The Impending Death of Modern Capitalism
Let's make sure we're all on the same page on the definition of capitalism.
It's basically a system in which private owne
Do you have any evidence for this claim? I know of literally no-one who is happy with there being 30 different types of ketchup or mayonnaise for sale, and the proliferation of that many different products hasn't helped prices either. Capitalism likes to claim innovation as one of it's perks, but we're getting Hellmans making ketchup and Heinz making mayo and somehow people are happy? This doesn't offer the consumer anything of worth and makes shopping a more frustrating experience.
Even supermarkets aren't happy with having to stock so many products, when they have limited shelf space.
Do you have any evidence for this claim? I know of literally no-one who is happy with there being 30 different types of ketchup or mayonnaise for sale, and the proliferation of that many different products hasn't helped prices either. Capitalism likes to claim innovation as one of it's perks, but we're getting Hellmans making ketchup and Heinz making mayo and somehow people are
I didn't claim people are aware of all that. What I said is we can objectively see what their 'dollars' prefer.
But the evidence is 30 different types of ketchup... or amazon. Why do you think supermarkets are stocking so many products? Because if they don't they'll lose customers who prefer those products to the competition who does carry someone's favorite niche brand of cookies. Consumers pay for that convenience at the register. And it's not the manufacturers driving that. The same happens with convenience stores popping up on every corner of the intersection. There's nothing manipulative going on there; people just don't like making left hand turns on the way home from work and they're okay with paying a premium for a loaf of bread when they're tired. And then there's the price consumers pay every time a business gets it wrong and goes busto. Hedging market uncertainty is another cost that gets passed to consumers.
So add all that up, it's not unrealistic to claim that provided with everyone's 12 month rolling shopping/spending list that can get plugged into the supply chain all the way down to the dirt, we'd save 50% on consumer goods purchases. That or someone who owns a store that stocks everything, knows everything about our buying behavior and is plugged into the supply chain all the way down to the dirt will get really rich.
That wasn't the evidence I was asking for. Just some evidence that consumers prefer greater variety. Presumably there's a sweet spot, right? Like there's two brands, one's known to be cheap, and one's expensive; and then within each brand there's a low fat version, say. Bang, everyone's happy. Or not? Are there people who want Hellmanns to be making ketchup and Heinz to be making mayo, so they can try a 'new' recipe, even though it's the same?
It doesn't seem likely to me that consumers value the same product with different labels, nor do they like having to spend more time making decisions like this.
That is, unless you have any evidence to the contrary.
As the socialists argue, we could effectively double real output per labor hour if we got rid of the entire commercial apparatus that doubles the price of goods from factory to consumer. It's a valid argument but consumers' dollars prefer variety, selection and for a lot the retail shopping experience itself. So the Invisible Hand would need a hand if we want some other societa
Actually. the trend seems to be in the opposite direction. Two of the fastest growing retailers, Coctco and Aldi, specifically go against having 50 types of ketchup in favor lower prices for the ones they do.
I didn't claim people are aware of all that. What I said is we can objectively see what their 'dollars' prefer.
.
People are stupid and self centered. They want what they want and want to give up as little as possible in order to get it. That's basic personal survival evolution speaking.
They don't have the tools at their disposal to create a system organized around restraining their desire to consume. Look at the average American waistline. We are making ourselves sick with calorie hoarding. I believe the correct term for this is gluttony.
Amazon is simply a vehicle to efficiently feed our gluttony.
Amazon is also a leading vehicle to replace human labor with robots. Another unstoppable trend. Robots don't buy things from Amazon. The automation trend is cannibalizing their customer base.
It's interesting what one learns from trying to start a conversational thread about truth which is clearly difficult to bear.
It's not merely difficult ... it is seemingly impossible for most people to even acknowledge the truth of our existence.
We are programmed to survive. We evolved under competitive circumstances so nature rewarded our inclination to hoard. Nature rewarded fear of death.
We built a system which caters to that fear. We look at a bank statement or a balance sheet and see a lot of assets which our psyches have been trained over thousands of years to make us believe that it provides us insulation from death. We have been brainwashed to believe that money is real.
But the people with the most power and information at their disposal understand that collapse is imminent. They know an involuntary population reduction is imminent. They understand ruthlessness because they got where they are as a result of their own ruthlessness. Look around ... the homeless population in the US increased by a record 18% in 2024. Do the people in power give a damn ? Are they taking the initiative to ensure that the masses will be OK ?
No .... they're hoarding. They're about to pass legislation to remove Medicaid benefits for over ten million people while give yet more tax cuts to the rich.
We're selfish scared hoarding animals. That's us. That's the people in power.
We kid ourselves if we think we're immune from the consequences of that fear. We know what is happening in Gaza but we tell ourselves a lie that we are safer because we don't live in such a place.
The people in power don't want conversations like this to take place because they want the public to be oblivious. Ignorant like animals prior to slaughter.
Our consumption is simply a drug to numb us from the truth. Our obesity insulates us from the truth buried inside our bodies. We crave distraction because we can't bear the truth.
But at some point ..... when the truth takes hold, there is an undeniable voice within that say "I want to live". And when faced with the choice between capitalism and survival, people will always choose survival.
That's the only thing which is real. The desire to survive. To protect one's children. Everything else is bullshit.
Life has been on Earth for 4 billion years. Capitalism and money has been here for 1 millionth of that. A short term blip in the history books.
Look around. You see the beginning of the implementation of martial law under Trump. He is a modern incarnation of Hitler. A man who has the rare personality to oversee widespread death. The nobles are scared.
Once upon a time, we had a president in FDR who told us that there is nothing to fear except fear itself. Now we have a president who wants us to fear him.
And here we are ... afraid to discuss the truth. Amazon is just a better drug dealer and we all we can do is debate the merits of how efficiently they do that.
I didn't claim people are aware of all that. What I said is we can objectively see what their 'dollars' prefer. But the evidence is 30 different types of ketchup... or amazon. Why do you think supermarkets are stocking so many products? Because if they don't they'll lose customers who prefer those products to the competition who does carry someone's favorite niche brand of cook
Your whole argument is wrong. You can't claim people will pay double because they are willing to pay 110%. (A simplistic refutation but you get what I mean. The point is that in certain cases the law of supply and demand does not lead to the best outcomes.)
Your whole argument is wrong. You can't claim people will pay double because they are willing to pay 110%. (A simplistic refutation but you get what I mean. The point is that in certain cases the law of supply and demand does not lead to the best outcomes.)
A few years ago, I made this point to the delight of liberals by talking about emergency generators during hurricanes, If there are enough for everyone to have one and they are affordable that's good. But suppose it is known that there is a one percent chance the first one will malfunction? Richer people will pay triple for s spare one while others will now have to pay more. If the govt rather than the law of supply and demand insisted on one to a customer the immoral scenario would not occur,
A few years ago, I made this point to the delight of liberals by talking about emergency generators during hurricanes, If there are enough for everyone to have one and they are affordable that's good. But suppose it is known that there is a one percent chance the first one will malfunction? Richer people will pay triple for s spare one while others will now have to pay more. If
Morality ?
There is no morality in this world.
We like what we believe is good for ourselves. We try to convince others that what is good for ourselves is "moral" so that they don't do anything to change a beneficial status quo.
If you are rich, having personal access to a generator is your priority. It's not a moral choice, it's a survival choice. The ability of a poor person to access a generator does not concern a rich person.
History repeats itself .... the rich consistently allow the number of poor people to become too large and overwhelm the foundation of their own wealth. What you describe as morality is actually a recurring self destructive impulse when viewed through the longer lens of history. It's neither moral or immoral .... it's part of how we are designed. It's human nature.
Of course there's morality. Us doing what we think is the best for ourselves does not imply otherwise. It's at the core of morality
Really?
Really really?
I'd recommend reading some David Graeber.
That wasn't the evidence I was asking for. Just some evidence that consumers prefer greater variety. Presumably there's a sweet spot, right? Like there's two brands, one's known to be cheap, and one's expensive; and then within each brand there's a low fat version, say. Bang, everyone's happy. Or not? Are there people who want Hellmanns to be making ketchup and Heinz to be maki
I agree with you in regard to the same product with different labels. But that doesn't mean they don't prefer any variety at all. "Variety Seeking" is a big topic in consumer psychology for a reason, especially with the food industry.
We are going to need some agreement on morality if we are going to adopt a system with solidarity and fairness.
Your whole argument is wrong. You can't claim people will pay double because they are willing to pay 110%. (A simplistic refutation but you get what I mean. The point is that in certain cases the law of supply and demand does not lead to the best outcomes.)
I didn't say they were going to pay double.
I said in effect that if you give me your shopping list for next May, I'll get the stuff to you for 50% less than you paid for the same stuff last May.
It's interesting what one learns from trying to start a conversational thread about truth which is clearly difficult to bear. It's not merely difficult ... it is seemingly impossible for most people to even acknowledge the truth of our existence. We are programmed to survive. We evolved under competitive circumstances so nature rewarded our inclination to hoard. Nature rewarded
We're not hardwired to survive or fear death. That's learned. What we're wired for are certain responses to certain stimuli that make it more likely that we'll survive or won't suffer an untimely death so our genes get passed along. For instance, we're wired for status or domination over others. We're also wired to conserve energy, which is great in certain environments but leads us to becoming fat lazy house cats in a less scarce, peaceful more abundant environment.
But your general point is still valid in that we need to approach the human condition more scientifically than idealistically. With science we don't create the forces of nature. What we do is observe those forces as they spontaneously appear in nature, infer the basic principles or laws and then provide unique circumstances for those laws of nature to operate in a way that produces a new desired outcome. Like damming a river for a power generator. We didn't create the elecricity; we created the dam and turbines and put them in the right place, the laws of nature took care of the rest. So rather than just throwing our hands up and waiting for conditions to deteriorate so bad, why not come up with a way to take (for want of better words) that human status force and provide new conditions for it to produce the results we want rather than the ones we don't?
Your whole argument is wrong. You can't claim people will pay double because they are willing to pay 110%. (A simplistic refutation but you get what I mean. The point is that in certain cases the law of supply and demand does not lead to the best outcomes.)
I mostly agree with your point, but I think it underestimates how many people across the income spectrum are willingly pay that premium, not just for convenience or social atmosphere, but because markets adapt to meet those complex demands.
Paying 5x more for an Uber instead of public transit, or for a beer at a bar rather than buying it retail, isn’t a market failure it’s a reflection of consumers valuing time, or experience, or w/e floats their boat, and those factors go beyond simple cost calculations. Basically, it's the market's way of taking an exploitative apporach as oppsed to GTO to make the most money.
This is a pretty wild claim and I'm going to need to see at least some justification for this if not evidence.
Do you understand the definition of the word "instinct" ?
Survival is instinctual. Survival is the reason that we learn.
All organisms have this in common. Our DNA is a computer program commanding us to survive.
It's like the desire to have sex or the appetite for food or thirst for water. You don't learn it. It's embedded in our DNA in order to keep ourselves and our species going. It arises in us without learning.
Do you understand the definition of the word "instinct" ?Survival is instinctual. Survival is the reason that we learn. All organisms have this in common. Our DNA is a computer program commanding us to survive. It's like the desire to have sex or the appetite for food or thirst for water. You don't learn it. It's embedded in our DNA in order to keep ourselves and our species go
None of that is "in order to keep ourselves" alive. Evolution isn't teleological like that. So yes, we have a desire to have sex and quench our thirst but not to reproduce offspring or to prevent ourselves from dying from dehydration. Same with self-defense mechanisms: they're to not their in order to keep us alive; they're just a reaction to the stimuli, which happens to keep us alive.
None of that is "in order to keep ourselves" alive. Evolution isn't teleological like that. So yes, we have a desire to have sex and quench our thirst but not to reproduce offspring or to prevent ourselves from dying from dehydration. Same with self-defense mechanisms: they're to not their in order to keep us alive; they're just a reaction to the stimuli, which happens to keep
These claims keep getting wilder and wilder.
Do me a favour please: define 'teleological' for me. I'd like to see if you're using that term correctly.
These claims keep getting wilder and wilder.
Do me a favour please: define 'teleological' for me. I'd like to see if you're using that term correctly.
Babies are born with an impulse to suckle. There's no why or intention or goal or purpose behind that, babies just suckle. That the environment they find themselves in contains a nipple with milk that will keep them from dying isn't part of our dna; it's our dna's interaction with the environment. It's the same with eating. We don't eat to stay alive, we stay alive because we have an impulse to eat.
The intention or goal behind eating is to stay alive. There doesn't need to be any conscious, directed thought about that goal for it still to be the goal. While it looks like you do in fact understand what teleology means, it doesn't sound like you're applying the idea correctly here. The various forces of evolution produce 'goals', or 'states in which a species experiences success'. You can think of it has having forces behind it: an ecosystem benefits from biodiversity and specialisation, meaning the various species within it tend towards speciation, leading to greater variety. Stability can be a goal too - see the horseshoe crab which has not changed form in ~250M years.
Evolution is simultaneously teleological, ontological, and stochastic.
