Doug writes, > Phil writes. > > "I think that would have the usual negative side effects of > imposing political controls on 'free' markets." > > > I think we have been led down the wrong path. Marts are free > and interesting. Capitalism however is a process of control > of markets, using the state apparatus and the very > boundedness of the nation state to control money, interest > and markets. Our problem is not markets but capitalism. Since > capital seeks controls, the only way to prevent the > distortion (concentration of wealth and power) is state > intervention. Capitalism is like an organism, a physical/social system that grew out of human values and talents, that we tend to refer to as if someone was in charge. That may be the only way our language allows us to speak about such things yet, but I think most people understand that no one really designed it, runs it, built it, or quite understands it. Still, it's no illusion to imagine it has a behavior of its own, that it has many different kinds of cells and circuits, that it looks different from every perspective.
I'm not sure what it means to say 'since capital seeks controls'. Perhaps that's about the roots of capitalism in how people use power to multiply power and dominate. The countervailing force in capitalism is its stimulus of individual creativity, which has been a very effective counter to the worst effects of attempted social control by the powerful. I don't agree, though, that state intervention is needed to change what causes the worst parts of the problem, the system's strong tendency of wreck anything good by overdoing it. That's a perpetual trap. The scenario I have in mind is of certain information getting around, and the idea of endless growth loosing its credibility, for a critical mass of influential people. That could cause a wave of change in how money is used to multiply money. The people following the new practice could choose not to do business with those clinging to the old way, interpreting it as 'cheating'. That could 'flip the feedback switch' of the global system and allow it to stabilize. There actually are huge and growing numbers of rich folks, buying certified organic food and certified 'sustainable' design, who haven't quite recognized that they're living a lie by drawing their wealth from various kinds of un-sustainable development. I think it's quite possible the right information could let them see the contradictions in that. > Remember, the state interfered by chartering > corporations in the first place. Tweaking the charters > towards some modest form of bias away from concentration is > just a correction on the existing dependence of corporations > on state regulation. There are indeed a great many choices for how to make investment 'unprofitable'. That's the strange necessary requirement for any sustainable economic system. On the face of it it's 'ridiculous', but you can see the humor by reasoning that it's no more unthinkable than our having actually built our life support system on the natural system model of a bomb! (all explosion all the time!) The trick is to find a way to unplug it that still makes evolving businesses rewarding and fun. That's what the right interpretation of the change I propose would do. The basic question is still, how can large groups of people stay responsive to change, and not be caught off guard by mass delusion and beliefs that are held long beyond their usefulness. Today the most popular thing in the world, our system of multiplying our own creativity, has been found to have no way to stop. Looks to me like a reasonable cause for a little extra spurt of creativity! > Doug Carmichael > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.18/586 - Release > Date: 12/13/2006 6:13 PM > > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
