isn't the issue that capitalism is amoral? you're saying the capitalists (should be) helping by now if they wanted to. They don't do it because capitalism isn't directly incentivizing it?
growing economic power is supposed to help "all of us" in proportion to our input value.
All this to say, i agree, but it means we need to augment capitalism - not speak to help and morality?
How can you call a system that disincentivizes collective care of one another "amoral"?
> but it means we need to augment capitalism
What a pithy phrase! You said yourself that capitalism doesn't incentivize those with to help those without. How do you augment capitalism to incentivize such behavior?
And to be clear, I'm not saying that the bourgeoisie should be helping. I'm just saying they don't. I think we should burn capitalism to the ground and build something better.
> How do you augment capitalism to incentivize such behavior?
By regulating it so that it serves the needs of the people living in it, and embedding those regulations in a system resilient against regulatory capture and nepotism.
As all economic systems, it’s ultimately only a means (efficient resource allocation) to an end (prosperity and growth for somebody).
Who that is, i.e. how the results of that growth are ultimately redistributed is not a question of economics but politics.
augment is the hopeful outcome. The alternatives seems quite bad to say the least. Maybe they lead to something good, something better. but there's a whole lotta bad in between for an unclear amount of time.
> How can you call a system that disincentivizes collective care of one another "amoral"?
It doesn't disincentivize collective care. It incentivizes resource allocation most optimally, whatever optimality is within applied bounds. Which leads to my next point:
> What a pithy phrase! You said yourself that capitalism doesn't incentivize those with to help those without. How do you augment capitalism to incentivize such behavior?
By applying regulation and laws to the system, the bounds. It's not like any of this exists in a vacuum and can't be, again, augmented to fit our needs better.
> And to be clear, I'm not saying that the bourgeoisie should be helping. I'm just saying they don't. I think we should burn capitalism to the ground and build something better.
That's cute. What's your proposition for replacing Capitalism? What guarantees your new system is better? And I can assume you're agreeing to pay the incredibly bloody tab destabilizing our society will have? Since I assume from your post you basically haven't known anything other then peace and stability and historically speaking great times, you're basically a larper.
Ideas like this always strike me as incredibly naive. Why not work to improve a system that has shown promise instead of the repeating the long trail of critical failures from other systems.
> It incentivizes resource allocation most optimally, whatever optimality is within applied bounds.
Exactly. And in the current bounds the optimal allocation is more into the control of fewer. Also, capitalism is a zero sum game, thus the disincentive to give what you've got.
> By applying regulation and laws to the system, the bounds.
Sure. But those regulations and laws are being repealed or revised to be toothless. And there are many places on earth where laws have no meaning.
> And I can assume you're agreeing to pay the incredibly bloody tab destabilizing our society will have?
And capitalism doesn't have an incredibly bloody tab? Take a global perspective to see the many useless wars in the 20th and 21st century that have been fought to extend the market for capital.
Or consider that our planet is fucked by global warming thanks to "optimal resource allocation" which takes no account for long-term consequences, but only short term gains. Do you think that when the oceans rise, the plants die, and the water is too acidic to drink society won't be destabilized?
> capitalism is a zero sum game, thus the disincentive to give what you've got.
Only in a zero growth environment. And in one, which economic or political system is not a zero sum game?
> consider that our planet is fucked by global warming thanks to "optimal resource allocation" which takes no account for long-term consequences
Pricing in long-term consequences and accounting for externalities is arguably not a contradiction to capitalism (and I think we should absolutely do much better there).
Ideally we’d even account for the effects of societal unrest due to massive wealth inequalities or areas becoming unlivable due to the climate, or just the immorality of poverty if nothing else.
But that’s a political decision (what do we value how much) in the end, not one of economic systems. Who gets to decide that is determined by the political system, not the economic one. And corruption of political power can exist in all systems.
growing economic power is supposed to help "all of us" in proportion to our input value.
All this to say, i agree, but it means we need to augment capitalism - not speak to help and morality?