Ah, #capitalism. Neoclasical (mainstream) economic theory tells us it ensures resources will be put to the best, most efficient use. However, ignores the obvious: wealth equals power, so that what is "best" for society is what the richest value.
Like chasing everlasting youth by getting weekly blood transfusions from your teenage son and $40,000 gym membership add-ons.
It can certainly seems, sometimes, as if a given thing does not have much immediate economic value, or even that it ever will, to many or most. That's a criticism many level at many forms of research. Some of us are very reluctant to strongly judge most such decisions.
Few would argue that capitalism does not involve any poor choices. Many argue that it results in superior outcomes when compared with any viable alternative.
And the many that argue it are the wealthy who the capitalist economy is designed to serve, and the economists at right-wing think thanks they lavishly fund.
Well, I'm neither wealthy, nor particularly right-wing. I do think that history makes it pretty clear that free markets and capitalism, on average, lead to much better outcomes for humanity than anything else we've tried. By a WIDE margin.
I mean, technically, I am wealthy....taken on a worldwide and historical scale. But, then again, so are you.
"I do think that history makes it pretty clear that free markets and capitalism*, on average, lead to much better outcomes** for humanity than anything else we've tried."
I am curious though: for whatever definition of capitalism and outcomes, how do you establish causality between the two? In other words, how do you know it was capitalism that was the main contributor to these outcomes, and not something else (e.g. technology)?
There are a variety of ways, but perhaps the most obvious is to look at the dominant economic systems in different places. There was plenty of technology in communist russia, for example.
Yes, but no two countries in history had the same starting conditions and access to resources and technology. Or was there a country in 1917 that was almost entirely agricultural that just became capitalist and overcame the Soviet Union in outcomes, however defined?
I never claimed there were any two nations that had the same starting conditions. If you want absolute proof, you're going to be sorely disappointed, and not just on this question; there is no absolute proof of ANYTHING.
Not looking for absolute proof, just trying to understand what analytical framework you use to arrive at your conclusion about capitalism. How do you account for all these differences in circumstances that separate capitalist and other kinds of systems?
I don't account for ALL of them; I don't believe anyone does, or even can. I try to account for the significant ones. For example, you point to technology, and rightly so. But many examples make clear; simply having technology does not lead to prosperity. Access to healthcare alone does not lead to prosperity. Etc. Does capitalism alone lead to prosperity? No, but it is a common factor; places that practice capitalism or adopt it improve.
Is capitalism a common factor though? Aren't there any examples of places that did not adopt capitalism and improved, as well as examples of places that did adopt capitalism and did not improve?
Yes, it's a common factor. Not a SUFFICIENT one; again, it alone does not lead to prosperity. It's kind of like how people who wear parachutes tend to survive falling from the sky. Does EVERYONE? No. Are there rare counterexamples? At least one. Are you going to jump from a plane with no parachute?
There's a difference between something being a common factor and it being a sufficient guarantee in and of itself.
Again, I never claimed it was THE common or deciding factor. I'm not sure how else to say that. If a condition were THE deciding factor, it would be necessary and sufficient in and of itself.
Yet again, because, time and again, where we find humans flourishing the most, we find capitalism. It is the only viable economic system that does not require that we violate basic human rights.
A very common claim, but incorrect. Correlation absolutely does imply causation. The correct assertion is that correlation does not PROVE causation.
But when the same correlation is found, time and time again, through time and space, that provides stronger and stronger evidence. Is it ABSOLUTE proof? No, but again, that's never going to happen. At some point, any sane person is going to grasp the difference between the parachute and the clothing.
But seriously, correlation found through space and time doesn't provide stronger evidence for causation at all. Every morning birds start chirping outside my window and cars start filling up the street, and that also happens all across the world, every day! Doesn't mean cars cause birds to chirp.
What you have to do is to account for other variables. Does your analysis do that?
Yes, more correlation through time absolutely does provide stronger evidence. It does not provide absolute evidence, but that's not the same thing.
It would be deeply arrogant of me to claim that I had performed anything worth calling an "analysis". Fortunately, other have, an they do account for many variables. My understanding of the situation does account for other variables, yes.
Could you be more specific? What books you've read on the topic that succesfully argue that capitalism, on average, lead to much better outcomes for humanity than anything else we've tried?
To sum up: you believe capitalism is a necessary condition for maximizing human well-being based on work of economists such as Milton Friedman and following such logic principles as "correlation implies causation".
You can dismiss the idea that correlation implies causation all you want, but that's the cornerstone of many observational techniques. Again, correlation does not PROVE causation, but the very fact that people even bother pointing this relationship out should point you in the direction that it does IMPLY it. If it didn't imply it, if it didn't suggest it, there would be no need to bring the relationship up.
I admit it can be a very useful tool in confirming one's biases.
My uncle was distrusting of doctors, because people die in a hospital much more often than at home, as he used to say. Eventually he did die in a hospital, confirming his theory.
Incidentally, an early death is what awaits global capitalism as well.
You can "admit" whatever you want; that's not the point of acknowledging the truth of the situation. If coincidence didn't imply causation, post hoc ergo propter hoc wouldn't be a fallacy anyone would bother pointing out.
I've really been trying to just be an observer here, but I can't resist calling out this absudity.
Did you really just use a specific example of how correlation doesn't imply causation to argue that correlation does, in fact, imply causation? That's next level stupid.
You seem to be (mis)interpreting "imply" to mean something like "incorrectly believe" at times, my illogical, capitalist friend.
@FantasticalEconomics
It's easily possible to make a system controlled by a variable whose value is completely uncorrelated with the variable it controls...
Drive over hills while using cruise control. The throttle pedal controls the speed and yet while the throttle goes up and down, the speed remains constant. There is zero correlation between cause and effect. @AlexanderKingsbury@jackofalltrades
@FantasticalEconomics
You are using the word "imply" as if it were the word "suggest". Yes, correlation suggests some causation may be at work, but the word "imply" in "correlation does not imply causation" means "logically prove". As in big feet implies small shoes will not fit. @AlexanderKingsbury@jackofalltrades
“ Truly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have "assumptions" that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality, and, in general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions (in this sense) (p. 14).”
People willing to embrace this statement have willingly surrendered their critical faculties to a conman. This is what “capitalists” embrace, at least in the US.
Add comment