The question of the 'high standard of living' in rich capitalist countries is interesting. As I recall, Annie Lenard (Story of Stuff, nice little vid) claimed about 90% of the things we buy are thrown out within six months of buying them.
Is rampant consumerism absolutely necessary to healthy Capitalism? And more to the point, does it materially improve our quality of Life -which isn't necessarily synonymous 'standard of living'- and certainly isn't ecologically sustainable.
Popper's 'piecemeal' approach is sensible and attractive, yet... Here I risk delving into applying 'natural' laws to human endeavour, but it has appeared to me that Dollo's Law does have some application. Airships seem enormously more practical, use a thousand times less fuel, require far less landing space in crowded cities, and are virtually silent; but it has already been tried, so let's not go there again...
Is it just ego? Common sense suggests that if you see a system that works better than your own, why not adopt it; like the educational and economic systems of the Scandinavian countries, for instance. Instead, we slavishly follow the lead of the US and England, without waiting to see if the idea works, or is applicable to our circumstances. For instance, the free insulation scheme was an Obama incentive, but unlike Oz the Americans had had a bureau to handle such supplements in place for about thirty years.
As to Yabby's claim that innovation somehow belongs to Capitalism, this is simply nonsense. Not only were the Russians first into space, but it was the American Government (not the corporations) which matched -and eventually passed- the Russian efforts.
By far the majority of great strides in technological progress has been achieved by Government agencies, or through Government funding. Our own CSIRO used to be highly regarded for world class innovation, before it was 'corporatised' (whereas once the highest paid individual in CSIRO was the Chief scientist, now he rates about 17, behind the various business managers and accountants).

In truth, Corporations hate innovation. It costs too much to retool. The exception of course is in planned or perceived obsolescence, such as clothing and car companies, and most strikingly, the housing market.
Has anyone stopped to consider, that in Europe there are homes literally hundreds of years old? If they could build homes hundreds of years ago that would last hundreds of years, why can't we?
In a sustainable society, with a stable population, houses -the working man's greatest capital expense- should essentially be free.
In summary, I believe Capitalism can be reformed; indeed it is being reformed. What's remarkable is that with all the experts, all the academics, all the studies, the reform appears to be happening 'organically'; without anyone having a clear long term goal.
Rising fuel prices and carbon taxes will impose the need for local production, as Gilbert requires.
The free interchange of ideas, such as here on OLO, will create the informed public which Henry Ford feared would riot in the streets (if they understood how the world of banking and finance worked).
It would be so nice to think that we were finally clever enough to voluntarily jump into progress and expansion (both social and technical), instead of being pushed, either by circumstances beyond our control, or by circumstances we haven't bothered to control.

Dear Grim,
As always, I agree with most of what you say, except here, where you begin: <In summary, I believe Capitalism can be reformed; indeed it is being reformed...>

I do not see that what you were saying previously is summarised subsequently. Can you point to any instances where capitalism is being reformed? Can it be reformed while corporations and capitalists continue to rake in billions? How successful do you think the "free interchange of ideas, such as here on OLO", has been or ever will be in changing bourgeois hegemony? It could easily be argued that the ubiquity of such chatter actually inoculates the system against meaningful change. Moreover imo the whole spectrum of the modern electronic public sphere, at odds with itself, constitutes only a marginal section of the populace, more useful for marketing strategies than effecting social change. Indeed, we malcontents actually strengthen the status quo with its semblance of a progressive culture. Most online users are watching porn or playing games.
I agree "it would be so nice to think that we were finally clever enough to voluntarily jump into progress and expansion (both social and technical), instead of being pushed, either by circumstances beyond our control, or by circumstances we haven't bothered to control", but I see no real evidence that this is more than wishful thinking. Can you point out any groundswell movements that threaten to impose or instantiate meaningful reform?
I'm not a pessimist, but a realist.

*As to Yabby's claim that innovation somehow belongs to Capitalism, this is simply nonsense. Not only were the Russians first into space*

Err Grim, at what cost to Soviet workers? They were queing to buy
a loaf of bread, struggling to buy meat and other basics, their
consumer goods were crappy.

We've seen it time and time again, workers expected to toil away
to suit the ideology and egos of the self proclaimed, arrogant
intelligencia.

Ignore nature at your own peril. People act in their own enlightened
self interest, which is more important to them then any grand dreams
of the State or the dreamers who try to control them.

Innovation and efficiency happen at every level of industry and
business. If I own the business, its in my interest to cut waste,
to focus on customers etc. If decisions were made in Canberra,
frankly I would not bother, much rather go back to bed and
sleep for another hour or two.

That is exactly what we have seen with every socialist system and
why they have failed in the past. Ignore human nature at your
peril.

Grok,

So let's get this straight: as we approach Marx's bicentenary, there haven't yet been any socialist revolutions, no socialist states, no socialist governments ? Anywhere in the world ? Yet this promised land is imminent ? Attempts to install or promote any other form of society are futile ?

Yes, pure capitalism is not the answer. But just because A, capitalism (= bad), may not be working, doesn't mean that everything else, B, ( = good) therefore must work. Neither A nor B may work. And B encompasses a huge range of forms from foraging through to Pol Pot's social-fascism, many of which support neither a population nor a satisfactory way of living. Some social and economic forms may even be worse than A: just ask the women in Afghanistan.

But you want us to put our money, and indeed our lives, at the service of this untried option, C, the true socialism of Grok ?

Good luck !

Joe

Dear Yabby,

On the subject of feeding India's huge population. Can you explain your argument in relation to that country's practice of stockpiling food to artificially inflate prices? Why do people go hungry when there is an abundance of food? This food is either stored in warehouses, the open air or left in the fields to rot.

If the so-called innovations rob the locals of knowledge, force them off the land and deprive them of the means to purchase food...can you tell me who really benefits from this innovation?

http://www.mindfully.org/Food/India-Starve-Surplus2dec02.htm