Going to hell in a hand basket

I've never seen Hell, tell me about it. I can't say anything about your drunken prophecy ubtill you tell me what you mean.

"In the world of natural science existence is that which is measurable."

So how do regard Quantum Theory? How does one observe and measure "events" at the Planck level? Surely, you don't contend that Quantum Physics doesn't exist just because it is beyond the traditional realm of science.

Things can, and do exist, that are not observable. I'm not even sure that sophomores still debate the old chestnut of whether the falling of an unobserved tree makes a sound.

Now Capitalism isn't exactly science, is it, even though it can be observed and measured. It exists, though it isn't a pure thing without a broad range of characteristics. Most Capitalist societies today, are a compound. For instance, in the the United States we have a system composed of both Capitalism and Socialism. In "Communist" China, Marxism is becoming the junior partner of Capitalism purer than anything since the first half century of the Industrial Revolution. One might contend that China is the leading Capitalist nation on the 21st century (so far), and that the United States is a hybrid. I'm playing with words, you might say, but then so are you.

Your real contention seems to be that we should accept your definition of what the foundations of Capitalism ideology are, that Wal-Mart exemplifies Capitalism, and that the success of Wal-Mart is an evil omen for the future. I suppose that there is also an inference that we should rushout and begin a revolution to destroy Wal-Mart, and replace Capitalism with something else.

Every economic system is founded on some assumptions about the nature of men. The economic system of Absolute Monarchy, typified by the Czars, is that the ruler owns everything and all subjects are nothing more than property. The serfs and Boyars may not be treated equally, but in the end they remain property of greater or lesser value to the Czar.

At the other end of the spectrum is Communism. Marx saw the world as in continual struggle between economic classes, basically divided between the exploiters and the exploited. By adopting Communism, we are told, peace, harmony and prosperity will exist only when there is a dictatorship of the proletariate. One makes men property, and the other seeks to enforce a rigid equality.

Both ignore the most basic human instincts of individuals seeking their own best interests. Individuals. Not some abstraction and pretty ideology of what men should be, not what they are. Monarchy-like systems breed sabotage and revolution. Marxist-like systems can easily degenerate into either the most corrupt of systems, or the Killing Fields.

Capitalism, as a system, recognizes that individuals aspire to provide for themselves and their families wealth and property. Capitalism provides an economic system where individuals are encouraged to produce wealth. Wealth is the surplus over and above that which is needed for mere subsistence. Grow more food than one's family can consume, and both the individual and the society at large benefit. Without surplus, there would be no potters (whose whole output is "surplus" to be exchanged for someone elses surplus), and we would only have what we make for ourselves. That would be the end of cities, just as the invention of capitalism was the seed from which cities and civilization began.

In complex systems an exchange medium is necessary. Imagine carrying around a hundred pounds of potatoes when you went shopping for a new harvester. Money and wealth (not exactly the same thing), is not and has never been equally distributed among all individuals within a society. Some have more, others less. Those who have great initiative, ideas, skill, and luck tend to become wealthy, while those who have no skill or luck will probably become to have no money, and little wealth.

Robbers, thieves, and con-men ply their initiative, skill and luck to acquiring the commonly sought after wealth by taking in in one form or another from those who are honest. Such people exist in every system, and rigorous enforcement of the laws are the primary palliative.

Wealth, unlike moral flesh, doesn't dissolve itself into nothingess generation by generation. After the Black Death, Europe's population was only half, or a third (no really reliable statistics for the time) of what it was earlier, yet total wealth was not significantly diminished. Individual wealth was greater, and people's expectations shifted from a medieval view that gold was dross to a more modern "how can this new wealth best be used". Consumer products were in demand, and so some invested in production of what was desired and became more wealthy still. Kings milked the commons and consolidated their power over the aristocracy. Economic power shifted to the merchant and manufacturer. The new wealthy, longing to achieve social stature spent their money buying land and titles.

The ancient means of bequeathing wealth was to leave it to the eldest son in trust for the family's future well-being. In aristocratic systems primogeture was like an economic black hole. Those who had great wealth also had great power and prestige, while those at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid found it more and more difficult just to survive. The problems were compounded as the Industrial Revolution gained strength, and Dickensonian London resulted. In the United States, a bastion of individualism, the same trends were evident during the Gilded Age. Marx had an explanation in Class struggle, and a solution in the dictatorship of the Proletariat. Anarchists wanted to do away with all government, and trust the innate goodness of man to prevail. What actually happened was that society passed laws reducing the effectiveness of primogeniture, and other laws constraining "unfair" business practices on the part of individuals and corporations.

That worked for a hundred years. People being what they are, found new and innovative ways to by-pass regulation. We set up Trusts to preserve our wealth from Death Duties, and shelter our resources from a society that increasingly wants to redistribute our property to those without. Corporations avoid controls by becoming international and largely beyond the reach of national governments. Modern transportation, communications and the development of interlocking world economies complicate the issue of how wealth is acquired and distributed.

What does the future hold? Some individuals and groups will be losers, and others will be winners. So it has always been, and will be. When England came to depend on the wool trade, those who had land and power enclosed lands traditionally held by the commons. Thousands of peasants were thrown off of the land, and became beggars. HIghwaymen became popular heros, and the most enterprising (which happened to be the merchant-manufacturing classes) became more wealthy. It was a dangerous situation, and everyone wanted to protect the peasants by preventing enclosure and a shift from agricultual production to the wool trade. The seeking after wealth prevailed. In the long run, the English economy actually improved. People found new employment, and their own wealth increased as well. The aristocracy was displaced by the gentlemen of business. Ah, all those out of work Barons and Earls. Business diversified, always looking for a better profit and new businesses bloomed. The general wealth and well-being of the world was also improved with the growth of business ... Capitalism.

We are now seeing a new change in economic structures. Nationally controlled businesses are becoming increasingly international. Old industries like steel production are increasingly displaced by service providers. Instead of real goods, now we invest in what are almost intangibles. Some parts of the population will suffer as the world's economy evolves, other parts of the population will prosper. Trying to replace Capitalism with a failed socio-economic theory based on idealism rather than practicality is futile. We instead to need to see the Big Picture. Instead of trying to hold back trends that are well-nigh irresistible, we need to understand them and channel them into systems that provide the greatest good for the greatest number.

I dispute the "hand basket" scenario. I think we are going to hell in an expensive leather briefcase.

Asherman says--"we need to understand them and channel them into systems that provide the greatest good for the greatest number"

Yes, there is the problem and I would like to discuss a solution.

As to QM and measurment. Feynman has written a great book that is the best I have read for comprehending QM. It is "QED" In this book he points out in great pride how accurately the theory fits the measured data.

I am not implying I understand QM but I have an idea of what it is about.

Another reader suggested "Going to Hell in a shopping cart"

I'd love to hear your solution to economic trends that may not even be a "problem" in the long-run and for most of the worlds people.

People will pursue their own perceived financial interests, and most folks seldom look beyond the near future. A penny in pocket, and all that. Investors generally put their money into companies that have the lowest loss risk, and the highest probable yield and return. Initiative, skill, courage and plain old luck aren't evenly distributed in any population. Some people have more resources to begin with than others. Having great wealth, power and prestige enhances the further accredation of greater wealth, power and prestige.

Idealism and what "should be" is less likely to yield positive results than conforming one's plans and actions to human standard behavior and frailties. Government's may control economies and how people must interact within those economies, but ultimately no government can forever transmute humans into angels. As world economies continue to become interdependent, the power of any single government to regulate businesses is diminished. Who has, or will ever be given the power to fully control and regulate the world's economy?

What alternatives do you suggest to the classical set of economic theories, and how can we believe that whatever you come up with will be better than the regulated Capitalism in most modern advanced economies? Such a proposal would have to take into consideration the uneven distribution of natural resources, and the often antagonistic cultural and religious nature of some of the world's economic units.

This is a great challenge, but one not likely to be answered definitively by any of us. If you have a ready answer for redirecting current economic trends into a world system that conforms to human expectations and desires, and hasn't any of the negative aspects of Capitalism, you have a good chance at a Nobel Prize. Just to be sure of consideration in Stockholm, why not design a comprehensive plan to avert the problems we are likely to face with a changing world climate?

Re: Going to hell in a hand basket


I think it is incorrect.

Capitalism is just competition. Sure we fight for money instead of land, or food, but it's really the same thing. Competition is a natural self regulating system which resists waste. It can be brutal and unforgiving, but without it, inefficiency and waste accumulate in the system and eventually kill it.

It's the Red Queen Principle. The only way to go is forward.

"Going too Hell in a Shopping cart"

Awsome, that gave me a good chuckle.

rosborne979 said:


We resist waste...
Im not entirly confident in the modern human beings ability to consume efficiently. I also feel that competition obstructs us from working together to manage our wastful appetites in a way that minimises our inefficiencies, because face it, humans, out of all earths creation's is the King of waste.

uh...quantum physics is based on measurements and observations just like the higher level areas of physics.

a better example would be string theory. and yes, in this case, it is entirely acceptable to disagree with it.