# What should replace capitalism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2011, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357 "2011-03-20T14:39:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/282 "2011-04-04T01:59:13Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I would if in fact I was posting any “Pollyanna” shit at all. Well, that and the fact I don’t take orders from you. Another Doper who doesn’t take orders from me. No wonder I get in so many arguments! > [@](#): > > Shifts in the nature of the economy cause displacement of workers. In the long run the jobs will be replaced, but in the meantime some people do, in fact, get screwed pretty badly, and they and their families need to eat. That’s why one hopes a society will have social programs and education to mitigate the effects of such things. If your country has shitty social programs you need to elect better politicians. We’re pretty much in agreement here, except you seem to be advancing the standard free market line that it’s all just a matter of temporary shifts in the job market with adjustments, though at least you are reasonable enough to advocate a strong social safety net to take care of displaced workers while they adjust, which is a LOT more than many free market fans are willing to do. However, the point here is not just temporary shifts in the nature of the job market but an overwhelming trend for the ability to provide most of the necessities of life and most of the important goods, and well, most of the unimportant ones too, by machines owned by a wealthy few who also own most of the mining, agriculture, land, etc. You don’t seem to be grasping this. And part of it is speculative, but not all THAT speculative. The business about singers and so forth is silly. Entertainment is a tiny niche market in relation to the market for power, housing, food and transportation, and it’s not at all labor-intensive. I don’t listen to some local rock band when I work out, I listen to recordings of rock bands from all over the world, and from a variety of decades. Recording technology has made most musician redundant. > [@](#): > > I suspect the difference is that you’re in the habit of just making ridiculous nonsense up, as evidenced above. I am quelled, annihilated, floored! I have no logical defense against vague accusations that verge on name-calling! > [@](#): > > The work week went from 60-70 (or more) hours per week to 35-40 hours per week because of labour regulation, collective bargaining, and labour unions, plus the benefits of market forces and automation making it economically feasible to get more work done in less time. If you want to return tothe days of sweatshops and work farms, I don’t think you’re going in the right direction. > > If having employees robbed of benefits by playing tricks with working hours is a problem, I would suggest that automation is not the problem so much as a lack of oversight in existing labour law. Elect better politicians. Literally not possible at present. Politicians need money to buy media to win campaigns. Both parties are now in the pockets of the big money players. Look at the way they fucked up the economy and walked free, even after the Repubicans were thrown out wholesale. Doesn’t matter who I vote for, big money will get its way. > [@](#): > > If they could simply jack prices up, explain to me, using evidence and logic rather than orders and drunken ranting, _why they ever would have left the gas prices lower before._ Or why the gas prices ever go down. Why did gas prices drop so dramatically in 2009? Why were they low in the late 90s after having been quite high in the early 80s… shouldn’t the price hikes in the early 80s have stuck? OPEC does not want to kill the goose that keeps laying those petrodollar eggs. They created a huge recession when they first started in 1973, remember? So they don’t want to drive the world economy into the ground because that stops the flow of petrodollars into their bank accounts and shortly after that happens, SOMEBODY is gonna take the oil or the petrodollars away from them. Probably both. So they let prices drop when they need to, but keep them as high as they can when they can get away with it. Plus of course, many economies are shifting to alternative energy sources as fast as they can while keeping energy prices as low as possible. America and most Western economies would dearly LOVE to thel the Arabs to take a fucking hike. It’s a delicate balance. But believe me, prices for oil are headed nowhere but up, long term. > [@](#): > > Damned brown people again, huh? Rich brown people have more in common with rich white people than either group has with poor people of any color. It’s the great equalizer! ---
**Author:** ![randy054](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/54ee81/32.png) [@randy054](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randy054)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/283 "2011-04-04T03:50:42Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > Of course another option is to flee countries that are ruled by capitalism. > > Unfortunately those options are shrinking. > > \*\*When you have 200 million jobless worldwide and disappearing safety nets, and no way to escape the capitalism and exploitation that goes with it… revolution and taking the system down is preferable to dying quietly. > \*\* > I’m not trolling - this is exactly what is playing out in the Middle East. It would be nice to see it worldwide, until humanity realizes the dire consequences of capitalism and is forced to replace it with social democracy. That is certainly an option and one that are fore fathers would approve of against which is essentially tyranny by the minority against the majority. This potential outcome is one that the ones at the top of the food chain are already quite well aware of and have contingency plans in place to publicly demonize and deal with those secretly that are a threat to their hold on control. If they can charge you with terrorism, they need not even make it public and you won’t get an open trial for others to be part of either. This war on terrorism is a preventive action for one such scenario and as Dick Cheney said, he did not see it ending in his lifetime. They have the data much moreso than the public can have and already know what direction were and the world is headed. Here is a an article by a law enforcement person that has attended many training sessions. **Beware of Homeland Security Training for Local Law Enforcement, by An Insider** [http://www.survivalblog.com/2011/03/beware\_of\_homeland\_security\_tr.html](http://www.survivalblog.com/2011/03/beware_of_homeland_security_tr.html) Look at the definitions in the article on how they describe potential terrorists at the article. > [@](#): > > Ive been in law enforcement for the past 18 years. I have attended a variety of training over those years. During the 1990s, most training I attended was community-oriented, sponsored by local agencies or private companies specializing in police training. Themes common to training of the past included topics such as Constitutional rights, community partnerships, youth-oriented programs and problem-oriented policing. > > During the past several years, I have witnessed a dramatic shift in the focus of law enforcement training. Law enforcement courses have moved away from a local community focus to a federally dominated model of complete social control. Most training I have attended over the past two years have been sponsored by Department of Homeland Security (DHS), namely the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). > > No matter what topic the training session concerns, every DHS sponsored course I have attended over the past few years never fails to branch off into warnings about potential domestic terrorists in the community. While this may sound like a valid officer and community safety issue, you may be disturbed to learn how our Federal government describes a typical domestic terrorist. One part of the article I though quite humorous was this: > [@](#): > > One course I attended used the example of a person employed as a plumber being the target of a search warrant. \*\* In this example, the officers were told how to use his employment as a plumber as further evidence of terrorism. \*\* The suspect’s employment would be described as an elaborate scheme to justify possessing pipes and chemicals so as to have bomb making materials readily available. \*\*Based on this example, all plumbers are potential pipe bomb makers. All gun dealers are plotting to provide arms to gangs or terrorists. All pest control companies are preparing mass poisonings. By using this logic, simply having the ability to do something criminal automatically makes the person guilty of plotting the crime. \*\* With all the various methods of manufacturing methamphetamine, it would also be easy to claim that a disassembled clandestine drug lab was located during the search. In other words, it is easy to frame anyone for possessing bomb making materials (or other crimes) if the officer knows what items to list in the report and how to link these items to terrorism. So if your harping on constitutional rights and discussing potential outcomes, and having material in your possession that they deem a danger, well… Here is a video of just one of those DHS / FEMA trainees refereeing to our founding fathers as terrorists in order to condition training officers. Fortunately, one of the officers was filming it. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vOJZS6AeejA/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEmCOADEOgC8quKqQMa8AEB-AG-AoAC8AGKAgwIABABGGYgZihmMA8=&rs=AOn4CLArAdI5g0jqDGuUxWlu2EeHMQ644A "Leaked FEMA Training Video Domestic Terrorism") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOJZS6AeejA) ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/284 "2011-04-04T05:03:01Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > The definition of “skill” changes over time. It was unheard of 200 years ago for someone to start school at 5, get out of highschool at 18, do a 4-year university program, get a 2-masters by 24, and do a 5-year PhD for 29. This person will earn his first paycheque at 30. It was also unheard of 200 years ago to have a hand-held device that could communicate via man-made satellite with another hand-held device on the other side of the planet. > [@Borzo](#): > > Until their jobs get replaced. You are under the notion that only “unskilled” jobs get replaced. Not at all. Just like you said the nature of a “skilled” job changes over time. 30 years ago there were a handful of computer programmers most of which were a select group of geniuses. Now Jr High students can make a webpage. It shouldn’t be surprising that what was once a highly skilled and highly sought after job soon became menial. > [@Borzo](#): > > 1. Computers are designing more and more things. Mainly just computers, but eventually that will broaden… Great! There are two reasons to have computers/robots do this: one is to make it more precise, the other is to make it cheaper. Either way we’re better off. Sure it sucks for Joe the Widget Maker for the first 6 months. But when he gets a new (albeit at a lower paying job) widgets will be better and cheaper. > [@Borzo](#): > > with the exception of those that invested and provided the capital (and who will reap the full rewards). Sure, and their rewards will be even larger. Which is fine, because they’ll want to buy stuff with that increased wealth. > [@Borzo](#): > > 1. Sales are getting more and more automated. I buy stuff through online stores. Who gets a commission when I buy from Amazon or from Best Buy Online. No one, that’s why it costs less, which is why I can afford the things I have like this computer and my really cool gps watch. It’s also why I can buy the exact same pair of sneakers every year without wasting time asking if someone wasted inventory. > [@Borzo](#): > > Lots of sales now are computer-to-human. Eventually, it will be computer-to-computer: the human element will be completely removed. OMG are you suggesting that computers are acquiring capital? All this time I’ve been working to prevent them from getting AI and nuclear weapons, but this is way worse. What exactly are these computers buying? And I hope you’re not talking about high frequency trades. Do you suppose that there’s money to be made selling stuff to computers? > [@Borzo](#): > > I think what you are saying is logical, and good for the immediate future… but in the next few decades, all “skilled” labour will be replaced. This will leave only one way to generate wealth: capital investment. Unless you have capital, you will be totally powerless. First off, that has always been the case since a monkey found a cave to live in that another monkey wanted. Second, you’re wrong about it being replaced, it’s not, it’s just going to get more skilled, while the things made get cheaper and better. Lastly, to generate wealth from capital, something has to happen. It’s not enough to just buy a computer that buys stuff from other computers; but even then it’s going to take someone to design the two computers. Hell, even in the Matrix we’re all employed as a power source. > [@Borzo](#): > > Now I know what you’re gonna say. “Didn’t we say in the 40s and 50s that there will be no work left 'cause robots would do everything for us!? And look, there’s still stuff for people to do now!” To that all I have to say is: It’s a question of when, not if. Which is exactly what they said in the 1950’s, 1850’s, 1750’s… see the pattern. The sky is always falling. > [@Borzo](#): > > Already, as I have shown, you need to spend twice as much time in school as in the past, in order to have marketable skills. So open a school. Where there is need their is wealth generated. Even online schools need someone to send out those ridiculous fliers, and act in their lame commercials. > [@Borzo](#): > > Eventually, computers will do everything. > > When that point comes… what exactly will we as a society do? Kick back, put our feet up, and ask the replicator for more synthohol. > [@Borzo](#): > > I understand that this may seem like some vague theoretical exercise, but I believe it has value since we are seeing these trends right now. No, you are overreacting to a downturn. A blip in an otherwise larger trend. > [@Borzo](#): > > Have the resources to acquire food, water, shelter, electricity, etc. I said “without skill.” You don’t need wealth for those you need skill, and a rudimentary knowledge of magnets. > [@Borzo](#): > > The rich will reach a point where they can take care of themselves. In what bizarre universe? Will they form some sort of isolated colony? Completely self sufficient living off variations of cash? > [@Borzo](#): > > They will no longer require us to be wage-slaves for them. More and more of us will become useless for the rich. So screw’m. Come up with a way to make money off those left over. Nothing changes if you wiped out the top 1%. Those still here will want food, water, shelter, and electricity. And those the skill/desire to provide it will become rich. > [@Borzo](#): > > Eventually we will all become useless… and only their charity will keep us alive. Hopefully the state will take a portion of their wealth, and take care of us Which brings us back to the original problem, what are we supposed to do with useless people? If all you could do was make buggy whips are we now required to support you forever? Set up a little shop where we pay you to make buggy whips all day so you won’t revolt? I guess we could also hire someone to undo their work so they have something for the next day. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/285 "2011-04-04T10:19:57Z")
> [@randy054](#): > > That is certainly an option and one that are fore fathers would approve of against which is essentially tyranny by the minority against the majority. > > This potential outcome is one that the ones at the top of the food chain are already quite well aware of and have contingency plans in place to publicly demonize and deal with those secretly that are a threat to their hold on control. One has to wonder what their response was when the police in Wisconsin would not do Walker’s bidding. When your beak and claw simply will not help you wage war on your citizens… well, the best-laid contingency plans, and all that. Of course the demonization has already begun. The unions are teh great evil[tm] and anyone else who sides with the workers are, too. How far are we away from calling them terrorists? A step, or two, or two hundred? Who knows. The problem is there are 100K people marching around in Wisconsin alone. How many jails would it take to contain that? > [@](#): > > If they can charge you with terrorism, they need not even make it public and you won’t get an open trial for others to be part of either. If you are 100,000 Union marchers who somehow swell to 1 million (see their allies in the US Uncut rallies)… well again, how many can you imprison at all, much less secretly? You can find a bad actor and demonize them all based on this one person but will those hundreds of thousands of people just up and quit protesting? That’s a critical question. The next logical question is, if you arrest 1 or 2 top agitators, on a terrorism charge or otherwise, will that silence the rest? The answer to this, in the Middle East, has been a resounding _fracking hell no_. The answer in America? Again, _who knows._ In China, of course, what you had were Jasmine-copycat protests where there were more onlookers than participants. If this is what you come to see in America, then the rich have won. Iran is another example, with its Republican Guard-equivalent. (Revolutionary Guard?) They seem to have no problem shooting at civvies. In a flat-out rebellion, American troops will have problems doing that. There will invariably be a lot of troops with family members who are at risk of being arrested or killed. Blood runs thicker than esprit de corps, especially when some other army unit is taking aim at your next of kin for standing up against the power elite. If you are a Marine you will desert your unit to protect your daughter if she’s out taking a stand. This time it won’t be a North vs South split like in 1860. Next I will endeavor to define “standing up against the power elite”. > [@](#): > > So if your harping on constitutional rights and discussing potential outcomes, and having material in your possession that they deem a danger, well… Materials? All you need is your feet and your voice in public. In large numbers. Here is where I define “standing up against the power elite”: in America you can do epic damage simply by making your opinion felt collectively in large enough numbers. From what I’ve heard, there are something like a million people out at times protesting corporations that earn billions but pay no tax (US Uncut). That’s a lot of terrorists to put in prison… the power elite has no strategy against this, except the Tea Party. And the Tea Party has never been tested against a force as big as itself. It’s used to bullying its way around America; and they did not show up much against the protestors in Wisconsin. Why are protests of this size important? Because they generate sympathy and support. Public opinion has turned against outlawing public unions. Some polls already show a majority support higher taxes for the rich over cutting programs and banning unions. I would argue that this is the result of the protests… which the media has fought HARD to keep off of television. Now for the part that the power elite is powerless to do anything about. If these figures are accurate and they are as persistent as the Tea Party, they’ll start putting up candidates that can’t be bought off or intimidated. In essence, fanatics. Think of a large number of Bernie Sanders running for Congress. Go back to California and recall the millions spent to beat Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer; and Linda McMahon out east. That was epic big Corporate money put up by the power elite to beat the Left. And they _lost_. During a Tea Party tsunami, no less. This comprises the part of the “terrorist” faction that the power elite cannot ever hope to defeat: the wave of voters that elect hard-nosed Bernie Sanders clones who will not take any orders from the power elite. In short: this problem (for the power elite) is evolving into a highly distributed, amorphous opposition which will be difficult to stop by arresting terrorism suspects. On the flip side if the struggle against the power elite is sufficiently successful at this level there won’t ever be a single shot fired. Make no mistake, this is where I _hope_ it ends. If things get ugly from here, though, it is my opinion that everything hinges on one thing: which side crosses the moral event horizon first. Will it start because an angry Union mob stormed a Tea Partier’s house and burned it down, or because a mob of Tea Party thugs struck first? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/286 "2011-04-04T14:56:14Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > We’re pretty much in agreement here, except you seem to be advancing the standard free market line that it’s all just a matter of temporary shifts in the job market with adjustments, though at least you are reasonable enough to advocate a strong social safety net to take care of displaced workers while they adjust, which is a LOT more than many free market fans are willing to do. To be honest, I don’t know many people like that, even free market types, but maybe they’re more common in the USA. The people who advocate a law of the jungle type society are usually economic ignoramouses who think an “externality” is something on the outside of your house. > [@](#): > > However, the point here is not just temporary shifts in the nature of the job market but an overwhelming trend for the ability to provide most of the necessities of life and most of the important goods, and well, most of the unimportant ones too, by machines owned by a wealthy few who also own most of the mining, agriculture, land, etc. You don’t seem to be grasping this. I grasp it just fine. It simply strikes me as being unmitigated nonsense. Countries can and do become plutocracies and I am not about to say that that isn’t a danger. Believe me, I do see the poverty in the USA. My position is that machines and offshoring are not the source of that. Plutocracy is a danger presented by political forces, not (primarily) economic ones. The solutions to avoiding terrible poverty and economic stratification are not to be found in abandoning free markets, they’re to be found in preventing excess and abuses of free markets. Advocating abandonment of capitalism is just absolutely insane. It is the height of insanity. Capitalism is the greatest system ever devised for producing and distributing wealth; we are so wealthy that people are apparently becoming blind to the source of it. We absolutely do need good politics and good government to ensure that people do not fall through the cracks (this is true of any economic system, really) but to abandon the fundamental engine of the free market, or interfere with it in ways that are politically popular but economically silly, is the most clear-cut example of heaving the baby out with the bathwater you can possibly create. I don’t like playing my country’s better than your country, but Canada came through the economic crisis in far, far better shape than the USA and far better shape than most of the Western world, with universal health care and less social stratification than you’re seeing in the USA, because of better politics and better regulation. But Canada is a dedicated capitalist nation with a huge commitment to international trade. So apparently it’s doable. Let’s not let a bad three years drive us completely fucking insane. > [@](#): > > Literally not possible at present. Politicians need money to buy media to win campaigns. Both parties are now in the pockets of the big money players. Look at the way they fucked up the economy and walked free, even after the Repubicans were thrown out wholesale. Doesn’t matter who I vote for, big money will get its way. Hey, I’m not saying it’s easy, but if you have shit politicians you need to get new ones. Sorry, I have no easy way of fixing it, but there it is. You aren’t going to accomplish ANYTHING without changing up the dudes in Washington. ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/287 "2011-04-04T18:42:45Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Great! There are two reasons to have computers/robots do this: one is to make it more precise, the other is to make it cheaper. Either way we’re better off. Sure it sucks for Joe the Widget Maker for the first 6 months. But when he gets a new (albeit at a lower paying job) widgets will be better and cheaper. So you believe that for every skilled job lost, there is a new one to take it’s place? Can you please clarify? > [@](#): > > OMG are you suggesting that computers are acquiring capital? All this time I’ve been working to prevent them from getting AI and nuclear weapons, but this is way worse. What exactly are these computers buying? And I hope you’re not talking about high frequency trades. Do you suppose that there’s money to be made selling stuff to computers? The point of my comment was to indicate that commission-based jobs are being reduced. You included commission as 1 of the 4 ways to acquire wealth. > [@](#): > > Hell, even in the Matrix we’re all employed as a power source. The future of humanity looks bright! > [@](#): > > Which is exactly what they said in the 1950’s, 1850’s, 1750’s… see the pattern. The sky is always falling. The pattern isn’t that the sky is falling, it’s that people need to spend more time training new skills. Before you were fully employable at 15, now it’s 25, later it might be 40. This is not insignificant. > [@](#): > > Kick back, put our feet up, and ask the replicator for more synthohol. I think this is missing the point. > [@](#): > > No, you are overreacting to a downturn. A blip in an otherwise larger trend. What downturn are you talking about? I’m talking about the larger trend that people are being replaced by machines and computers. > [@](#): > > I said “without skill.” You don’t need wealth for those you need skill, and a rudimentary knowledge of magnets. Huh? You need wealth for food. Where do you plant seeds if not on land? How do you harvest wheat? By hand? Where do you build a shelter, if you have no property? How do you get electricity if you can’t pay for it and have nothing to offer the people selling you the electricity? I think you’re missing the bigger picture in regards to my comments. > [@](#): > > In what bizarre universe? Will they form some sort of isolated colony? Completely self sufficient living off variations of cash? The rich will take all the capital, and leave none for the rest of us. The rich will not need us for anything either, since they will be able to provide for themselves. We’ll be left to take care of ourselves, with the scraps left behind. It may not be enough (it maybe, but it may not). > [@](#): > > So screw’m. Come up with a way to make money off those left over. Nothing changes if you wiped out the top 1%. Those still here will want food, water, shelter, and electricity. And those the skill/desire to provide it will become rich. I agree with this to an extent. We don’t need the rich, and we can run our own isolated economy that doesn’t include them. This does require capital, however (land, for example). Hopefully there will be enough left. Right now, today, people are growing up without property or capital of any sort (in the USA). They work for scraps, and it’s just enough to buy food and pay rent… But not enough to save up, or develop skills. ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/288 "2011-04-04T18:48:59Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Countries can and do become plutocracies and I am not about to say that that isn’t a danger. Believe me, I do see the poverty in the USA. My position is that machines and offshoring are not the source of that. Plutocracy is a danger presented by political forces, not (primarily) economic ones. The solutions to avoiding terrible poverty and economic stratification are not to be found in abandoning free markets, they’re to be found in preventing excess and abuses of free markets. > > Advocating abandonment of capitalism is just absolutely insane. It is the height of insanity. Capitalism is the greatest system ever devised for producing and distributing wealth; we are so wealthy that people are apparently becoming blind to the source of it. We absolutely do need good politics and good government to ensure that people do not fall through the cracks (this is true of any economic system, really) but to abandon the fundamental engine of the free market, or interfere with it in ways that are politically popular but economically silly, is the most clear-cut example of heaving the baby out with the bathwater you can possibly create. > > I don’t like playing my country’s better than your country, but Canada came through the economic crisis in far, far better shape than the USA and far better shape than most of the Western world, with universal health care and less social stratification than you’re seeing in the USA, because of better politics and better regulation. But Canada is a dedicated capitalist nation with a huge commitment to international trade. So apparently it’s doable. Let’s not let a bad three years drive us completely fucking insane. Well said. While the economic system we have right now isn’t perfect - and a better one may eventually come around - it’s the best thing we have at the moment. I think most of the problems that are occurring are due to political factors, and not economic ones. I agree with others that it’s worrisome that the rich are getting filthy rich to the point where their powers are extraordinary! But the problem with their powers is more political than economic. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/289 "2011-04-05T03:30:40Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Countries can and do become plutocracies and I am not about to say that that isn’t a danger. Believe me, I do see the poverty in the USA. My position is that machines and offshoring are not the source of that. Plutocracy is a danger presented by political forces, not (primarily) economic ones. _That_ is insanity. You think that market forces cannot be a source of problems but political, aka Government forces, are. In reality both market forces and political forces are at fault for causing plutocracies. Both are breeding grounds for human greed. It’s absolute madness to ignore either factor’s role in the fact that we have **200 million people out of work** worldwide and many more earning mere peanuts. > [@](#): > > Advocating abandonment of capitalism is just absolutely insane. So in essence you’re saying capitalism is our new God and it is inviolate, immune to innovation and change. Really? How _dare_ we talk about replacing capitalism with… oh, say, for example… a social democracy? Heathens! Where are the pitch forks and torches! > [@](#): > > Capitalism is the greatest system ever devised for producing and distributing wealth How about a social democracy? > [@](#): > > we are so wealthy that people are apparently becoming blind to the source of it. We absolutely do need good politics and good government to ensure that people do not fall through the cracks (this is true of any economic system, really) but to abandon the fundamental engine of the free market, or interfere with it in ways that are politically popular but economically silly, is the most clear-cut example of heaving the baby out with the bathwater you can possibly create. Countries like China, India and countries in South America interfere with the free market all the time. As a result their economies skyrocketed. America interfered a lot, too; and during those years our economy skyrocketed. History does not back you on this. It never has. > [@](#): > > I don’t like playing my country’s better than your country, but Canada came through the economic crisis in far, far better shape than the USA and far better shape than most of the Western world, with universal health care and less social stratification than you’re seeing in the USA, because of better politics and better regulation. But Canada is a dedicated capitalist nation Dedicated capitalist nation? If I recall correctly, Canada is a social democracy. Also, what are Canada’s trade deficits like? > [@](#): > > with a huge commitment to international trade. So apparently it’s doable. Let’s not let a bad three years drive us completely fucking insane. Ah, this again. First of all your numbers are off. It’s been a bad TEN years, masked entirely by consumers spending money based on a monumental run-up of debt. Actually it’s more like a bad 30 years, except that we’ve had other compensating factors masking the damage. Those days of being able to compensate are now behind us. Count on that. Second of all, [trade deficits matter](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/americas-trade-deficit-is_b_823785.html). [Trade deficits cause our debt to rise](http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-trade-deficit-is-debt-it-just-aint-so/). It is an anchor weighing us down. America runs a hundreds of billions of dollar trade deficit that is adding to our national debt. You keep saying, over and over again, that tariffs are bad for international trade and for workers. What you keep avoiding is the fact that trade deficits and offshoring add to our national debt and they devalue our currency. Eventually if we continue this “free trade” the dollar will collapse. _What will happen to your precious free trade then? Where will Canada export its goods then?_ Perhaps we need a good collapse to shake the free trade monkey off our backs. That way you can say “hey, at least they didn’t raise tariffs”. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/290 "2011-04-05T03:47:49Z")
BTW the reason certain people from Canada are such big fans of Free Trade is because their Balance of Trade is in the POSITIVE: $116 Million CAD as of January 2011. It’s easy to be for free trade when you occasionally export more than you are import - especially when you run [surpluses](http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c1220.html) with your biggest trading partner, the United States. Try running a hundreds of billions of dollar deficit and see how long your people support that. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/291 "2011-04-05T03:58:31Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > So in essence you’re saying capitalism is our new God and it is inviolate, immune to innovation and change. Really? No. > [@](#): > > Countries like China, India and countries in South America interfere with the free market all the time. As a result their economies skyrocketed. Their economies have largely skyrocketed at those points when they liberalized their economies. It also helps to impose rule of law and allow political freedom. In any event, they’re still really fucking poor. The average Chinese is substantially poorer than what you’d get on social assistance in the USA. I’m firmly middle class, and I made more by Valentine’s Day than the average Chinese will make all year. So the Chinese are poor, and on top of that have little freedom. I’m not in a rush to move there. China’s explosive growth has moved the average Chinese from dirt poor to slightly less dirt poor. Wheeee. > [@](#): > > Dedicated capitalist nation? If I recall correctly, Canada is a social democracy. Since you haven’t defined “Social democracy” I have no idea what you’re talking about. If by “social democracy” you mean “a capitalist nation that has some good social programs” then yes, I suppose Canada is precisely that. This is a free market country with good social programs, which is what I advocated in the very post you replied to, and always have. > [@](#): > > Also, what are Canada’s trade deficits like? Positive for a long time, then dropped to negative during the recession, but recovering again. We’ve long enjoyed a large trade surplus with our largest trading partner, a much larger economy that has lower standards of labour laws, lower wages, and fewer social programs. You might be familiar with it. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/292 "2011-04-05T04:40:33Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > No. “Advocating abandonment of capitalism is just absolutely insane.” The thing is, how can we abandon capitalism when we have never truly adopted it, except partially? No one is talking about switching to a totally Government-owned means of production command economy. So I’ll condense all this talk about social democracy vs capitalism, etc., into a few questions: Who were you even talking about when you mentioned someone advocating abandonment of capitalism? Who here is advocating a total Government takeover of the economy? The funny part is, _all systems_ are inevitably abandoned. If you accept evolution this is the only rule that never changes, capitalism, communism, socialism, etc., are all doomed to be replaced at some point in the future. It’s evolution, baby. > [@](#): > > Their economies have largely skyrocketed at those points when they liberalized their economies. It also helps to impose rule of law and allow political freedom. Actually China’s growth was much higher when they had higher tariffs. > [@](#): > > In any event, they’re still really fucking poor. This has been repeated a million times. What has not been repeated is that their middle class is exploding in size. What is America’s middle class doing? > [@](#): > > Positive for a long time, then dropped to negative during the recession, but recovering again. We’ve long enjoyed a large trade surplus with our largest trading partner, a much larger economy that has lower standards of labour laws, lower wages, and fewer social programs. You might be familiar with it. So, my hunch was right. You guys have a positive trade balance. Funny how this seems to coincide with Canadian majority support for free trade - that is, if that support is in the majority. I am assuming it is. You won’t be singing that tune when America’s currency collapses under the combined weight of its trade deficits and budget deficits, and your exports to us implode into a monster trade deficit. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/293 "2011-04-05T11:06:04Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > “Advocating abandonment of capitalism is just absolutely insane.” Advocating abandonment of laws against robbery would also be insane, but I’m not suggesting the law against robbery is my “God.” > [@](#): > > The thing is, how can we abandon capitalism when we have never truly adopted it, except partially? How has capitalism been “partially” adopted? Captalism has been pretty widely adopted. It’s a tool, an economic approach to production and distribution and rpice determination. It doesn’t do everything, which is why we also have governments and courts and stuff. It works really well. > [@](#): > > Who were you even talking about when you mentioned someone advocating abandonment of capitalism? Jesus Christ. Do you know what the thread is entitled? Read Diogenes’ posts, there’s one. > [@](#): > > If you accept evolution this is the only rule that never changes, capitalism, communism, socialism, etc., are all doomed to be replaced at some point in the future. It’s evolution, baby. I’m not sure you understand what evolution is, either. Evolution doesn’t abandon things. Evolution is a biological process, not a sociopolitical process. > [@](#): > > Actually China’s growth was much higher when they had higher tariffs. And my growth was much higher when I was in kindergarten, which does not mean that I would become taller if I went back to kindergarten. What works for a country at one stage of economic development doesn’t necessarily work for a country at another. > [@](#): > > So, my hunch was right. You guys have a positive trade balance. Not right now, no. > [@](#): > > Funny how this seems to coincide with Canadian majority support for free trade - that is, if that support is in the majority. I am assuming it is. Actually, when it was first proposed most Canadians opposed it. They were convinced it would make Canada poorer. They were wrong. But you’re missing the point; if Canada can do it, why can’t the USA? The problem isn’t with free trade, the problem’s with the USA’s particular political issues. > [@](#): > > You won’t be singing that tune when America’s currency collapses under the combined weight of its trade deficits and budget deficits, and your exports to us implode into a monster trade deficit. I was going to explain why that would _enormously_ benefit Canada’s trade balance with all other nations and hugely improve our trade with Asia and Europe, but it’s too complicated for you to understand so forget it. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/294 "2011-04-05T11:58:48Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I’m not sure you understand what evolution is, either. Evolution doesn’t abandon things. Evolution is a biological process, not a sociopolitical process. Tell that to the hominids who no longer exist because they’ve evolved into homo sapiens sapiens. > [@](#): > > Actually, when it was first proposed most Canadians opposed it. They were convinced it would make Canada poorer. They were wrong. > > But you’re missing the point; if Canada can do it, why can’t the USA? The problem isn’t with free trade, the problem’s with the USA’s particular political issues. Maybe we should take steps to ensure our trade balance is at or near positive levels. Canada’s trade balance is never as bad as ours is. You’re not shipping jobs overseas like we are. Soon as you start having persistent trade deficits your country’s tune will change, much like ours has. > [@](#): > > I was going to explain why that would _enormously_ benefit Canada’s trade balance with all other nations Uh, no you weren’t. You would have failed to make a credible case if you had tried. The collapse of the US economy would eliminate the world’s largest export market for just about every major country on Earth. Our collapse will devastate trade around the world. History says I am right on this. When we had our recession in 2008, 20 million Chinese jobs were lost. If our currency collapses they’ll lose 2 to 3 times as many jobs. Out of work Asians can’t buy Canadian goods. Your trade will not improve with them. Or Europe, most likely. Look, economics is too complicated for you to understand beyond what you’ve memorized. You’re too rooted in what you’ve read in books. You don’t even realize that Canadians are only happy with free trade because they’re not the ones losing jobs and having their debt increased by chronic year-after-year trade deficits of monstrous proportions. Most here don’t even realize that trade deficits add to a nation’s foreign-held debt. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/295 "2011-04-05T14:33:05Z")
[QUOTE=Le Jacquelope] Tell that to the hominids who no longer exist because they’ve evolved into homo sapiens sapiens. [/QUOTE] Not really a discussion on Evolution (and you won’t see this anyway), but this shows a lack of even a basic understanding of how Evolution works. Species don’t evolve from one species into another in some sort of lockstep towards the future. All of the Homo erectus didn’t just evolve into Homo heidelbergensis (or an intermediate species who’s name escapes me atm) en masse. -XT ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/296 "2011-04-05T17:14:23Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > Actually China’s growth was much higher when they had higher tariffs. Prove it. You made the statement, now prove China’s growth was much higher when they had higher tariffs. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/297 "2011-04-05T17:55:46Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > It doesn’t need replacing as much as it just needs a resetting. > > Hopefully once reset, it’ll remain stable long enough for our sentient AI overlords to implement and enforce a better system. I assume they’ll just give us all an allowance, and keep us out of their way. No, it will take about 5 years before we’re back to normal. Donald Trump (and his company) have declared bankruptcy several times, he effectively hits the reset switch. After the dusts settles he goes to a bank and negotiates a loan for a new venture. A year later he’s back to being rich. If you hit the reset switch, took all the money in the world and divided it equally, it would take about a year for the poor to piss it away and the rich to be back on top. It’s not that different than a game of poker. People often back after an hour that one person has so much they can bully everyone around. But start again and they’ll be back there after a few hands. I used to work with a charity that tried to break the poverty cycle, a remarkably cool project that could never get enough funding. The director would often complain, “kids, cancer and disaster are the only things people give money to.” Long story short, when people would apply for various social programs it often took months before they got their first check, and that check was often backdated to include payment for those three months. Handing a low income family $3000 was the worst thing anyone could ever do. I don’t mean to generalize all low income families, but this guy spent his career dealing with that very problem. A low income family could live for years on $500 a month, and when suddenly handed $3000 they’d go broke. The director spent a lot of time lobbying to change how social assistance was paid out, trying to keep it from being monthly because the people he worked with couldn’t manage a month of finances. Essentially, what ever you gave them lasted a week. So the best thing you could do was give them 1 weeks worth at a time. Long story short, it wasn’t capitalism that kept people down. Even when provided with dozens of social programs it’s possible for people to keep themselves down. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/298 "2011-04-05T18:25:54Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > Tell that to the hominids who no longer exist because they’ve evolved into homo sapiens sapiens. That isn’t how evolution works. One species does not change wholesale into another. [QUOTE=Le Jacquelope] Maybe we should take steps to ensure our trade balance is at or near positive levels. Canada’s trade balance is never as bad as ours is. You’re not shipping jobs overseas like we are. [/QUOTE] \*\*And yet Canada has international trade every bit as free as that of the United States. \*\* If free trade and a reduction of tariffs is what causes trade deficits, as you have repeatedly claimed, why is Canada’s trade deficit not as bad as that of the USA? Why is our unemployment level lower? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/299 "2011-04-05T18:27:37Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > So you believe that for every skilled job lost, there is a new one to take it’s place? Can you please clarify? You have it backwards. It used to take everyone working at full capacity to produce enough food to survive. You couldn’t have skilled jobs because people spent all their time working in the fields. Technology freed up labour to become skilled. Compare and contrast: I just spent a few weeks in Tanzania and then a few weeks in Costa Rica, and it was amazing how similar the landscape was, both being so close to the equator. The biggest difference was that when looking at a corn field you’d either see dozens of children pushing a plow, or one guy driving a tractor. The other different you don’t see is that CR made a huge push to provide free education. There are people in this (and the other) thread complaining that technology stole jobs without replacing them. But the reality is that in Tanzania kids don’t get the chance to be skilled labourers because they’re stuck pushing a plow. Americans have the opportunity to go to school until age 30 because our economy doesn’t _need_ them until they are fully trained. Kids in Tanzania spent a significant portion of their time carrying water, then boiling it. That’s time lost to training for skilled labour. CR made a huge push to get clean drinking water, allowing kids an extra hour a day to study towards becoming skilled labour. When jobs were first offshored, it was the lowest ends of production. Most of the time it meant that small components were mass produced cheaply then shipped back to the US for final (skilled) assembly. The big complaint now is that Chinese labourers are getting more skilled and taking more jobs. Software engineering used to be a highly skilled job, but eventually it was split into high and low level coding. The low level stuff was offshored to the Ukraine freeing up skilled labour to spend more time on the high level stuff. And it’s the high level stuff that generates wealth, not the low end coding. > [@Borzo](#): > > The point of my comment was to indicate that commission-based jobs are being reduced. You included commission as 1 of the 4 ways to acquire wealth. There will always be sources of commissions. Always. As long as money is changing hands there will be commissions. In effect that’s what American has become. Instead of making then selling a cheap piece of crap, Americans switched to importing then selling cheap pieces of crap. You’ll notice that we don’t yet have a system for buying directly from the factories in China. We still pay commissions each time money changes hands. > [@Borzo](#): > > The pattern isn’t that the sky is falling, it’s that people need to spend more time training new skills. Before you were fully employable at 15, now it’s 25, later it might be 40. This is not insignificant. Right, which is why we’ve used technology to replace the work people were doing between age 12 and 25. Look at the jobs people were doing 100 years ago. Kids stopped going to school because they were needed. Technology freed them up to go to school. I grew up in an area where kids were routinely taken out of school in the spring and fall to help with the farms. > [@Borzo](#): > > Huh? You need wealth for food. Where do you plant seeds if not on land? How do you harvest wheat? By hand? Where do you build a shelter, if you have no property? How do you get electricity if you can’t pay for it and have nothing to offer the people selling you the electricity? I think you’re missing the bigger picture in regards to my comments. No, that’s the mistake, you don’t need wealth. Land in the US is still practically free. No you can’t have an acre of farm land in downtown Manhatten take a look at this > **[7 Towns Where Land is Free](https://www.cnbc.com/2010/11/16/7-Towns-Where-Land-is-Free.html)** > > If the Google Maps overhead view of the vast open space surrounding the modest street grids of these towns doesn’t instill cabin fever, then read on—these parcels are up for land grabs. The current problem in the US is that people aren’t willing to live a subsistence life. All over the world people live off a few dollars per day, and that’s in areas where food costs considerably more. > [@Borzo](#): > > The rich will take all the capital, and leave none for the rest of us. The rich will not need us for anything either, since they will be able to provide for themselves. We’ll be left to take care of ourselves, with the scraps left behind. It may not be enough (it maybe, but it may not). The rich can’t take all the capital. They aren’t horders. Eventually they’ll want or need something, since it’s unlikely they’re growing their own food or making their own Ferraris. Like I said, there will always be commissions. > [@Borzo](#): > > I agree with this to an extent. We don’t need the rich, and we can run our own isolated economy that doesn’t include them. This does require capital, however (land, for example). Hopefully there will be enough left. There’s plenty. > [@Borzo](#): > > Right now, today, people are growing up without property or capital of any sort (in the USA). They work for scraps, and it’s just enough to buy food and pay rent… But not enough to save up, or develop skills. Who’s fault is that? How long can you possibly blame _the rich_? Take a moment to remove them from the equation and see what’s left over. What sort of problems are there, and who is causing them? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/300 "2011-04-05T19:01:57Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > No, it will take about 5 years before we’re back to normal. Donald Trump (and his company) have declared bankruptcy several times, he effectively hits the reset switch. After the dusts settles he goes to a bank and negotiates a loan for a new venture. A year later he’s back to being rich. > > If you hit the reset switch, took all the money in the world and divided it equally, it would take about a year for the poor to piss it away and the rich to be back on top. It’s not that different than a game of poker. People often back after an hour that one person has so much they can bully everyone around. But start again and they’ll be back there after a few hands. > > I used to work with a charity that tried to break the poverty cycle, a remarkably cool project that could never get enough funding. The director would often complain, “kids, cancer and disaster are the only things people give money to.” Long story short, when people would apply for various social programs it often took months before they got their first check, and that check was often backdated to include payment for those three months. Handing a low income family $3000 was the worst thing anyone could ever do. I don’t mean to generalize all low income families, but this guy spent his career dealing with that very problem. A low income family could live for years on $500 a month, and when suddenly handed $3000 they’d go broke. > > The director spent a lot of time lobbying to change how social assistance was paid out, trying to keep it from being monthly because the people he worked with couldn’t manage a month of finances. Essentially, what ever you gave them lasted a week. So the best thing you could do was give them 1 weeks worth at a time. > > Long story short, it wasn’t capitalism that kept people down. Even when provided with dozens of social programs it’s possible for people to keep themselves down. Trump doesn’t go broke, only his company does. And his company is publicly owned, so it’s the shareholders who go broke. He builds companies and gets out before anything bad can happen. He always has a pretty substantial amount of money at his disposal. Second, poor people handle money badly because they have on experience with it. The problem is that, under the current system, one mistake can knock you out, and nobody teaches you how to handle money. It’s not because they are inherently bad with money. I would bet that those who are bad with money are overrepresented among the poor, but the idea that every poor person can not learn to handle money is silly. It’s their poorness that makes them overvalue money and thus not think rationally about it. Plus, a large number rich people only really know what to do with a lot of money, not what to do with little. There still is the old wealth vs. new wealth dichotomy, and, in a reset, those who had old wealth would not rise back up to the top. Only those with new wealth would go back on top, with maybe a few extra people who already have the skill but lacked the funds before. I do have my doubts on whether this would be better: Didn’t early economics have an even larger disparity between the haves and have-nots? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357/301 "2011-04-05T19:22:56Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Trump doesn’t go broke, only his company does. And his company is publicly owned, so it’s the shareholders who go broke. He builds companies and gets out before anything bad can happen. He always has a pretty substantial amount of money at his disposal. Trump was pushed to the point of personal bankruptcy during that process (Taj Hotel). In other cases he had to give up control and forgo salary. He’s hardly a heart break story, the point is show to how quickly he can lose everything, and how quickly he can get it all back. He was famous for saying, “the key is to owe so much people have a financial steak in your success.” And you’ll notice that even after massive failures, people are willing to invest in/with him. > [@BigT](#): > > Second, poor people handle money badly because they have on experience with it. The problem is that, under the current system, one mistake can knock you out, and nobody teaches you how to handle money. Mostly true. Like I said, I was part of a program that taught people how to handle money. But that required them making a personal investment of 1 Thursday night per week. Do you know how many people couldn’t be bothered to show up? In exchange they were given the opportunity to get subsidized rent. The goal was to teach them enough to save for the downpayment on a house. The house payments were meant to cost less than their rent. The only requirement for getting into the program was having 6 months of continuous employment. You’d be amazed how many people don’t have that. And the only requirement for staying in the program was showing up on time Thursday night. Again, you’d be amazed how many people couldn’t be bothered. > [@BigT](#): > > It’s not because they are inherently bad with money. I would bet that those who are bad with money are overrepresented among the poor, but the idea that every poor person can not learn to handle money is silly. It’s their poorness that makes them overvalue money and thus not think rationally about it. Possible. America was advertised as land of the free, and it’s unfortunate it didn’t turn out that way. But even with all the shit going on, the opportunity is there for people that want it. The US is still massively socialized despite what many believe. > [@BigT](#): > > Plus, a large number rich people only really know what to do with a lot of money, not what to do with little. Also very true. It takes a generation to earn it, a generation to hold it, and a generation to lose it. > [@BigT](#): > > There still is the old wealth vs. new wealth dichotomy, and, in a reset, those who had old wealth would not rise back up to the top. Exactly, the lesson here should be that wealth is in many ways independent of where you start. People with capital can and do lose it all. Look at lottery winners as proof of concept. Poor people, when given capital, stay poor. > [@BigT](#): > > Only those with new wealth would go back on top, with maybe a few extra people who already have the skill but lacked the funds before. I do have my doubts on whether this would be better: Didn’t early economics have an even larger disparity between the haves and have-nots? Right. So after a few years those with new wealth would be back on top, with a few new people. Old wealth on the bottom with the old poor. A generation later we’re back where we started. The new wealth becomes Old wealth with a few new people. Meanwhile the poor stay poor. How many people rob banks then become financially self sufficient? This thread (and the other) are advocating we all rob banks to make things seem fair. Robert Mugabe blamed white farmers for all the ills of the world, so he took their land and gave it away. Didn’t work out so well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-replace-capitalism/575357.md?page=16)