The situation isn't so that we first had a theory of capitalism and then went to implement it. Instead we started doing stuff and found that it had ideological baggage. Capitalism is the only option because it's the only fleshed out option because we suck at (rigousrously) imagining alternative economic possibilities.
I have found the theorethical foundations to be pretty weak (as far as theorethical sense of elegancy goes) but here the proof is in the pudding. The theorethical constucts links to real world behaviours are a lot more stronger than the internal logic.
I have in my mind toyed with some alternative ideas but I am hesitant to actually talk about them. The act of publicly imagining on the possibility that gods are not real is really close to open revolt against theocrasy. Also history points out how dangerous halfthought alternatives are. A lot of the communist states did not do anything concrete that would be communist economy. Instead "for the people" became an excuse to have centralised elitist solutions. Therefore I think it's not enough to take steps into a new direction but actually able to run something different.
There are base level contradictions that are really unconfortable to have but most people somehow incorporate them into their thinking. If trade is exchange of like-for-like how can you make money off trading? If trading isn't like-for-like what are the conditions for it being acceptable? If you buy a luxury item at a high price or you buy the same luxury item at a lower price in which case are you more wealthy? If you buy the high price item your nominal value is more and you are richer. If you have a company that produces its services for a low price or high price which leaves the society more empowered? The high priced one has more room to propagate it's methods of production. However the lower priced one leaves its customers more richer. On one hand competition and driving prices down is looked as good effecf yet we speak highly of companies that make a big bottom line. That is competition is a mechanic of profit prevention in that the most modest profit claim wins. On one hand a customer buying for a higher price than neccesary is seen as stupid but the one that enables the biggest group of morons is seen as the smartest. Greating the latest frivoulous need makes you the "forward moving force of the economy" but people not affording healthcare defines healthcare not to be in the interest of the public.
The situation isn't so that we first had a theory of capitalism and then went to implement it.
No, partially it was actually done that way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Transformation_(book)
Polanyi argues that many traditional, NON-ideological, but more like evolved local custom types of restrictions (i.e. Burkean conservative restrictions) on the operation of the free market were removed by government action to pave the way for the market, in an ideological hope that it will enrich society (it did, but anyway).
(Take it with a grain of salt, ...
Note: I'm terrible at making up titles, and I think that the one I gave may give the wrong impression. If anyone has a suggestion on what I should change it to, it would be much appreciated.
As I've been reading articles on less wrong, it seems to me that there are hints of an underlying belief which states that not only is capitalism a good economic paradigm, it shall remain so. Now, I don't mean to say anything like 'Capitalism is Evil!' I think that capitalism can, and has, done a lot of good for humanity.
However, I don't think that capitalism will be the best economic paradigm going into the future. I used to view capitalism as an inherent part of the society we currently live in, with no real economic competition.
I recently changed my views as a result of a book someone recommended to me 'The zero marginal cost society' by Jeremy Rifkin. In it, the author states that we are in the midst of a third industrial revolution as a result of a new energy/production and communications matrix i.e. renewable energies, 3-D printing and the internet.
The author claims that these three things will eventually bring their respective sectors marginal costs to zero. This is significant because of a 'contradiction at the heart of capitalism' (I'm not sure how to phrase this, so excuse me if I butcher it): competition is at the heart of capitalism, with companies constantly undercutting each other as a result of new technologies. These technological improvement allow a company to produce goods/services at a more attractive price whilst retaining a reasonable profit margin. As a result, we get better and better at producing things, and it lets us produce goods at ever decreasing costs. But what happens when the costs of producing something hit rock bottom? That is, they can go no lower.
3D printing presents a situation like this for a huge amount of industries, as all you really need to do is get some designs, plug in some feedstock and have a power source ready. The internet allows people to share their designs for almost zero cost, and renewable energies are on the rise, presenting the avenue of virtually free power. All that's left is the feedstock, and the cost of this is due to the difficulty of producing it. Once we have better robotics, you won't need anyone to mine/cultivate anything, and the whole thing becomes basically free.
And when you can get your goods, energy and communications for basically free, doesn't that undermine the whole capitalist system? Of course, the arguments presented in the book are much more comprehensive, and it details an alternative economic paradigm called the Commons. I'm just paraphrasing here.
Since my knowledge of economics is woefully inadequate, I was wondering if I've made some ridiculous blunder which everyone knows about on this site. Is there some fundamental reason why Jeremy Rifkin's is a crackpot and I'm a fool for listening to him? Or is it more subtle than that? I ask because I felt the arguments in the book pretty compelling, and I want some opinions from people who are much better suited to critiquing this sort of thing than I.
Here is a link to the download page for the essay titled 'The comedy of the Commons' which provides some of the arguments which convinced me:
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1828/
A lecture about the Commons itself:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2009/ostrom_lecture.pdf
And a paper (?) about governing the commons:
http://www.kuhlen.name/MATERIALIEN/eDok/governing_the_commons1.pdf
And here is a link to the author's page, along with some links to articles about the book:
http://www.thezeromarginalcostsociety.com/pages/Milestones.cfm
http://www.thezeromarginalcostsociety.com/pages/Press--Articles.cfm
An article displaying some of the sheer potential of 3D printers, and how it has the potential to change society in a major way:
http://singularityhub.com/2012/08/22/3d-printers-may-someday-construct-homes-in-less-than-a-day/
Edit: Drat! I forgot about the stupid questions thread. Should I delete this and repost it there? I mean, I hope to discuss this topic with others, so it seems suitable for the DISCUSSION board, but it may also be very stupid. Advice would be appreciated.