Capitalism is designed to give power to the few at the top. Nothing about it is a meritocracy, its a funnel of money straight to whoever can exploit the system more than the rest. Has nothing to do with merit, but to “get yours” through whatever means necessary, including crushing those employees who actually do the hard labor that they then extract wealth from.
Say, the system was designed to prevent cheating. Could a meritocracy exist?
Define cheating. I doubt many CEOs would consider anything they’ve done to get to the position they are as “cheating”.
To “cheat”, one must break the rules. And the rules have been designed to not only allow for but encourage current behavior.
CEO’S are propped up by investors and guaranteed the money invested traces back to some sort of nepotism.
Which is the way it’s designed to work, so not cheating.
Also, the definition of nepotism involves favoring relatives. I get what you mean, but it’s not quite accurate. There’s certainly favoritism going on, just not between relatives generally.
Here’s a common definition of neoptism:
Undue attachment to relations; favoritism shown to members of one’s family; bestowal of patronage in consideration of relationship, rather than of merit or of legal claim.
Maybe I sprung the word “cheat” on you too soon, but ‘nepotism is cheating’ is a brief a summation of my argument.
-
What’s going on with overpaid CEOs and underpaid workers is not nepotism
-
cheating means breaking of rules, and they’re not
You can argue that we should change rules to disincentivize some of the behaviors we’re seeing and to make them “cheating”. And I would’t argue against you if we could somehow make those improvements. But if you’re framing “cheating” as against yours or my personal moral framework instead of law, that is not something you can expect everyone to agree with you on.
But if you’re framing “cheating” as against yours or my personal moral framework instead of law, that is not something you can expect everyone to agree with you on.
This is actually the supposition of my question.
But you’re not cracking the surface and it’s honestly really boring exchanging ideas with you. I don’t think I’ll carry on.
-
Bracing for downvotes here…
Capitalism is good when properly regulated. Capitalism is an incredible tool for raising living standards, which should be the ultimate goal of any aociety. Disfunctional capitalism produces inequity.
Now I know someone is going to say that capitalists tend to accrue power, to which I say that is EVERY system. They ALL need to be kept in check. Socialism, feudalism, anarchy, oligarchy, it doesn’t matter. Someone will try to accrue power. The economic system MUST be subordinate to the government, and ideally that government should represent the will (or at least the best interests) of the people.
I am FIRMLY in the “the system is broken and needs to be fixed” camp. Regulatory capture is a result of disfunctional capitalism. Monopolies are a result of disfunctional capitalism. Cronyism is a result of disfunctional capitalism. Capitalism as a system is not inherently bad except in the way that any system when allowed to run unchecked is bad.
A strong government hand, when wielded by empathetic and civic-minded people, is a requirement for any economic system. Given that, capitalism is the best economic model the world has ever seen.
Edit: pleasantly surprised. Shitlibs assemble?
I will add. Saying a system is flawed because it can’t prevent any number of unintended outcomes only proves all systems are inherently flawed. Like it or not a robust system isn’t just one simplified into anarchy but has measures in place to minimize unintended results and maximize desired outcomes. This all happens in practice. A robust system accounts for the need to make measured adjustments that won’t eliminate the bad but reduce it to more acceptable levels.
Trying to achieve the perfect system will only drive you straight into the hands of a flawed one.
Well said. I agree with you, but with one caveat. A big caveat.
Capitalism does not seem to be compatible with our ecological substrate. By now everyone should be familiar with the basic facts of what humans are doing to the natural world. All of those negative indicators are strongly correlated with economic growth. The only times the warning lights flicker off - momentarily - is in the aftermath of economic crashes. Then the graphs resume their downward trajectories.
Unlike doctrinaire leftists, I am ready to accept that capitalism has been generally good for humans as a species. But the evidence is clear: it’s been an absolute disaster for the environment. The very nature of capitalism is that it’s unsustainable. We’re running up a bill and one day soon it’s going to have to be paid.
The very nature of capitalism is that it’s unsustainable
Again, this is a feature of (almost) all economic systems. With appropriate regulation and government incentives, it’s not a problem.
We have probably hit peak fossil fuels this year. Every year henceforth, fossil fuel use will go down. Why? Capitalism. Competition in solar panel and wind turbine manufacture and installation, prompted by government incentives and private charitable action, has made renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuels.
Capitalism is a tool that we can use, and when it’s under control it works.
Also, credit where credit is due, China’s autocratic version of capitalism has done better than America’s laissez faire or Europe’s social democratic capitalism in this regard. But it’s still capitalism.
Deregulation is the problem.
- allowing companies to merge until they become “too big to fail”
- allowing companies to poison our environment and our bodies without fear of substantial repercussions
- allowing companies to make false product claims without fear of substantial repercussions
- allowing companies to lobby and contribute to political campaigns even though they can’t vote
Nepotism obviously existed before capitalism, and it will surely exist at some level in the next economic system, but it’s not an either/or. There are many, many problems with capitalism that would probably still exhibit if nepotism somehow immediately ceased.
The implementation of US capitalism wasn’t intended to fend off nepotism, so of course it continued on.
I don’t think that speaks to my point. Capitalism is flawed with or without nepotism.
Both. It’s kind of like asking if monarchy is the problem or if the problem is just evil kings. Theoretically even a dictatorship can work out well for the people given a benevolent dictator. The issue is with the vulnerabilities inherent in the system. For capitalism, it’s that those with more money have more influence and thus it creates a feedback loop where those with more money have more power to get themselves more money and therefore more power and so on.
Is it the same though? Monarchy are built around the idea that there will be kings. Is nepotism enshrined in the capitalist idea?
Is nepotism enshrined in the capitalist idea?
Unofficially. People start business for their benefit. Hiring family members is a good way to keep most of the money in the family. Similar with making deals with close freinds; like hiring your plumber buddy at the apartment you own and trying to pass the bill to the tenants or something. The thing is that nepotism just makes sense in a lot of places.
Right, only in the same way meritocracy manifests itself in a capitalist system. In this way a 1 to 1 comparison to a monarchy can’t be made.
King also needs a few competent officers, but the highest management needs to be loyal. A corporation works similarly. When is the last time a CEO reported their own pollution or other wrong doing as a company?
Capitalism isn’t about establishing monolithic corporations. We’ve made it that and maybe that’s a result but it’s not built into the system.
I mean we can talk about what it is or is not by some definition, but that is similar to tankies saying this or that is not real communism. The reality is that that is what we observe. A big part of capitalism is personal economic gain and nepotism, monopoly, and other un competitive practices are conducive to those goals; further it is powerless to stop them.
If we were to have an honest discussion we would certainly have to agree on a shared definition of capitalism. So I don’t really care what tankies do or don’t do.
The point of asking the question wasn’t to troubleshoot capitalism ad hoc. It was to develop discussion around these ideas and inspire critical thinking. Unfortunately, most would rather stroke their ego then explore alternative ways of thinking.
I think people are being extraordinarily polite for something that was clearly debatelord bait.
First off, this was an honest question. Second off, who the fuck have I debated? Maybe others want to debate me but not one person has the addressed the heart of the question. No one person has considered what I’m asking. They go off on diatribes about capitalism is the same as greed or try to posture some other argument.
I have not debated a single person in this thread nor would I waste my time.
You asked “is capitalism the problem” and everyone unambiguously said “yes”.
And even now, you’re saying, “nobody answered the question because they haven’t agreed with my assessment 😣”
lmao, get over yourself bud. Few here -if any- are on that ‘capitalism would work if that was what we had’ libertarian bent.
Did I disallow them their view?
I didn’t even ask them to explain their position.
Fucking gatekeepers. The worst.
Lmao are you trying to debate me about whether you were debating people?
wtf does ‘disallow them their view’ even mean lol? Do you have that power? Woah that’s crazy
This is a debate to you?
What else is a debate? Is the food ice-cream is a debate? Is a fedora a debate?
Let me know.
What else is a debate?
well certainly not where you ‘disallow’ someone of their view, whatever the fuck that even means.
Ok debate police. Thanks for stopping by.
To be fair, the sidebar says this is for open-ended and thought-provoking questions. But I can see this place becoming Debate Bro Central if the mods don’t add a rule like “Don’t ask a question if you just want to argue with people over it.”
It isn’t open ended if the person is asking a question they’ve already made up their mind on lol.
An open-ended question is more like “are hotdogs sandwhiches or tacos?”
If you think capitalism and greed go hand in hand, as I do, then it’s capitalism. Netflix, for one, was a great service and it’s been profitable for decades but the price hikes, account sharing crackdowns, and increasing promotion of own content really turned it into shit, all in the name of more profits.
Capitalism = greed is a very simplified take.
There can be more than one problem.
But would a capitalist society that puts in safe guards against nepotism have better results for more people?
Technically yes. But there would be a strong incentive to undo any safeguards. Basically you’d have to ban or limit inheritance completely.
The problem with relying on accumulation of money as a measure of success is that money == power. Once you have a critical mass of wealthy people it would be easy to change any laws to allow for nepotism again.
Saying, “nothings perfect” is an argument that could be used in any scenerio. It’s the definition of nit picking.
Quite the contrary if the flaw is built into the base of the system. If you base the economic system around the accumulation of property, you can’t expect people to do things out of abstract ideals. Your idea of capitalism requires selflessness and altruism which are not rewarded in that system.
You moved the words around but it doesnt change their meaning. Anyone could argue any system has flaws built into it.
Capitalism is a problem… along with a shitload of other problems.
You should define what you think is capitalism, cronyism, and meritocracy, because you seem to have an answer in your head that you don’t wish to divulge.
Capitalism is the idea that those that own the means of production own the profits from them.
Meritocracy is the idea that those with skill will prevail over those without.
I will argue that capitalism IS meritocratic, but the problem is that that which capitalism holds in high merits is that which generates capital at the fastest rate. Good products do not necessarily earn more money over bad products faster. Capitalism only cares about the fastest acquisition of capital through whatever barriers are present. This means it inherently does not care about labor that doesn’t generate profit (immediately).
Those that hold capital get to choose what merits we look for. Software developers or teachers, which can make more money? Childcare workers or lawyers, which can make more money? We pretend like the difference in these jobs and their pay is skill, but we treat various labor differently because we assign a higher capital interest to some labor, like the ability to write a contract or write a program, and a lower capital interest to other labor, like taking care of a child or teaching someone valuable skills. We pretend like physical, emotional, and reproductive labor is less skillful than intellectual labor because it doesn’t make as much money for capital, but the truth is that only capital gets to choose what is high-skilled and what gets to be paid like it’s high-skilled.
Thus, while capitalism is meritocratic in a sense, it is not meritocratic for workers, and will always devolve into a class-based system by design. I could argue that by choosing what is worth more money, they create their own cronyism, but that is really more of a moot point.
Capitalism is the idea that those that own the means of production own the profits from them.
Meritocracy is the idea that those with skill will prevail over those without.
I can agree on these definitions.
the problem is that that which capitalism holds in high merits is that which generates capital at the fastest rate
I tend to disagree with this, not that it’s entirely incorrect, but I think quality can’t be disregarded; can the product be made safely is another factor; then innovation plays a role allowing for higher quality products at faster rates. These aren’t smoke screens that some capitalist business man made up to trick you into thinking they are altruistic. These are things that might that effect bottom line.
Let’s switch back to the question, how would nepotism effect any of these things. Well, if the higher quality, safely produced, innovative product can’t come to market because it’s competing against people who have hoarded wealth though centuries long line of succession it’s not because capitalism has failed. Maybe it is, maybe this definition of capitalism would not prevent this type of stagnation. Would it be possible to expand the definition of capitalism, or even just build on the basic principle? I don’t know.
Consumers do not care about safety, or else we wouldn’t buy oil or gasoline, and we wouldn’t buy clothing made in sweatshops. Companies follow safety guidelines because of fines or other punitive measures that could affect the bottom line, and you have to admit that the bottom line is the chief concern here, and not the safety of the workers of consumers. This is a problem that capitalism is forced to deal with with government oversight because it is a failure of capitalism.
Nepotism merely makes this failure worse, but the system would be an issue even without nepotism. Businesses can perform risk assessments to determine if ignoring guidelines would make more money than the cost of restitution would incur.
Capitalism needs oversight to work fairly, but it doesn’t really need oversight to do what it does best: Make those with capital more capital. The system generates profit for those with capital, and that means it makes the wealthy wealthier (and that’s entirely by design.) You can argue nepotism causes the unfairness, but it doesn’t, since the profits feed back to the capital owners and not the workers by definition. Oversight is the only thing that can make it even close fair.
This a gross misunderstanding of my statement and a gross misunderstanding of safety. We are far beyond seamstresses burning up in a building with no escape route. The cost of an incident has tangible costs. How will production continue if your sugar mills keep blowing up? Who will make your product if your workers keep breaking their backs? How will tribal knowledge of your process be preserved if your workers keep dying from inhaling toxic fumes? How will you meet deadlines if you’re equipment keeps igniting?
Sorry, you’re up your own ass thinking only as a share holder rather then the actual labor that makes profit.
Apologies, I believe you might be confused, as I believe you proved my point succinctly: Money is the goal and the only thing a capitalist company truly cares about. You say safety matters, but you use the monetary concerns the business would incur if it failed to achieve these things because, well, the bottom line is the only thing that matters. The only way it would even be forced to do these things (besides the bottom line) is laws and oversight, since otherwise these risks are merely actuarial tables.
It doesn’t really matter if your sugar mills or sweatshops or factories explode if you make a profit. It doesn’t matter if your workers break their backs or inhale fumes or asbestos or coal dust or even die if you make a profit. At the end of the day, if it’s just a cost of doing business, what stops capitalism from doing these things besides if you make a profit? The only thing that would stop it is the law.
The system is inherently unfair to the workers as the only choice they get to make is whether they work for a certain company or not (technically, this is untrue, as capitalism can (and historically did) use slaves, but I digress.) Many workers could (and historically did) perform work that might kill them without their knowledge because the only one allowed to make decisions under capitalism is the owner, and if an owner chooses to focus on something that is less profitable like worker safety, another capitalist can (and historically did) take that spot and undercut that company out of existence.
Thus, capitalism incentivizes the bottom line.
It doesn’t really matter if your sugar mills or sweatshops or factories explode if you make a profit. It doesn’t matter if your workers break their backs or inhale fumes or asbestos or coal dust or even die if you make a profit. At the end of the day, if it’s just a cost of doing business, what stops capitalism from doing these things besides if you make a profit
The cost.
The capilist that continues down this path will no longer turn a profit. These things leave you vulnerable to be overcome by competition. Who would work for Jeff’s sugar factory if Jeff’s sugar factory keeps blowing up and jim sugar factor understands the process and puts it nessisary safe gaurds.
That is, if nepotism doesn’t keep them afloat by suppressing competition and providing investment capital.
Nepotism doesn’t factor in in any explanation I have given because they would only factor in getting around equal access to materials, labor, production, or markets, or possibly skirting regulations. Your argument is “No, those instances of horrible working conditions were nepotism, even though there was nothing illegal or unfair about it.”
Unsafe working conditions are merely a cost-analysis in capitalism. If you make more than the costs of a decision, what is stopping capitalism from implementing those unsafe conditions if they are not illegal? Nothing. Capital-holders hold all the power and make the decisions, the workers do not, and that is the problem.
Who would work for Jeff’s sugar factory if Jeff’s sugar factory keeps blowing up and jim sugar factor understands the process and puts it nessisary safe gaurds
If Jeff somehow makes more money than Jim, why would Jeff ever stop? What makes you think Jim wouldn’t simply start doing what Jeff does? Ideally, exploding factories would be more expensive, but that isn’t always the case, so I ask again, what does capitalism do to disincentivize chasing profits at the expense of the workers or consumers or safety or the environment or the planet?
It is always the case when your entire sugar mill explodes that you lose insurmountable amounts of money.
Come back to me when you touch base with reality.
Capitalism isn’t the problem. Any economy run by human beings is going to have cronyism.
The issue with pure capitalism is that it reduces people’s interactions to their economic value but some people do not have economic value, or have little economic value and no power to redress it. So capitalism can be efficient but can also be efficiently cold hearted.
Nepotism is only an issue where owners define it as an issue. Obviously the workforce at large stands to benefit from meritocracy but so do shareholders. In a free market, inadequate appointments due to nepotism should put a company at a disadvantage. But compare that with a family farm where the owners (shareholders) might prefer nepotism (appointment of a son/daughter to management) rather than opening the role to the job market. Few people object to this small scale nepotism, but should they object if shareholders of a large corporation wanted to do the same? Isn’t it their money after all? The chief issues with nepotism are when it’s done against the wishes of the owners of the company. But this is increasingly difficult with shareholder approval of board members and so on.
Obviously nepotism into monopolistic companies is a problem because of lack of competition but this only joins all the other problems already caused by monopolies.
In a healthy capitalism, competition is maintained. And if that’s done then the risks presented by nepotism are diminished because poor appointments ought to lead to poor results.
Ironically, it’s in extensive socialist state monopolies that nepotism is most dangerous primarily because of the decreased market competition.
You’re only thinking in terms of labor. Nepotism, inheritance, gives many a head start in terms of building capital. Removing these people from the market place would allow a more even playing field where actual ability would push people into higher levels of management and improve efficiencies for people who participate at lower levels of production.
Do you think family farms should not be passed to children? Or where would you draw the line?
I think inheritance should be allowed. I just think there should be restrictions on how they participate in the market.
I’m not talking about inheritance though. I’m talking about when a farm takes on a family member as the new management. Because that’s literally nepotism.
(Without getting too much into semantics, isn’t headhunting a new boss at a company a type of nepotism? As in, there wasn’t a competitive process, they were hand-picked by the board / CEO. Is “nepotism” only meant specifically where someone’s incompetence is overlooked because of family relationship? If they’re actually the best person for the job is that still nepotism?)
How about instead of trying to poke holes and narrowing your argument down to the exact exchange in a different implementation of capitalism that we see here in the US and consider the actual question.
Would have been nice if the question mentioned the US then…
sips tea
You got me. I’ve failed you. I will preforms the ceremonial sodoku.
YES!
Some people are always looking for a free ride. Amassing power/influence/status/assets is usually a way to do that - basically get others to do the hard work and take 5/10/50% of the credit. This appllies under all systems due, most probably, to the natural diversity of humans.
The job of the “system” (legal, political, economic, even cultural and religious) is to mitigate excesses and especially abuses of power before it comes to extremes of bloodshed; but as those also sometimes concentrate power, they themselves need something to regulate the systemic abuses or the non-sytemic abuses of empowered officials.
Humans are the problem, some of them. But greed is also motivational (and sloth), so you can’t get rid of it entirely.
If you can keep your society smal enough that basically everyone knows what most other people are up to, it doesn’t take much regulation, beyond trust and reputation. But as if your society grows to where some people are effectively faceless and unknown, then it becomes more problematic.
Everyone’s strongest argument seems to be, you’ll never have a perfect system. To me, this only shows they don’t understand any system and don’t appreciate their purpose.
I guess look around the world and see what’s working? Unfettered capitalism wouldn’t work, and cronyism isn’t unique to capitalism.
Unfettered meritocracy doesn’t work either. Say I’m born smart and ambitious and become a captain of industry. Why do I “deserve” to make 100x or 10000x more than someone who is working hard but not smart or ambitious, or someone who is wildly creative in a not monetizatable way? And how do you even ensure all kids get the same starting line to actually have a meritocracy, if you are enforcing capitalism? 100% inheritance tax maybe, and the money allocated out to everyone?
Maybe all these systems are ideas - capitalism, socialism, fascism, meritocracy, and none could be achieved in real life, because we aren’t living in a controlled test environment.
On your specific question, I think cronyism and inheritance are problems that transcend capitalism, but if you could somehow magically disappear them, meritocracy would reveal its faults, there isn’t a perfect system. All we can do is try to think about what we want to achieve (environmental restoration, a healthy population, a vibrant marketplace that serves everyone not just a few) and try to incrementally get there.
I want to respond but would ask if you would humor me in my line of questioning. If not, no worries.
Why should we assume that without the influence of nepotism that capitalism will continue on the same path of corporate greed?
Human nature. I don’t think it’s the worst economic system, but if you measure everything in dollars, and say that a business venture’s only task is to make value measured in dollars, I don’t see how it can avoid exploitation.
As an accountant I want to say it might work if businesses were required to pay all the costs they currently externalize and hand to society and the future (so pollution or underpaying employees would be more expensive than being clean and paying more of the $ to the workers) but I’m not completely convinced.
As it stands now, companies become profitable because they aren’t paying what it costs to produce their stuff. It seems baked into the system.
So, in my mind wealth should last a generation. That is, wealth that is allowed to compete in the market. Ok, well that’s nebulous but it is also a new idea to me. Say a CEO at the end of his life has no choice but to pass on his wealth to his children, which then can’t re-enter the market as an investment tool but can only be used for consumer goods and services or maybe residential real estate. Or alternatively putting it back into the company as means for growth which can propel others into higher levels of management. Anyway, kinda just wanted to have this discussion from the onset.
Thanks for being a bro.
