Thesh wrote:I would suggest that capitalism itself is not known to work, and without all the government intervention in our markets, our entire society would have collapsed long ago. The incentives that capitalism is based on leads towards greater centralization of wealth, less equal opportunity, and a more authoritarian state over time. Without the imperialism of Western nations, it's not even clear that we would be as well-off as we are. I'd suggest that the direction we are heading will probably lead us to a collapse.
Plus, co-ops have been shown to have higher productivity than for-profit companies, and growth itself seems unrelated to the relative wealth of the wealthy, with an inverse correlation with high levels of inequality. It seems to me that if you look at the individual pieces of evidence (rather than "we're successful, therefore capitalism"), pretty much everything that makes capitalism unique to other decentralized economic systems (i.e. things that benefit absentee owners) results in primarily negative outcomes to our economy and society as a whole.
It is certainly true that capitalism facilitates wealth creation when you already have the said wealth to put into investments.
But that very principle also leads people who control wealth to invest in individuals and ideas that promise to deliver them exponential wealth growth. Ergo, venture capital, PE, and the entire investment community.
Theoretically, it should be a marketplace where anyone with a great idea can get access to wealth (i.e. investor money) and use it to grow wealth for himself as well as his investors.
The problems emerge when human biases enter the picture. So instead of anyone
, investors tend to favor, say, a Harvard grad. And getting into Harvard itself requires not just merit, but a modicum of stability and good schooling that the less privileged don't always have access to.
This is the true flaw in the system - the inherent bias of human beings