Exactly. The problem lies in accepting that this is not a good thing. Capitalism is the submission to this problem. Communism is trying to solve it. Everything in between (like social democracy) is a provisional compromise - we accept a limited amount of greed and steer it because we have no way of inhibiting it right now without falling into the traps of the Soviet Union or North Korea.

Any system that rewards greed and protects its elite instead of inhibiting this is doomed to fail. That includes capitalism, and yes, also includes the Soviet-brand of communism.

Fun Fact: North Korea removed references to communism and Marxism from their constitution during the early 90's.

USSR didn't have communism. It was socialism.
Soviet socialism did work, for a while.
Quoting Dinkel, R. H "The Seeming Paradox of Increasing Mortality in a Highly Industrialized Nation: the Example of the Soviet Union":
After the October revolution, the life expectancy for all age groups went up. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. This improvement was seen in itself by some as immediate proof that the socialist system was superior to the capitalist system. The trend continued into the 1960s, when the life expectancy in the Soviet Union went beyond the life expectancy in the United States.
Effect happened, on one hand, due to that USSR got thousands of people with medical experience from WW2, which became doctors and provided services for free (were paid by government)
On the other - Things in US were bad for a long while https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_of_the_Magi
Like, why people in US used to work 40 hours/week while USSR was alive?
http://i.imgur.com/weDHLqz.jpg This infographic says that because Ford implemented it in 1926. Somehow I suspect that it was done because in USSR it was implemented countrywide in Nov.1917

US started to catch up and then surpassed USSR by abusing Chinese workers and by tying international trade to dollar, and then pushing money printer into giant debt. How it looks on receiving end - same jobs, same production, but due to supply/demand curve one man is poorer than another.
Unfun things, which are coming:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/03/investing/puerto-rico-default/
Their debt originates from the same sources like every other US state.
Hedge funds purchase government obligation on money given by people planning to have savings for golden age.
You invested money into your future? http://i.imgur.com/SN0BKl8.jpg
Eurozone debt is bigger than US, and there are already calls (Greece).
Friends of my family returning from Czech Republic - they had small business there, now they say that it's worthless, country has no money.
You still believe in capitalism? http://i.imgur.com/eOLKW3x.jpg

I appreciate the elaboration. Now can you please synthesize?

Because on this side the thesis is simple: capitalism is the best we have to resolve the basic economic needs of mankind, so please don't throw it out while trying to improve on it. *

Your thesis I'm not sure about, because when it comes down to it it still seems to desire to replace our politico-economic systems with something more centralized and less based on individual freedom. ** And this seems to be based on ethico-moral dogma since you do not dispute the material benefits of capitalism, yet - against historical evidence - postulate that the alternative will not damage the achievement of said material necessities.

Me I'd rather be a well off asshole as long as I get there without actively harming anyone *** rather than be an ascetic hungry saint, and I think we all should be able to choose which we prefer. I won't stop you from choosing. Do you want to stop me from choosing?


* Me specifically would further add that the best way to improve on it is to reduce the welfare state and therefore incentivize private association and individual responsibility, but many consider the best way to improve on capitalism is to increase the scope of the welfare state.

** Note how I needed / chose to mention politics here. Communism is much less of a purely economic system / model than capitalism.

*** Which kind of negates the connotation of assholery I just employed for rhetoric purpose. Of course my ethical dogmas come in here strongly, because I refuse to accept / believe / agree that outcompeting someone fairly is 100% equivalent to actively harming others. I have no responsibility for such collateral damage in life, just like getting my partners to be with me was not directly harming anyone else that wanted to be with them, date them, fuck them. I should never be held responsible for the infinite possibilities that failed to materialize because of what I did choose to do with others, or materialized because of my action but where others agency superseded mine. Basically your almost pure consequentialism (you might or not call it such) is both inconsistent given all the importance you give to the greed motive - regardless of its positive consequences (poverty kaput, etc, etc) - and I think is objectively wrong in reflecting how humans actually, you know, act and evaluate each other. There is a moral difference between acting consciously to deprive someone from eating, resulting in their death from starvation, and not acting for whatever reason (greed, ignorance, being hungry myself - have you watched Grave of the Firefies? - or even sadism) to provide someone with food, resulting in their death from starvation. To deny such difference is to deny human agency and make a mockery of all liberal progress in affirming democracy, reducing slavery and empowering individuals to act freely and responsibly.


Now that's out of the way, a few more specific comments. I really appreciate when anyone takes the effort to really expand on their beliefs, even if I disagree with them, and you have provoked me to think and respond, which is always good to me.

I want to ask you why the manager refused to let the employer pick up their child. Is it possible there is a deadine and jobs are on the line? Must it be greed?
And why did the teller sell someone a product they don't need? Could it be they have starving children at home? Or a sick relative? Or must it be greed?

Do you see where your ethical assumptions are biasing you? You really should not assume motivation, greed or otherwise - because if you can bring those examples, as you see I can bring mine and they are both bullshit anecdotes that tell more about us than reality. **** And the objective reality is what matters. An economic system based on subjective valuations is inherently unstable because every single one of us has different and a priori valid priorities and values that may not match anyone else's. Hence the importance of privileging voluntary exchange, regardless of motives, so that the order that emerges from the chaos is at leat non coercive.

So you see, I kind of agree with you. We humans are the reason humanity sucks. But I'm not going to deny my biological imperatives to "go and reproduce" via some nihilist, self-loathing abnegation. If you really want to, just go ahead and lead by example. Respect. *****

Of course I don't agree with you that communist doctrines are what glues societies together. Generosity, charity and overall kindness have existed long before communism, or even marxism, and will exist long after, because they are basically manifestations of biological cooperation / association / symbiosis - which has always balanced pure competition in achieving natural selection (for most mammals certainly) - we are wired to care about others to some extent mate. Capitalism never has and never will prevent sharing, love, goodness. What I think prevents sharing are legal and regulatory systems designed to prevent fair competition and allow the state to govern more easily. As well as the dominant zeitgeist of dis-responsibilizing us, which results from wanting to prevent negative consequences and their risk, regardless of their causes being fair.

**** Anyone using the old greed canard reveals a huge set of assumptions on morality that to some extent are precisely what is being disputed. It's a way to beg the question and at the same time demonizes those who would argue against you.

***** It should be obvious I'm also not going to impose my preferences - to trade freely, to have children, etc... - on anyone else. Though I will try to convince them and discuss with them, etc... if I consider it appropriate. Here however anyone that does try to lead by example in imposing their will on others can expect a lot if disrespect and if I feel like it even active opposition.

Main reason of USSR downfall - suppressing private ownership of big scale property.
It results in:
1. Very hard to do innovative business with known equivalent - you need to convince people whose job is to cite Lenin that Motherland needs plant for skateboard production. "Uh-oh, copying capitalistic pigs, it's so bad".
2. Very hard to do innovative business without known equivalent - you need to convince people whose job is to cite Lenin that Motherland needs plant for "specific equipment production". "Uh-oh, capitalistic pigs don't have it, it's so bad".
It's especially hard considering that you needed to do all kinds of planning to squeeze unplanned materials into already done 5-years plans. Like, there were planned 5000 tons of cement, 5000 tons were used. you need to wait for next 5-year plan.
3. Hard to implement innovations. Country has two plants, 1k details/year each - one can replace "production line" to up production by 50%, but total plan is 2k details/year. No point. As environmental engineer I have seen plant, which has press with tsar's coat of arms.
4. Toxic climate in collective. - This became an issue in late USSR. Right after revolution amazing achievements heavily upped quality of life, like electrification - it's best in the world; Look at the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_power_outages Russia mentioned 1 time.
Even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayano%E2%80%93Shushenskaya_power_station_accident didn't cause big blackout.
Then WW2, everyone worked for survival. After that inspiration started to deteriorate.
Government pays you for job, usually hourly. You can work your ass out, or have 10 smoke breaks, you would get the same wage. Why bother, right? Professions, which had paid by product, suffered from "Government pays you for plan. if you do 120% of plan, next year these 120% become 100% for everyone". Working hard was discouraged by colleagues.
Government by constitution forced to provide you with job. it results in:
5.a. Broken social lifts. Even if you are utter retard, which counts 2+2=apple, plant can't fire you. How plant could get rid of such forced on them workforce? By sending them as representatives. In result, USSR cherrypicked utter retards into power.
5.b. Wasting resources on welfaring incompetent people. Where capitalists drops some bucks on food and shelter, USSR gave people workplaces. It resulted in all kinds of absolutely useless jobs, filled with kids, wives and girlfriends doing bureaucracy, "bring me paper, you can get it only every second friday night of every even year in another city".

i think you're supposed to hate americas if you say fuck to those conditions.
vietcong barely survived the previous financial crash. china basically built ghost cities for the sake of fake GDP growth. they're the worse example of captialism. fool.
don't those communities regularly get decimated by plagues or some kinda common virus because they also tend to be anti-medicine anit-vaxxers like the amish???

I don't see arguments.
At best you posted equivalent of "Turtles are slower than rabbits"="Socialism development after 1960+ was slower than capitalism".
It doesn't say that system doesn't work.
Enjoy your unpaid internships and 90 hours weeks, which wouldn't let you buy a house in US because they cost $500k upward.
Different cases:
US borrowed money from future generations, built cities on these money, when growth halted they were abandoned. (beating dead horse of Detroit there)

China build ghost cities as preparations for nuclear war.

It's hard to tell when abscess of American debt would pop, but it definitely would try to kill as much debt holders as possible.

Like unicorns, the "free market" doesn't exist.
http://climateandcapitalism.com/2013/02/28/like-unicorns-the-free-market-is-a-myth/

Basically, a free market will always lead to what we have today...

North Korea just proves a dictatorship where the dictator doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself is a shitty place to live. It doesn't prove anything else. North Koreans suffering doesn't have anything to do with Communism, Marxism, Socialism etc. Trying to use the North Korea card to defend capitalism is just a FAIL, nothing more. OR maybe not just a FAIL but an EPIC FAIL.

Totally correct. And totally wrong. Free markets don't exist because of government regulations, code, trade policies, and of course, taxation. Businesses operating under government license is simply weaponized mercantilism.

One big problem I had with the article...
"The sooner we abandon this madness, the sooner we can answer the bigger question: how do we create a means of economic organisation which has the highest chance of meeting our social goals?"

So exactly what are our social goals? Again, it goes back to coercion and choice. If you don't like the practices of a certain business, you are more than free to not engage with them in buying or selling. If you don't like the practices of government, well they can always monitor your social media, read your emails, or black bag you away to a ghost site for 'further questioning' if you become problematic. Anarcho-capitalism promotes voluntary association, profit, and the building of relationships through trade and economic development. Any form of socialism or collectivism promotes oppression, taxation, price controls, labor manipulation, and ultimately empire and conquest.

In the end, I don't think you could find two human beings on Earth who would agree on an exact list of social goals, so the means and desire of implementing them via government and other powers of force can only end up alienating and/or disenfranchising the dissenting part of the whole.

So if you don't like the practices of a certain business, you are more than free to not engage with them in buying or selling? So if there is a monopoly when it comes to all food and that same monopoly also owns all fertile land, we can just all become cannibals, right? We won't need to do business with those people... All those things you mentioned. Oppression, taxation, price controls, labor manipulation and ultimate empire and conquest are guaranteed to happen in your libertarian dream world, dude. All that you mentioned is happening today, thanks to the "free market". It doesn't seem like you really read the article. You probably just skimmed through it. If Monsanto one day owns all the seeds in the world, we can just not do business with them, right? Who needs fruits and vegetables, after all. Mountain Dew and Twizzlers is all we need, right. :)

Monopolies don't last, but even when they do happen, it is because of the incestuous relationship with government that creates the environment for them to exist at all. Any small family owned business that operated like Monsanto would have been taxed and fined out of business before they could spit. And the article is right in the revolving door of the FDA/EPA and big agri/pharma corporations. But if the government and its bureaucracy wasn't shielding these corporations from responsible practices, then that evil free market would have more influence on how those corporations treated their customers as well as the environment. The consumer has largely lost his influence with the power of his dollar because no matter what businesses he chooses to patronize, the win/loss record for corporate profit is always managed from on high... the 2009 bank bailouts is proof that truth. Too big to fail and all that jazz.

Ultimately, we all have our villains. You see a guy in a suit pitching his wares as evil. I see the code/ordinance spouting bureaucrat as evil. Apples and oranges. But at least with my villain you end up with some goodies in your pocket and a brand new flat screen television. With your villain you just end up on a terrorist watch list and empty coffers from all the 'community tax obligations.'

What we have today is because monopolies took over the governments of the world. Something they were able to do because capitalism = corruption. In your libertarian dream world, if there is no government, there will be a conspiracy to create one sooner or later... And then, everything will become like how it is today. You see, people don't really like competition. It is human nature to hate competition and want to WIN. Everyone wants GOD MODE in this game, that is life. And once they have had a taste of having it all, it's not like they are just going to sit back and let the free market dethrone them. Why do you think, the USA is now what it is instead of being a libertarian paradise? It didn't just become what it is, magically or due to some fuck up or due to the "evil Commies". Sure, people like competition in video games but only because the consequences of failing in a video game aren't nowhere as bad as failing in life. When it comes to video games, you can always quit after all. In life, the winner takes it all.