Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 4629211" data-attributes="member: 63706">I never said capitalism has only existed a few hundred years, simply that corporations had. You conflate corporations with capitalism, so I can see where you got confused.As for economic democracy, as with any system, if it is so susceptible to being destroyed by internal or external forces, then it is not as good a system as ones that are not as susceptible. You have admitted that capitalism is stable, and takes longer to break down, or I think you said something about a bubble popping. Why would you intentionally call for replacing a stronger system with a weaker one? As far as specializing and efficiency, I agree. I think of myself as more of a generalist, and the way things are now, generalists don&#039;t tend to achieve at high levels, but are more adaptable to changing conditions. I think people with a broad range of skills have a better understanding of how things work together, and are better suited to be in decision making positions. If people were more rational, this would probably be the case. But people are not, and it is a fantasy to believe that imperfect people can create and maintain a perfect system.Political dictatorships can be highly efficient, but that requires competent people making decisions. They generally tend to fall apart pretty quickly due to the impact that absolute power has on people. I never advocated for a government-free economic system, so I don&#039;t know why you brought that up.I did not get kooky, but I guess I can see why you thought that. I am starting to tire of these convos where we basically go over the same stuff over and over. Not to mention, I don&#039;t think people appreciate the thread-jacking. I&#039;ll have to get better at ignoring the patently absurd things that generally motivate me to answer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 4629211, member: 63706"] I never said capitalism has only existed a few hundred years, simply that corporations had. You conflate corporations with capitalism, so I can see where you got confused. As for economic democracy, as with any system, if it is so susceptible to being destroyed by internal or external forces, then it is not as good a system as ones that are not as susceptible. You have admitted that capitalism is stable, and takes longer to break down, or I think you said something about a bubble popping. Why would you intentionally call for replacing a stronger system with a weaker one? As far as specializing and efficiency, I agree. I think of myself as more of a generalist, and the way things are now, generalists don't tend to achieve at high levels, but are more adaptable to changing conditions. I think people with a broad range of skills have a better understanding of how things work together, and are better suited to be in decision making positions. If people were more rational, this would probably be the case. But people are not, and it is a fantasy to believe that imperfect people can create and maintain a perfect system. Political dictatorships can be highly efficient, but that requires competent people making decisions. They generally tend to fall apart pretty quickly due to the impact that absolute power has on people. I never advocated for a government-free economic system, so I don't know why you brought that up. I did not get kooky, but I guess I can see why you thought that. I am starting to tire of these convos where we basically go over the same stuff over and over. Not to mention, I don't think people appreciate the thread-jacking. I'll have to get better at ignoring the patently absurd things that generally motivate me to answer. [/QUOTE]

Verification