Thank you for sharing your thoughts on a complex and emotionally charged subject. When it comes to capitalism, the devil is in the details. In short, what variant of capitalism are you talking about? The American version? The German model? In Japan? There are significant differences between them. The "magic" of capitalism lies in the fungibility of its assets. Value can be liberated from fixed assets to create new wealth in a virtuous spiral. The problem with capitalism is how the market functions.
Does the variant create market failures? Markets work well for people who have social, cultural, and financial capital. Not so well for those who don't. For example, a single parent working at a minimum wage job in the US would be hard-pressed to provide for themselves, leading to chronic stress, which leads to a myriad of health problems. In other words, the person is in a sink-or-swim situation. This form of capitalism is known as capitalism sauvage. It's quite popular with those on the right, who usually have substantial social, cultural, and financial capital and are looking to accumulate even more.
The important question is who gets to decide the rules of the game. The people? The oligarchs? The plutocrats? The billionaires? Is the market going to be a level playing field, or will there
be rules in place that tilt the playing field in the direction of a few, who will profit handsomely at the expense of the population at large?
Looking at what has happened over the last forty-five years, it is remarkable how much wealth in the US has been transferred from the bottom ninety percent of the population to the top ten percent, and in particular, to the top one percent. Are these societal outcomes you are comfortable with? Are you comfortable with the number of corporations and multimillionaires that pay little or no tax, while thirty million Americans live below the poverty line and almost one million are homeless?
It is a good thing to be mindful about what and how much you consume. However, there are important structural issues that are beyond the scale and scope of what you can do as an individual. The same can be said about climate change. I can reduce my carbon footprint, but it's all for naught if the government decides to subsidize the oil industry so it can increase its production.
I am not optimistic about our collective future. Monied interests have an organizational lock on the political process. In my opinion, Western civilization has had its time, and we will see a collapse of the global order before the end of the century.
For me, the interesting question is what comes next? A techno-feudal order? Scattered groups of eco-anarchists? I guess that's why I' writng science fiction.
In this long and well-written essay, the author presents "capitalism" as a singular thing ("free markets") and asks the binary question "Is capitalism good or bad?". She ends up with the old "better than all the other options" argument.
What I found missing was any discussion of the tendency for the "winners" in a market economy to use their power to reduce workers' wages to serf-like levels and to buy influence over the workings of government to further their financial interests (aka corruption).
Here is my counterpoint drawing on the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln and a couple of research economists:
I really liked your recent essay about taste, Stepfanie. One of the best things I've read here. Really nice to see a few people like you here on Substack tackling big important topics with long-form essays! You might enjoy Lauren Reiff's writing at https://laurenreiff.substack.com/.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on a complex and emotionally charged subject. When it comes to capitalism, the devil is in the details. In short, what variant of capitalism are you talking about? The American version? The German model? In Japan? There are significant differences between them. The "magic" of capitalism lies in the fungibility of its assets. Value can be liberated from fixed assets to create new wealth in a virtuous spiral. The problem with capitalism is how the market functions.
Does the variant create market failures? Markets work well for people who have social, cultural, and financial capital. Not so well for those who don't. For example, a single parent working at a minimum wage job in the US would be hard-pressed to provide for themselves, leading to chronic stress, which leads to a myriad of health problems. In other words, the person is in a sink-or-swim situation. This form of capitalism is known as capitalism sauvage. It's quite popular with those on the right, who usually have substantial social, cultural, and financial capital and are looking to accumulate even more.
The important question is who gets to decide the rules of the game. The people? The oligarchs? The plutocrats? The billionaires? Is the market going to be a level playing field, or will there
be rules in place that tilt the playing field in the direction of a few, who will profit handsomely at the expense of the population at large?
Looking at what has happened over the last forty-five years, it is remarkable how much wealth in the US has been transferred from the bottom ninety percent of the population to the top ten percent, and in particular, to the top one percent. Are these societal outcomes you are comfortable with? Are you comfortable with the number of corporations and multimillionaires that pay little or no tax, while thirty million Americans live below the poverty line and almost one million are homeless?
It is a good thing to be mindful about what and how much you consume. However, there are important structural issues that are beyond the scale and scope of what you can do as an individual. The same can be said about climate change. I can reduce my carbon footprint, but it's all for naught if the government decides to subsidize the oil industry so it can increase its production.
I am not optimistic about our collective future. Monied interests have an organizational lock on the political process. In my opinion, Western civilization has had its time, and we will see a collapse of the global order before the end of the century.
For me, the interesting question is what comes next? A techno-feudal order? Scattered groups of eco-anarchists? I guess that's why I' writng science fiction.
In this long and well-written essay, the author presents "capitalism" as a singular thing ("free markets") and asks the binary question "Is capitalism good or bad?". She ends up with the old "better than all the other options" argument.
What I found missing was any discussion of the tendency for the "winners" in a market economy to use their power to reduce workers' wages to serf-like levels and to buy influence over the workings of government to further their financial interests (aka corruption).
Here is my counterpoint drawing on the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln and a couple of research economists:
https://bairdbrightman.substack.com/p/money-is-power
---
I really liked your recent essay about taste, Stepfanie. One of the best things I've read here. Really nice to see a few people like you here on Substack tackling big important topics with long-form essays! You might enjoy Lauren Reiff's writing at https://laurenreiff.substack.com/.