And, how do we address such a complicated subject? Well, let's start with a few remarks that are disjoint, yet potentially coherent, looks at themes which can then be discussed more later.
It was almost inevitable given the framework in which the ideas developed. At the time, there was little relationships between the upper and lower classes. In fact, the middle class was always squeezed.
Oh wait, the lowers had no rights (until the Magna Carta) and were basically exploited. That continues to this day.
Too, those who might have been lucky to ascend from out of the lower realms mostly quickly forgot, by design, their origins. Looking at this might be interesting but distracting.
The modern conceptual frameworks, that were not available at the time of Adam Smith, can refresh the capitalistic outlook. For one, rather than class, there would be roles as the focus. That is, take labor. The current situation allows serious exploitation of those in this role, as we've seen with the colonization that outsourcing is.
Jobs? Ah, many are without. How can there be offerings of roles that would allow people to take care of themselves and their families? Consumerism, in the sense of 'c' being the largest part of the macro equation, demands this.
'capital' itself needs to have another look. Now, it seems to be more analogous to crown jewels than not (to be discussed). Ah, how many kings can this poor world, and its miserable masses (nope, not Marxist), support?
Private ownership? We need to look at this in a more enlightened fashion. Given the current vogue, one could very well imagine someone 'thinking' that they own the planet. Oh wait! Was not a lot of the conflict on the poor suffering earth just to show who was boss?
As well, given the advent of mutli-national firms, especially those who have a heavy footprint on the cyber part of our cyber-physical existence, we see ownership that does encompass something that is world-wide.
Ownership, in terms of roles, denotes responsibilities. Unfortunately, what we have seen has been efforts, albeit successful to some extent, to shirk responsibility.
Mind you, did we not just see, up close, privatization of gain and socialization of loss running rampant? Those dynamics still exist, and in more than just the issues related to the toxic assets that we have laying around like mines in a field.
What is private? Ought what is a 'pubic good' (a long list, arbitrage, etc.) be put out to the private realm (whatever it is?)?
Many roles, that are not of necessity (we can drive an equitable economy with those who live a simple life and who do not succumb to piggishness), currently milk the system filling the pockets of a small set. It has to be small, as only a few can exploit the situation.
And, any glorification of the role as being the essence of capitalism really ought to wake up the the ca-pital-sino and its emergence. Yes, this was accelerated with improved computational prowess.
Management. Ah, the lords and their royal-ness. Consider that computational frameworks could provide 90% of what is required by that role. However, that said, there would still need to be sufficient human involvement to cover undecidable issues (below).
One almost hears rings of empiricism (realism) as a major attribute of the capitalistic heart. That is, science and capitalism go together. Somewhat.
Actually, we could probably scientifically show that 'greed' is the larger essence.
Why did evolution produce these types except to support the first wave of capitalism? Is it not time to re-address this issue?
Too, innovation has been associated with capitalism. Yes. But, have we not seen bad effects of this along with the good? Science, and its reality, would help temper this, folks.
We could start by putting the markets on a more sound basis.
The way that finance, and markets, exist now, there is no science. Rather, we see real-time experimentation and recovery. Oops following oops.
That undecidability is not a prevalent notion needs to be addressed. In short, this notion could be said to just denote that no one has perfect foresight. The truth? Who has perfect hindsight?
How did you answer? Well, do not forget underdetermination, please. What we see in economic affairs is that capitalism handles these issues a little better than do other ways.
Yet, there are many downfalls that we need to fix for sustainability.
09/01/2015 -- This was written five years ago. That was before QE infinity. Back then, any one who had gone through this before was looking for an unwind. But, that did not happen. The Fed doubled down, then tripled, down, then ... So, the addicts ran things to an inflated state (yes, appropriate usage). When Ben did mention some taper, they had a tantrum. ... So, here we are, in a corner, into which we have been painted. What will be the end result? Meaning, when things finally unwind? ... What we know is that Main Street did not benefit to the extent as did the pampered of Wall Street. Too, we see that computation is being exploited by idiots. The WSJ, on Saturday, mentioned one area. But, who is talking anything about moral hazards, these days? Well, you did read it here and ought to know that we have not forgotten its meaning.
05/11/2012 -- Rick getting grief from quoting Marx.
01/13/2012 -- We'll go more into why the need for the Magna Charta, this year.
10/07/2011 -- Magna Charta, the celebration thereof.
09/27/2011 -- Recover the image.
03/16/2011 -- On the rise of the professional politician (will there ever be the citizen polico? that is, those who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath the nose) toward robber barony. The M & Ms are apropos. As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint.
.01/03/2011 -- Ah yes, now there are demands. The question remains: what growth other than the pockets of these types
10/28/2010 -- Warning, train wreck ahead. What train, I had asked? Yes, there is already a wreck, despite the inflated market (those who lost big are still behind). Adam knew the failings of 'free markets' quite well.
10/14/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.
09/24/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.
09/19/2010 -- England is in the dumper due to its assumption of the aristocratic notion that people who do are not of any use. Hah! God, how many royal pabodies are we expected to kiss what with these people who wander after abstraction (error) or who somehow think that they are the best class (and worthy? - ah, please give us a break)?