Well, unless you're stupid or in a position of great benefit, you would realise that basing almost an entire system on "economic growth" and the "pressures of the market place" is useless and nonsensical and has ultimately produced and all consuming, environmentally destructive, insecure machine. The strength of capitalism is that it creates a dynamic system based on competition which gives merit to "hard work". It fails in that the ultimate goal is to accumulate "money", which ultimately is a set of numbers. But, what if we redefined capital? Imagine the entire world competing on a basis of how we preserve our natural resources and our social security? Imagine a corporation (or a nation) being rewarded (but not penalised by losing money) by offering their employees a minumum and humane standard of rights, bartering and using recycled goods, researching hydrogen fuels, fighting to preserve wilderness areas etc. Whereas today, the only incentives for doing the right thing only stretch as far as public opinion, and the public today is lazy and apathetic....and on goes the cycle of nobody taking responsibility for the planet and each other. Would it be that hard to change?...our measure of success is technically nonexistent. Nobody knew money would ever exist before the advent of civilisation. So can we not redefine capital as something as abstract as "the pursuit of happiness for all"?
It dont sound to me like you know much about capitalism! It stands to reason that if (which it is) the definition of A capitalist is someone who invests capital to make interest on the capital then a capitalist economy is one in which the key focus is capital investment opportunity how would it be a capitalist economy if we shift the focus to subsidised welfare? smacks of a socialist welfare state economy to me!
By using the word social security i didn't mean the welfare system. I meant social security as it was originally intended. Now that i've cleared that up, please give it some thought. My ideas are crude and undeveloped but they are no more ridiculous than the process of investing capital in order to make interest on the capital. Capital=capital=capital=capital=recession=capital=capital=social and environmental downfall=............
So basically anyone who upholds capitalism is stupid or rich? What about Anarcho-capitalists ? People who believe in the ultimate capitalist laissez faire economy where everything is dictated by by demand and everything is for sale? By comparison the form of capitalism we have now is pretty left wing! I think you will find that rather than the capitalist economy it is the capitalists in charge of it who are at fault. We can all imagine it but such a capitalist system would depend on subsidies from the public purse - which is the point of my first post. That would mean political parties would compete on how little of the public purse would be spent on such compensation and subsidies. It would shift the focus from investment opportunity to social and environmental welfare. Only in the USA I believe - the rest of the world signed up to hte koyoto agreemnt - the USA didnt sign because it merely wanted to buy quota from other countries - so the USA could continue being the biggest polluter whereas other countries would not only have to reduce emissions but face a reduced economy because of it - you can imagine what 500 million dollars would be used for in some corrupt African state(for example) I doubt the politicians there would be thinking about reduced emissions. They would probably go an spend it on cars Not really because once yopu achieve maximum happiness there is only one way to go - and theres no interest to be made. The last time I checked a loaf of bread cost a lot more than a smile and a cheery wave!
I never indicated anything otherwise. But yes, anyone who upholds true capitalism and doesn't see how it can be anything but a consumer machine, is ignorant or a liar. Economics are not a simple nor well understood thing, so i don't feel bad about calling billions of people ignorant. I don't think you realise what i'm getting at, but i don't really know yet either. Why not read "The ecology of commerce" You're probably right, but thats essentially my point. The United States is one of the great supporters of the "consume, produce, grow, destroy" myth. Good point. But could we at least gear the system to act in the interests of happiness rather in the interest of just "growth" What are we growing towards? The conversion of all life into human biomass?
I understand a lot more now - surely the book would be coming from a more realistic angle if it had been called "the commerce of ecology" - thats what I mean - how much is it all going to cost? The ecologists only really have to explain a few things and whenever they do - it seems that we all have to pay a lot more - but in reality what politician is going to win an election by saying "the good times are over folks - if you vote me in you pay 3 times the tax" You cant give incentives without someone having to pay ! And if people have to pay toward the environmental costs they cant spend it on what keeps the wider economy going. In short - I think its going to take more than refocusing the economy to achieve what you want. Mainly because this one very simple fact cannot be ignored - people are greedy and the greediest people mak it difficult to choose other than stay in the greed economy. Politicians have to supply the cheapest solution and green is not it. I agree it would be good if we could achieve what you want but tho I have no answer to the problem I do not either think that way is the solution
we can change capitalism and make people crave happiness instead of money.for that we must make money irrelevant and redefine comfort. a good way would be to gather a horde of people people on our side (the martyrs that have to stay unhappy),give them all whips and start beating the greed out of the...well..greedy.a good ideea would be to put them to work,but not work for gain.work for the sake of working,something like carrying boulders while walking in a circle.cracking the whips on their backs. at this point,people won't crave a more luxurious car,a bucket of caviar and an expensive 4 story house.they'll crave rest,water and food.that'd be comfort for them,not a 4m wide jacuzzi. and imagine the happyness when they'd get these at the end of the day. of course,they wouldn't be angry or feel oppresed,since the extremely hard labour would turn them in instinctual animals. ah,enough bullshiting.i'm upset 'cause they're arresting 4 kids for showing their national identity and i can't join the protest. seriously,i don't really get what you want,but if i'm not mistaking,the solution would be to make people really want something that can't be bought or taken by force.that would be a shock for the consumerists,and might make some reconsider their ways of thinking.
