Adam smith and capitalist markets?
Greed does not drive or regulate capitalist markets. Capitalism regulates greed. Whoever taught you that is a Marxist and probably never even read Adam Smith. Smith did however recognize the importance that self interest plays in economics... "But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them” - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Is capitalism inherently wasteful? If yes, what are some examples?
The idea of a "wasteful system" requires that we arbitrarily specify some goal in relation to which the system can be considered inefficient.There are goals which are considered objective, such as obeying the Christian Ten Commandments or following Islam's Sharia Law, but most economic systems set subjective goals such as utility maximization.From that perspective, behavior that seems wasteful to one person (such as leaving the air conditioner on when no one's home), may be the most efficient behavior in another person's eyes, since they have a different utility algorithm.Empirically speaking, Capitlism is the most effective system that humans have ever tried for solving the problem of scarcity. As production efficiency increases, we are seeing a drop in scarcity for most goods. When this reaches a critical level, Capitalism will naturally evolve into Communism. This is not the "Communism" that was trialled by various countries in the last century- that is more properly termed "Marxist-Leninism". I am speaking of the original Communism as envisioned by Marx- a natural evolution from Capitalism as scarcity becomes less of a problem.The only revolution that is required is in autocratic countries, where the people must demand democracy, with violence if necessary. This is what he termed "The Dictatorship of the Proleteriat" (ie power in the hands of the majority (working class).This is already the case in the United States. There is no need to change the Constitution or even the law. As the most advanced Capitalist society in the world, the U.S. will almost certainly be the first country to evolve into the Communism of Marx.With products like magazines, encyclopedias, music and video already becoming demonetized, and 3D printed goods costing no more than the plastic they're made of, the U.S. is already well on its way there.
Viva la Capitalism...?
First, I think we need to realize socialism ..../... capitalism and anarchy ..../..... totalitarianism are on a continuum. The issues of capitalism and socialism get confused when anarchy/totalitarianism are added. Capitalism has mostly to do with the ability to amass capital. Free markets have to be modified because cheating and coercion can be applied When Government protects those who amass capital and make favorable rules, it's no longer a free market. This is a big point with liberals. Of course, when the government takes the capital from those who have amassed it and gives it to those who haven't earned it. This is the big complaint of conservatives. The issues between capitalism and socialism get blurred. The real problem in both cases is the government. When government sides with the people against business, it's left wing fascism. The word Nazi was a contraction of National/Socialism. When the government sides with business against the people, it's right wing fascism. As I discussed earlier, capitalism is the ability to amass capital. Nothing is wrong with it. As a matter of fact, Socialism/'Communism only works when capitalism can work it's way around government restrictions. Socialists have this idea called the "zero/sum gain" in their heads. They can't get it out; no matter how many times it's explained. The "zero/sum gain" theory means if I have a dollar I got it from someone else, they no longer have the dollar. In reality, I have a dollar because I provided someone with something they value more than the dollar. Leftists generally never look at what happens to the dollar after the sale. As an example, let's say I am a baker. I make a loaf of bread. I sell that loaf of bread for a dollar. I value the dollar more than the loaf of bread and the customer values the bread more than the dollar. Suppose the customer makes baseball hats and I spend that dollar and more buying a baseball hat. The hat maker has my dollar and can buy another loaf of bread. Liberals seem to think money disappears once it's spent. That is why they hate capitalism. They believe people who have amassed capital took it from those who are now poor. Socialist leaders have made a science of creating envy
Does anyone believe Capitalism can perpetuate greed and jealousy?
I agree that free enterprise is great but there comes a point when one person's profit hurts other people. For example, it's cheaper for a factory to dump its waste straight into the river. It improves profits. But people living downstream get sick. So the people have forced our government to pass regulations telling those factories they have to dispose of their wastes safely. There are all sorts of regulations like this; regulations that were passed because the community saw that people were being hurt by one person's or one company's drive for profits. What we have now is an electoral system that is run by the wealthy. In order to get elected a politician has to take lots of money from corporate lobbyists. Then when they get in office they help pass bills that deregulate those corporations and allow them to make more profits in ways that hurt us. So, yes, capitalism can be good but by itself it is a predatory system where the greediest, most sociopathic people win. The rest of us have to look out for each other.
Is Corporatism, and inevitable result of Capitalism in particular de-regulated markets ?
FANNIE MAE is a governmental organization not an person. WOW! Take the BP oil spill for example. EPA regulations cap their liabilty at $75 million. If your beloved regulations didn't exist they would've been sued out of existance. There is regulation by government, and there is regulation by the market. The former operates through coercion and political favoritism. The latter operates through competition, true consequences, free unions, and independent product testing. The former can only be increased at the expense of the latter. Thus when government regulations are increased, free market regulation necessarily suffers, and it is in this way only that “deregulation” can be blamed for economic troubles. When libertarians say that we are in favor of deregulation, we run the risk of appearing to want businesses to get away with anything, when we are actually presenting the best possible restraint on business: the power of the market. In a free market, firms would be smaller and less hierarchical, more local and more numerous (and many would probably be employee-owned); prices would be lower and wages higher; and corporate power would be in shambles. Small wonder that big business, despite often paying lip service to free market ideals, tends to systematically oppose them in practice.
Is capitalism leading to excessive destruction of earth’s resources?
Yes indeed capitalism is leading to the excessive destruction of the earth’s resources and anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously deludedThe problem goes far beyond just the obvious examples of destruction of habitat by logging companies or aerial/water pollution and so on. Capitalism itself, its very mode of organisation , is a grotesquely wasteful. Somewhat over half of all work carried on in the formal economy today is absolutely socially useless in the sense that it contributes nothing whatsoever to meeting real human needs but is done purely and simply to enable the system to carry on on its own terms. In other words such activities exist simply to meet the systemic needs of the profit system itself rather than the actual needs of human beings. You can find a long list of these money related activities in chapter 4 of this pamphlet From Capitalism to Socialism. . . how we live and how we could liveFor instance, the entire financial sector would fall under this heading. Banks for example are absolutely indispensable to modern capitalism but in real terms they contribute nothing to human welfare and human wellbeing. They are a monumental drain on human resources - not only directly but indirectly too. So for instance, banks are housed in often imposing buildings . What that means is that part of construction sector is devoted to provisioning the socially useless part of the capitalist economyYou cannot really appreciate the full extent of the monumental waste 0f capitalism except from a perspective that looks beyond capitalism itself to a new kind of society where money, wage labour , profits, and the state itself cease to exist. In other words from a truly communistic or socialistic perspective