I think capitalism is a very tentative (or perhaps, even amorphis) term. There are so many different ways to run it. The best definition of capitalism, is probably "modern economics".
Anyhow, it is not increasing the standards of living globally. Globalization only assists certain nations, while others receive less benefit over time. If I am incorrect, then some nations are efficient, while others are inefficient. By that logic, the "efficient" nations can accumulate wealth while the "inefficient" nations don't -- even at the expense of certain nations. I am not convinced that "everyone wins" in global exchange. Even then, new generations are at the mercy of the old generations' mistakes, and those with higher power are allowed to capitalize on lesser others. If the lesser others receive a raw deal, even unknowingly, they have no chance.
Nothing is perfect. I simply think that the UN, EU, globalization, and other such attempts are not what they seem on the surface. Nevertheless, the trickle-down-effect works to some extent. Without (the right kind of) intervention, it can destroy a nation or people. Commerce is much too complicated to be used on a universal scale; applying the same standards on every nation is facile. Once your nation becomes attached to the global economy, there is no going back. On other hand, self-sufficiency is more stable and creates more prosperity/fulfillment.
I am skeptical at this point.
I'm not necessarily saying the trickle down effect works very well. I'm saying it can be argued that the technological evolution capitalism propels can perhaps outpace the harm capitalism in general does, in the long-term. At first new technology is expensive, but as it becomes refined and more easily produced then the poorer nations can also benefit. One caveat is the extent to which technological innovation will be able to cope and adapt to depleting resources. In the end, on the topic of capitalism I think it's useful to distinguish between the capitalist ideal, and all the abuses to the capitalist system we see today... I'm idealistic about communism, so I suppose it's only fair!
As far as goals go, the only thing I will ever be able to do in this society without lying to myself and being miserable is to do everything I can to bring about a paradigm shift back to a healthy, sane, human lifestyle while doing everything I can to prevent this dying culture from it's final attempts to destroy everything that is not itself.
I'm confused, who's drinking the kool-aid?
How can one be a "false leader"? Because you do not agree with their philosophy/politics?
Well for example, the fixes required for the US economy are fairly simple, the problem is not logistical but political. And there's tons of corruption, not to mention religious zealotry.
Current focus is on Canada/Alaska. We're all getting degrees/work experience so that we can have legitimate bases in the country of choice; we'll amass funds, buy land, move out of "society" as smoothly as we can, and, maybe before our own deaths, but certainly in the future, declare sovereignty.
Talking about Canada's leaders, check out the movie "Poor No Moor".
From an external perspective, I believe economic poverty is the root cause of lots of the problems, and perhaps the easiest facet to engage in fixing the problems.Is the root cause of someone being murdered the bullet flying at his head? Or the guy who pulled the trigger? Or the fact that he's poor? Or that he's too oblivious to think of any other way of handling his life? Or the fact that he was born in the first place (on accident)?
What you call "fixing the problems" I would see as masking them. You're covering symptoms. The problem isn't that there are so many people out of work, the problem is that there are so many unnecessary, less-capable-than-average people. If you spread the wealth around or split up working hours, you mask the fact that there are so many unnecessary, incapable people consuming an exponentially growing amount of resources.
I appreciate the external perspective, I'm not in love with capitalism either, and I think this forum needs even more honest criticism, but solutions like "Progress the global economy" don't sound like proper rebuttals. You said that once - what does it even mean? Give money to the 3rd world? I'll consider what you have to say if you give me something to consider.
We both agree too much money is circulating under the pretense of busy work making things that can't be eaten and that have no real 'wealth' for the enlightened person. I'm saying changing everyone's hearts and minds is a lost cause (though people can still be 'saved' on an individual level), and that the most likely global solution in my mind is the evolution of technology to the point where there's such an abundance of infrastructure and food and other goods in the world that even if most money chases worthless shit it doesn't sap the resources from others who just want to buy food and live simply and peacefully.
why are we not in more of a panic
Mass protest may well come about and help remove a significant degree of corruption and hate / religious zealotry from the capitalist system.
The planet's ecosystems are being destroyed by the Western way of lifestyle, which third world countries imitate. If anything will save the planet's ecosystems, it is the crash of industrialized civilization.One of the unstated conditions of the utopic fantasy I described is technology will magically restore us to equilibrium with the environment. Just like with raising the average IQ level, it's unlikely and shouldn't be anticipated, but not impossible.
I don't think I'm willing to hedge my bets on technology giving humans a habitable biosphere.
Nature will probably be pretty fucked up by the end, but I can live with that, if I can live with that. I can hear Jeff Goldblum say in a trembling, almost sexual voice "nature finds a way".