SMBC Comics Forum

You make a distinction between lower case and upper case [c/C]apitalism?

Astrogirl wrote:You make a distinction between lower case and upper case [c/C]apitalism?

I do.
Largely because my Poli-Sci professor focused a lot on ideology. So that is the basis of my distinction. Let me explain.
Lower-case capitalism is a kind of general admission that the 'rules' of capitalism are applicable to a post-subsistence society. Simply put, that the laws of supply/demand are a natural progression of the value of a more specified labor. The more effort/understanding/education that is required for a particular job should be relatively equivalent to the money/trade one receives for said labour. To use an archaic example, 6 chickens might well be worth a doctor presiding over the birth of a child. A trade/barter system, sure, but I think it relates to the principle.
Upper-case Capitalism, though, is an exploitation of our perceived needs which have been folded into the 'demand'. And, often, an emphasis on monopolizing the 'supply' as well. Which ultimately means that a corporation (sometimes in conjunction with a government) will inflate the demand while subsequently usurping the supply as well. Usually this means that they market the 'demand' into something that resembles a 'need', and then drive up the price (or become the sole distribution, or both) so that consumers feel the need to pay for it.

I hope I explained that adequately.
Ultimately I think that lower-case capitalism is something like a natural law. Upper-case Capitalism, though, seems to be an exploitation of a monopolization of both supply and demand (and in many cases a blind acceptance of trickle-down economics, which I feel I'm inadequately informed to argue against, but I think it's a hugely important factor, misguidedly so, in upper-case Capitalism)

Lethal Interjection wrote:Upper-case Capitalism, though, is an exploitation of our perceived needs which have been folded into the 'demand'. And, often, an emphasis on monopolizing the 'supply' as well. Which ultimately means that a corporation (sometimes in conjunction with a government) will inflate the demand while subsequently usurping the supply as well. Usually this means that they market the 'demand' into something that resembles a 'need', and then drive up the price (or become the sole distribution, or both) so that consumers feel the need to pay for it.

Clearly this is just enlightened self-interest guiding the invisible hand of the free market to enrich us all. It will eventually correct serious problems like massive socio-economic inequality instead of exacerbating them.*

I hope I explained that adequately.
Ultimately I think that lower-case capitalism is something like a natural law. Upper-case Capitalism, though, seems to be an exploitation of a monopolization of both supply and demand (and in many cases a blind acceptance of trickle-down economics, which I feel I'm inadequately informed to argue against, but I think it's a hugely important factor, misguidedly so, in upper-case Capitalism)

I don't really make the distinction between big C and little c capitalism. But if I did, I'd probably agree that capitalism is the mechanisms of a scarcity based economic system and Capitalism is the (inevitable)** exploitation of those mechanisms that breaks down the system.

Trickle down economics, aka supply-side economics, Reaganomics, voodoo economics, and horse and sparrow theory*** has mostly not worked every time it has been implemented. It is kind of hard to argue against the theory, because there isn't much too it. But when more capital is provided to the owners of the means of production in the form of tax cuts they don't typically reinvest it in a manner that expands the job market or increases income for people at the lower level of the scale. In some cases they even shrink the job market and income base by using the extra capital to cannibalize or merge with competitors. So you don't get more tax revenue and you end up with a larger deficit. The reason I said "mostly not worked" above is because proponents claim that it is responsible for the relative economic stability of the last 100 years or so. That is very highly debatable, but it is hard to prove either way since there wasn't a parallel system to compare it to.

I'm not completely opposed to capitalism. It is a good expansionist system. But you need to be able to expand your markets in a real way. When you run out of actual markets to expand into, you end up with people creating markets by manipulating demand and supply like you were talking about. And that is not a sustainable system. It just leads to runaway consumerism.

*This was sarcasm if it wasn't obvious
**I personally believe the exploitation is inevitable, but that is an argument about human nature
***If you feed the horse enough oats, you'll eventually feed the sparrows. It is the best name for supply-side economics that I've heard.

Kaharz wrote: **I personally believe the exploitation is inevitable, but that is an argument about human nature

Pretty much my thoughts.
Both ends of the spectrum (pure capitalism and pure communism) both rely too much on the positives of human nature. Capitalism relying on a compassion which is primarily absent in consumer culture. Communism ignoring a specialization and/or dedication to labour regardless of time/money spent on the specialization.
But I also have issue with the fence-sitting centrists, who seem to me to be playing both sides for democratic purposes.
Which is why my political allegiance tends to sway (erratically sometimes, I admit) between those who espouse the 45 degrees or thereabouts. Which in some cases means a small government who at least somewhat condones community-oriented initiatives while keeping them out of the political realm. In other cases it means a large government who leaves enough grey-area that there is room for differentiation without being slavishly devoted to government-mandated 'norms'.
I do tend to prefer the mid-right perspective, but at this point in Canadian culture I don't think that's terribly viable. Partially due to an all-too powerful interest group petition, but also because I'm not sure a 'compassionate capitalism' is all that achievable in this political climate.

Man it feels good to belly-laugh.

It is even funnier when you see some people apparently believe it is an actual quote and then other people are getting all upset because some people apparently believe it is an actual quote.

I've met a few proclaimed atheists who I could imagine saying all but the last line. I don't think Dawkins would, but I could see some of his fans taking it that far. The JRPG line really should give it away as a joke though.

Jesus is always the bad guy at the end of jRPGs!

I had a wicked hot sax session w/ur father

Who the fuck censors sex? That is some high level political correctness.

GUTCHUCKER wrote:Who the fuck censors sex? That is some high level political correctness.

At least murder is still okay.

Kaharz wrote:

GUTCHUCKER wrote:Who the fuck censors sex? That is some high level political correctness.

At least murder is still okay.

Yeah, murder is fine. Who doesn't murder? I mean, J**z.

GUTCHUCKER wrote:Who the fuck censors sex? That is some high level political correctness.

Yeah, that's not being politically correct, it's just being dumb.