Banjo Paterson,

I've posted this link many times before, but I have found no other which explains so well the situation from the perspective of the developing world...and the loss of autonomy for ordinary people inherent in a globalised/industrialised/capitalist arrangement.

I hope you can find the time to read it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture5.stm

Capitalism first went forth and stole people which, chained like animals, it used as slaves.

Now the Capitalist scum go forth and takeover poor countries, use their cheap resources and labor, and pay them a starvation wage.

Capitalists have refined the capitalist system to a stage where a tiny minority of the rich get extravagantly rich and live like Kings and Queens while the middle class has diminished and joined the poor impoverished classes.

The capitalists have trashed our planet wherever they've been and indoctrinated the proles to the stage where they think a wide-screen tellie, which shows only trivia and advertising, is paradise.

What a world we might have had if it was capitalists that Hitler had put in the gas ovens!

Appreciated, Banjo Paterson… for the record, the analogy had nothing to do with your initials being BP.

I don't blame Nick for the title 'Economies should be shaped to suit man' but it makes it sound like it was imposed by extraterrestrials and then too easy to forget that economics represents how humans transact with each other and has changed throughout history, waxing and waning in complexity, along with societies.

There's probably a book in a vehicle-based analogy for a theory of the Economic Superhighway. Most of the world's population are pedestrians though. Many of us are in cars of types reflecting our natures – widows who do the church flowers are in Datsun 120Ys, financial adviser types in anything German and the more cylinders the better (often distracted whilst driving by texting and not using the phone hands-free), politicians are always chauffeured.

Lots of drivers are distracted, unlicensed or under the influence.

For some reason I imagine Transnational banks as tracked main battle tanks and armoured fighting vehicles. They don't have indicators to use when they change lanes – they seem to have an inherent advantage when the rest of the traffic is jammed to a standstill – and sometimes they're barrelling (literally) against the flow when looking for a shortcut.

All of us are trying to get to a destination the best way we know how without crashing.

The analogy is extensible to philosophy. If, like Hans-Georg Gadamer, we deny the original diremption of discrete horizons, rejecting that understanding requires us to transpose ourselves into another – this is like someone trying to drive whilst all the windows are constantly fogging up, but thinking he can see clearly enough.

(That was a joke for Squeers)

WmTrevor,
I disagree with everything you and you're mentor have said here, and I think Banjo Paterson, latterly, is talking garbage (makes me wonder if he's deliberately trolling--if I'm using the word correctly. Sorry don't mean to be rude in not addressing you directly, Banjo, just that I began the thread addressing WM). You're all just muffling complacently and incoherently in your own nosebags. I don't have the time to argue some of the idiotic comments about capitalism of late (and besides what's the use? Besidea also, neither Pericles nor his acolyte has [or could} defend the arguments I've directed at them. Suffice it to say there is a large body of work that differentiates capitalism from anything prior to it.
I draw from that. Just as I draw from the literature on consciousness and other topics.
I think we've reached the limits of "opinion" here--and it's not very edifying.

.

Dear Nick,

.

Thank you for your links, in particular, to the interview of the cellular biologist, Bruce Lipton and Jas Garcha's article on "Collaboration v Competition".

It was the French philosopher, Auguste Comte, who invented the term altruism as well as the term sociology. He saw altruism as the solicitude for fellow human beings that would eventually constitute a new religion, replacing what he considered to be false, theological, pre-scientific, and metaphysical religion.

Altruism has since become a household word but certainly not a religion, and Christianity, which Comte was no doubt referring to in such disparaging terms, continues to flourish in the world today as it did during his lifetime.

Despite the fact that the exact nature and extent of mankind's altruism is not as clearly identifiable scientifically as that of social insect colonies and swarms of jellyfish, sociobiologists attest that mankind distinguishes himself from all other animal species, not only by his superior intelligence, but also by his greater propensity to cooperate and coordinate his activities with others.

Allow me to recommend Samir Okasha's article on Biological Altruism in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.

The gradual evolution of the individual human being towards greater autonomy appears to have given him a keener sense of his responsibilities and awakened him to the plight of others, less fortunate and in need.

The source of this nascent altruism is probably to be found in his burgeoning social conscience. It is an unprecedented phenomenon in human development and authorises a certain amount of optimism as to the future evolution of human relationships. Perhaps even more importantly, it demonstrates that greater individual autonomy leads to more active, personal engagement in solidarity and not to the exacerbation of latent egoistic tendencies, as some might imagine.

Contrary to Lipton and Garcha, however, I do not see any antagonism anywhere in nature between competition and collaboration or cooperation. All of these phenomena and many others cohabit and complement each other perfectly in nature.

I see Darwin and present day sociobiologists as both contributing their particular share of truth of the complexity of nature.

.

I must say I find it quite extraordinary the number of people who treat human systems, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, as if they were blocks of concrete; immutable, changeless...
Is it simply a lack of imagination?
I fully agree with Churchill's assessment of Democracy; in fact I would apply it equally to Capitalism. While both systems are fatally flawed, they are still better than any alternative so far explored.
Capitalism has -so far- offered the greatest freedom to DOMESTIC operators. All attempts to export particular flavours of western capitalism into less than willing recipient nations have generally been disastrous -at least for the recipients.
It's no coincidence that so many of the poorest countries on Earth are former colonies of western powers.
Individual freedom to my mind is paramount. It must be established, however, which is the greater freedom:
The freedom to exploit your fellow man without legal restriction, scruple or mercy, or
Freedom FROM exploitation.
The freedom for (Australian, at least) women and children to walk and play in public is not guaranteed by a restrictive dress code or by a muscular husband or the right to carry concealed weapons. These rights are guaranteed by a strong legal system and a -largely- incorruptible Police force. A free media doesn't hurt either.
So why is it that markets must be “free” of the regulations that work so well in our society?
I realise many people might feel inclined to rise up at this point and declare our legal system doesn't work so well; crime still exists, women and children are still sometimes mistreated and exploited, but who would suggest the situation would be improved with fewer laws, less 'regulations'?
Yet this is precisely what RW Libertarians claim, regarding the MarketPlace.
Capitalism isn't a block of concrete. It can be changed. It can be fixed.
By recognising the sovereign rights of individuals (and groups and nations), a strong and fair legal code should be the instrument of freedom, not an impediment.