It’s not poorly managed, you are suggesting that poorly managing capitalism wound improve it.
Capitalism only has one metric, capital, the goal is to consolidate it as much as possible. And that is a limited strategy that can properly work only in the short term (but as any system, it will defend it’s existence above all, even logic).
What? I am saying better managing it would improve it. Higher taxes the more you make. Caps on company sizes. Strict regulations with consequences that actually mean something if broken. There are ways to manage. We just choose not too. What is the better alternative as every system has it pros and cons but all of not managed right, lead to bad outcomes. Maybe it is impossible as fundamentally humans and human nature are at the core.
I was saying that what you described are measures “against capital” … and capital owners would have to implement these measures, which would hurt them.
That’s what I meant by capitalism having a single metric (goal). Implying that to move beyond capitalism/communism/feudalism we need a way to value things like ‘advancing society’ (science, happy population, sustainable growth, etc) the same way we now value capital (or feudalism valued land).
Communism is only a bit different in this regard bcs it distributes power among people, and with a more democratic economic system people can value more personal goals (like personal time, career/field, etc), but market tendencies stay the same (basically only limiting production factors akin to hindering capital mobility in capitalism, like banning stocks/stock exchanges, but capital mobility is like the defining characteristic of western capitalism).
All of the economic systems can and should be influenced by a system of governance, ranging from democratic to authoritarian. The more democratic the more “anti-capitalist”*, the more authoritarian the more a few people make all the decisions. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
(And just to be clear, you can have a completely democratic completely communistic system, and a completely authoritarian capitalism. So a multiparty commune state and a single party (“two party” is a single party in this regard) capitalist state.)
*the measures you described could only be implemented this way, but then the core problem of who decides what is best for society falls to a popularity vote, unless everyone is educated (and we are several centuries from achieving this utopia, if ever)
Now how do we take the open market single mindedness of capital valuation and add an equally powerful system working in a similar way to credit advancements in society, ecology, etc.
(I say valuation to imply a more theoretical/mathematical approach & to not count human factors & technical analysis of stock exchanges, or how bubbles are in every major participants interest)
It’s not poorly managed, you are suggesting that poorly managing capitalism wound improve it.
Capitalism only has one metric, capital, the goal is to consolidate it as much as possible. And that is a limited strategy that can properly work only in the short term (but as any system, it will defend it’s existence above all, even logic).
What? I am saying better managing it would improve it. Higher taxes the more you make. Caps on company sizes. Strict regulations with consequences that actually mean something if broken. There are ways to manage. We just choose not too. What is the better alternative as every system has it pros and cons but all of not managed right, lead to bad outcomes. Maybe it is impossible as fundamentally humans and human nature are at the core.
I was saying that what you described are measures “against capital” … and capital owners would have to implement these measures, which would hurt them.
That’s what I meant by capitalism having a single metric (goal). Implying that to move beyond capitalism/communism/feudalism we need a way to value things like ‘advancing society’ (science, happy population, sustainable growth, etc) the same way we now value capital (or feudalism valued land).
Communism is only a bit different in this regard bcs it distributes power among people, and with a more democratic economic system people can value more personal goals (like personal time, career/field, etc), but market tendencies stay the same (basically only limiting production factors akin to hindering capital mobility in capitalism, like banning stocks/stock exchanges, but capital mobility is like the defining characteristic of western capitalism).
All of the economic systems can and should be influenced by a system of governance, ranging from democratic to authoritarian. The more democratic the more “anti-capitalist”*, the more authoritarian the more a few people make all the decisions. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
(And just to be clear, you can have a completely democratic completely communistic system, and a completely authoritarian capitalism. So a multiparty commune state and a single party (“two party” is a single party in this regard) capitalist state.)
*the measures you described could only be implemented this way, but then the core problem of who decides what is best for society falls to a popularity vote, unless everyone is educated (and we are several centuries from achieving this utopia, if ever)
Now how do we take the open market single mindedness of capital valuation and add an equally powerful system working in a similar way to credit advancements in society, ecology, etc.
(I say valuation to imply a more theoretical/mathematical approach & to not count human factors & technical analysis of stock exchanges, or how bubbles are in every major participants interest)