)
Hoover was a huge fan of aid programs. One of his big pre-presidency accomplishments was an aid program to Russia after WWI.
Also, the vast majority of congressional Republicans voted for Social Security.
BTW I was just poking fun at people who think that the Great Depression was a result of unbridled capitalism instead of bad government policy.
Envy and covetousness aren't "good" reasons, but they are certainly reasons humans have used to hate each other throughout history.
> France made it so easy to get welfare and taxes so high (40-50%) that it's better to collect welfare then actually do any work
Romney's ad criticizing Obama's rollback of the requirement established under President Clinton, that welfare recipients must actively look for work, speaks to exactly this point.
I wonder if technology will ever make this model sustainable -- if we have most of our farms, factories and mines run by robots and computers with minimal human intervention, could we produce enough food, clothing, shelter, and basic necessities for everyone if the only people who work are those who wish to do so?
The reason Republicans have produced mediocre candidates for a while is that the party has too many constituencies: You have the religious right (mainly concerned about moral decay and social issues, think Huckabee), the neocon faction (pro-big-government and foreign policy hawks, think GWB), and the libertarians (Tea Party, Ron Paul -- mainly in favor of smaller government and lower taxes).
Their traditional base is dwindling; a near-majority of people don't pay any federal taxes, so can't be bribed by tax cuts and are very uncomfortable with social-program cuts. Religion is on the decline. We haven't suffered any major terrorist attacks lately, and GWB's wars have left many interventionists with a sour taste in their mouths. So they're trying to reach out to new constituencies; in this election cycle, it's immigrants and women, judging by the convention speeches.
We need a strong candidate who can fix the mess before we become locked circling the drain that France has gone down. It's hard to see this candidate coming from either party.
The top-0.2% or so (and the distinction has more to do with social topology than income; many of them are not earning top-0.2% incomes) are a well-connected set of parasites who produce little innovation, hamper society by pushing the status quo, and generally produce no value. Yes, we have an upper-class problem in this society but it's not only about money. Income inequality is a symptom, but it's about connections.