Capitalism: Take it or leave it?

[Offenheim]

It's a bloody awful system of exploitation, but fits human nature, I suppose.

Human nature? Who's to say what that is? People tend to distribute resources evenly in experiments, and punish those who attempt to keep more than their fair share. Yet if you look at the economy, some people make boatloads more than other people. I don't think nature is giving us clear pointers one way or the other.

Actually, that's been debated. There's been replications and follow ups to altruism studies with data showing that yes, although people tend to distribute resources to others, when given the option to take away others' resources, they will do it.

Sorry, that probably wasn't clear. Let me try again.

Scenario 1: Person A has $10 and can give any amount to person B, who has $0. The data indicates that person B usually receives $2-4.

However, when new parametres are added...

Scenario 2: Person A has $10 and can give any amount or take away money from person B, who has $5. In almost all the cases, person A actually takes ALL the money from person B.

I don't quite remember the behavioural psychology explanation for this phenomenon, but from my basic understanding (I'm a psych major at uni), people will be altruistic to others when they are related either by biological or social means (ex: helping out a family member, a friend, or a member of your tribe/community). However, some believe that at the same time, people are programmed to take advantage of those who are not part of the group (ex: outsiders, anonymous faceless customers, lower socioeconomic classes, etc) and provide resources for those within the group.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that capitalism, in its implementation is ultimately exploitative to the masses (I'm speaking from a socioeconomic perspective in the US) because we are outside the realm of empathy and understanding in the minds of CEOs (probably due to Dunbar's number concept).

There is another experiment where Person A has like $100 and Person B has $0, and Person A is required to split the money up. However, Person B is given the option to deny both Person A and themself the money if they feel they didn't get a big enough share. In this case, Person A usually split the money altruistically, in a 50-50 share, even though it turns out the Person Bs usually only exercised their ability to punish the Person As when Person A split the money more like 70-30 in their favor.

Not altruism actually, altruism would be a split of the money that was unfairly balanced against the distributer ie a 40/60 or more split between person A and person B. As it would be self-sacrificing, in this case person B is also coercing the money from person A, by way of cancelling any unfair deal. The distribution of money therefore is a result of arbitration between the two parties within the reasonable allowances of greed. Person A here would likely start with a 70/30 split, Person B would reject it and they would continue negotiation until they reached a reasonable compromise (55/45 or the likes) or parity, with a few cases likely resulting in Person B having more then person A (likely resulting from superior bartering skills and charisma from person B)

What the effect of this experiment is more accurately and essentially is a test of negotiating and bartering methods rather then altruism, person A in this case didn't give the equal share of the money to person B because they were equals or because person B needed that much, they gave person B an equal share of money because they perceived that was the most they could reasonably take from person B without being vetoed and were otherwise being forced to give this person an amount of money that was to be decided between the two. It would be altruistic if, even in spite of Person B having no power, person A gave him a 50/50 split or more, this would not happen in practice.

al·tru·ism
   /ˈæltruˌɪzəm/ [al-troo-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism).
2. Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.

I think what I said matched these definitions of altruism. But perhaps you misunderstand the experiment. Person A can only guess what Person B will let them get away with. Person A could have taken more, perhaps a 65/35 split, and those who did often were allowed to keep it. Regardless, most people preferred a 50/50 split. Person A purposely handicapped themselves to 50%, even though they could have taken more and gotten it.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I'd prefer to take it while cheating on it with Socialism and then later, after telling Socialism that my true love is for it, leaving Capitalism. Afterward, I would seduce Mercantilism and convince Socialism and Mercantilism to have a 3-way with me while we film it and send the film to Capitalism to make it more jealous. Then I would have kinky bondage make-up sex with Capitalism after hurting it's feelings, but later murder it after I got AIDS from it that it got from all the diamond trading in Africa. Oh, and I'd be wearing a Panda costume while having the 3-way.

[Self--Esteem]

It's a bloody awful system of exploitation, but fits human nature, I suppose.

Human nature? Who's to say what that is? People tend to distribute resources evenly in experiments, and punish those who attempt to keep more than their fair share. Yet if you look at the economy, some people make boatloads more than other people. I don't think nature is giving us clear pointers one way or the other.

Actually, that's been debated. There's been replications and follow ups to altruism studies with data showing that yes, although people tend to distribute resources to others, when given the option to take away others' resources, they will do it.

Sorry, that probably wasn't clear. Let me try again.

Scenario 1: Person A has $10 and can give any amount to person B, who has $0. The data indicates that person B usually receives $2-4.

However, when new parametres are added...

Scenario 2: Person A has $10 and can give any amount or take away money from person B, who has $5. In almost all the cases, person A actually takes ALL the money from person B.

I don't quite remember the behavioural psychology explanation for this phenomenon, but from my basic understanding (I'm a psych major at uni), people will be altruistic to others when they are related either by biological or social means (ex: helping out a family member, a friend, or a member of your tribe/community). However, some believe that at the same time, people are programmed to take advantage of those who are not part of the group (ex: outsiders, anonymous faceless customers, lower socioeconomic classes, etc) and provide resources for those within the group.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that capitalism, in its implementation is ultimately exploitative to the masses (I'm speaking from a socioeconomic perspective in the US) because we are outside the realm of empathy and understanding in the minds of CEOs (probably due to Dunbar's number concept).

There is another experiment where Person A has like $100 and Person B has $0, and Person A is required to split the money up. However, Person B is given the option to deny both Person A and themself the money if they feel they didn't get a big enough share. In this case, Person A usually split the money altruistically, in a 50-50 share, even though it turns out the Person Bs usually only exercised their ability to punish the Person As when Person A split the money more like 70-30 in their favor.

Not altruism actually, altruism would be a split of the money that was unfairly balanced against the distributer ie a 40/60 or more split between person A and person B. As it would be self-sacrificing, in this case person B is also coercing the money from person A, by way of cancelling any unfair deal. The distribution of money therefore is a result of arbitration between the two parties within the reasonable allowances of greed. Person A here would likely start with a 70/30 split, Person B would reject it and they would continue negotiation until they reached a reasonable compromise (55/45 or the likes) or parity, with a few cases likely resulting in Person B having more then person A (likely resulting from superior bartering skills and charisma from person B)

What the effect of this experiment is more accurately and essentially is a test of negotiating and bartering methods rather then altruism, person A in this case didn't give the equal share of the money to person B because they were equals or because person B needed that much, they gave person B an equal share of money because they perceived that was the most they could reasonably take from person B without being vetoed and were otherwise being forced to give this person an amount of money that was to be decided between the two. It would be altruistic if, even in spite of Person B having no power, person A gave him a 50/50 split or more, this would not happen in practice.

al·tru·ism
   /ˈæltruˌɪzəm/ [al-troo-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism).
2. Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.

I think what I said matched these definitions of altruism. But perhaps you misunderstand the experiment. Person A can only guess what Person B will let them get away with. Person A could have taken more, perhaps a 65/35 split, and those who did often were allowed to keep it. Regardless, most people preferred a 50/50 split. Person A purposely handicapped themselves to 50%, even though they could have taken more and gotten it.

That is not altruism.

They simply gave more than they perhaps needed to, because they could not guess with how much they could have gotten away with.

[Offenheim]

So freaking define altruism for me. Instead of telling me what something is not, tell me what it is. Goddamn.

[The Adrian Empire]

It's a bloody awful system of exploitation, but fits human nature, I suppose.

Human nature? Who's to say what that is? People tend to distribute resources evenly in experiments, and punish those who attempt to keep more than their fair share. Yet if you look at the economy, some people make boatloads more than other people. I don't think nature is giving us clear pointers one way or the other.

Actually, that's been debated. There's been replications and follow ups to altruism studies with data showing that yes, although people tend to distribute resources to others, when given the option to take away others' resources, they will do it.

Sorry, that probably wasn't clear. Let me try again.

Scenario 1: Person A has $10 and can give any amount to person B, who has $0. The data indicates that person B usually receives $2-4.

However, when new parametres are added...

Scenario 2: Person A has $10 and can give any amount or take away money from person B, who has $5. In almost all the cases, person A actually takes ALL the money from person B.

I don't quite remember the behavioural psychology explanation for this phenomenon, but from my basic understanding (I'm a psych major at uni), people will be altruistic to others when they are related either by biological or social means (ex: helping out a family member, a friend, or a member of your tribe/community). However, some believe that at the same time, people are programmed to take advantage of those who are not part of the group (ex: outsiders, anonymous faceless customers, lower socioeconomic classes, etc) and provide resources for those within the group.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that capitalism, in its implementation is ultimately exploitative to the masses (I'm speaking from a socioeconomic perspective in the US) because we are outside the realm of empathy and understanding in the minds of CEOs (probably due to Dunbar's number concept).

There is another experiment where Person A has like $100 and Person B has $0, and Person A is required to split the money up. However, Person B is given the option to deny both Person A and themself the money if they feel they didn't get a big enough share. In this case, Person A usually split the money altruistically, in a 50-50 share, even though it turns out the Person Bs usually only exercised their ability to punish the Person As when Person A split the money more like 70-30 in their favor.

Not altruism actually, altruism would be a split of the money that was unfairly balanced against the distributer ie a 40/60 or more split between person A and person B. As it would be self-sacrificing, in this case person B is also coercing the money from person A, by way of cancelling any unfair deal. The distribution of money therefore is a result of arbitration between the two parties within the reasonable allowances of greed. Person A here would likely start with a 70/30 split, Person B would reject it and they would continue negotiation until they reached a reasonable compromise (55/45 or the likes) or parity, with a few cases likely resulting in Person B having more then person A (likely resulting from superior bartering skills and charisma from person B)

What the effect of this experiment is more accurately and essentially is a test of negotiating and bartering methods rather then altruism, person A in this case didn't give the equal share of the money to person B because they were equals or because person B needed that much, they gave person B an equal share of money because they perceived that was the most they could reasonably take from person B without being vetoed and were otherwise being forced to give this person an amount of money that was to be decided between the two. It would be altruistic if, even in spite of Person B having no power, person A gave him a 50/50 split or more, this would not happen in practice.

al·tru·ism
   /ˈæltruˌɪzəm/ [al-troo-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism).
2. Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.

I think what I said matched these definitions of altruism. But perhaps you misunderstand the experiment. Person A can only guess what Person B will let them get away with. Person A could have taken more, perhaps a 65/35 split, and those who did often were allowed to keep it. Regardless, most people preferred a 50/50 split. Person A purposely handicapped themselves to 50%, even though they could have taken more and gotten it.

Which is still inaccurate, probably more so, an altruistic act would be as I said, doing something more then equal, giving person B a 60/40 split or similar. This 50/50 split is a result of pure human reason, most people understand that person B will reject an unfair offer, so in order to leave with a fair amount they go for 50/50 which has the most likely success rate without hurting there own person. Those who choose a 65/35 split are either shrewd enough to realize person B is at a disadvantage by not having any money to begin with and thus any decent distribution is likely to be accepted even when unequal, a person truly fitting of the term capitalist, and I applaud them. Or otherwise are naive enough to not realize that 50/50 is most likely to succeed .

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

So freaking define altruism for me. Instead of telling me what something is not, tell me what it is. Goddamn.

Altruism: Anything that Ayn Rand considers bad.

[The Adrian Empire]

So freaking define altruism for me. Instead of telling me what something is not, tell me what it is. Goddamn.

Altruism as you defined it was an unselfish act, to further define it, it is an act taken on by a person with no visible benefit or later profit to the person for the expressed intent of helping another at their own cost.

What we observe is rather not selfless but a concern for their own profit, a poorly balanced proposal would mean they leave with nothing, so to go with the most balanced point is rather selfish, they are only trying to keep as much money as possible, it is just that the majority of people aren't clued into person B's psyche enough to risk anything more then a completely fair deal.

[Rhannu]

Bah, don't get me started on Capitalism.

[The Adrian Empire]

So freaking define altruism for me. Instead of telling me what something is not, tell me what it is. Goddamn.

Altruism: Anything that Ayn Rand considers bad.

I almost lol'ed then I frowned

I like altruism, I think it is useful in a capitalist society, so long as it is contained to the individual and not forced onto others, which in and of it's self is not altruism but rather tyranny. I am all for charity, I just don't care for government welfare. As charities don't rob me.

[Offenheim]

So freaking define altruism for me. Instead of telling me what something is not, tell me what it is. Goddamn.

Altruism as you defined it was an unselfish act, to further define it, it is an act taken on by a person with no visible benefit or later profit to the person for the expressed intent of helping another at their own cost.

What we observe is rather not selfless but a concern for their own profit, a poorly balanced proposal would mean they leave with nothing, so to go with the most balanced point is rather selfish, they are only trying to keep as much money as possible, it is just that the majority of people aren't clued into person B's psyche enough to risk anything more then a completely fair deal.

Well, I can't refute that, because I'm not in Person A's head. But now I'm having trouble thinking of a single altruistic act. Which is disheartening.

[The Adrian Empire]

Bah, don't get me started on Capitalism.

Can't contain the love can you?

Oh come on, capitalism is grand, at the very least discussion is fun.

[Novayonia]

There is no such thing as pure Capitalism, nor pure Communism. Our current system is a mesh of both, as are all others.

But, in principle, I do not believe in Capitalism. It's growth rate is too gaudy--it tears up everything in it's path. It consumes resources at a manic pace. It does nothing to ensure a fulfilling social, creative, and intellectual life.

And, of course, it's on it's way out.

[Sibirsky]

Degrees of capitalism people, there are degrees in which capitalism works and obvious cases in which it doesn't.
Nations are basically corporations supposedly owned by everyone with different management and more power....

Examples of these obvious cases in which capitalism doesn't work please.

[Lackadaisical2]

So freaking define altruism for me. Instead of telling me what something is not, tell me what it is. Goddamn.

Altruism as you defined it was an unselfish act, to further define it, it is an act taken on by a person with no visible benefit or later profit to the person for the expressed intent of helping another at their own cost.

What we observe is rather not selfless but a concern for their own profit, a poorly balanced proposal would mean they leave with nothing, so to go with the most balanced point is rather selfish, they are only trying to keep as much money as possible, it is just that the majority of people aren't clued into person B's psyche enough to risk anything more then a completely fair deal.

Well, I can't refute that, because I'm not in Person A's head. But now I'm having trouble thinking of a single altruistic act. Which is disheartening.

Yup.

I personally don't believe in altruism.

[The Adrian Empire]

So freaking define altruism for me. Instead of telling me what something is not, tell me what it is. Goddamn.

Altruism as you defined it was an unselfish act, to further define it, it is an act taken on by a person with no visible benefit or later profit to the person for the expressed intent of helping another at their own cost.

What we observe is rather not selfless but a concern for their own profit, a poorly balanced proposal would mean they leave with nothing, so to go with the most balanced point is rather selfish, they are only trying to keep as much money as possible, it is just that the majority of people aren't clued into person B's psyche enough to risk anything more then a completely fair deal.

Well, I can't refute that, because I'm not in Person A's head. But now I'm having trouble thinking of a single altruistic act. Which is disheartening.

If it helps, my Cousin lives on 10% of his after-tax income, he donates the rest to a variety of charities around the world.


Of course, he would be obscenely rich if he didn't and lives otherwise comfortably so it could just be a case of him enjoying the charities and getting a good feeling from donating, which would not really be all that altruistic.

But, heck you can but an ulterior motive behind almost every good action, even Jesus dying for Christian sins (this religious example is merely for contrast, I'm not preaching), probably considered the most altruistic of acts was done in order to benefit his family (Christians) by getting them to heaven which is demonstratively not altruism, as he was striving to benefit what was his, even if it wasn't precisely his person.

[Sibirsky]

So freaking define altruism for me. Instead of telling me what something is not, tell me what it is. Goddamn.

Altruism: Anything that Ayn Rand considers bad.

I almost lol'ed then I frowned

I like altruism, I think it is useful in a capitalist society, so long as it is contained to the individual and not forced onto others, which in and of it's self is not altruism but rather tyranny. I am all for charity, I just don't care for government welfare. As charities don't rob me.

Most capitalist large country; USA
Most generous country in terms of charitable contributions; USA

[Self--Esteem]

So freaking define altruism for me. Instead of telling me what something is not, tell me what it is. Goddamn.

An act of selflessness. You basically give without asking for anything in return. Like giving a beggar a warm meal or a bunch of coins.
It's not altruistic if those people are of real value to you, though. It's not altruistic to not buy yourself a hat so that your child can have what he wants or needs.

Using your given examples, It would have been an altruistic act if Person A had sacrificed all the money, without keeping a single cent.

[Sibirsky]

There is no such thing as pure Capitalism, nor pure Communism. Our current system is a mesh of both, as are all others.

But, in principle, I do not believe in Capitalism. It's growth rate is too gaudy--it tears up everything in it's path. It consumes resources at a manic pace. It does nothing to ensure a fulfilling social, creative, and intellectual life.

And, of course, it's on it's way out.

It breeds creativity. It's not on the way out. Freedom will prevail. Capitalism is freedom.

[Self--Esteem]

There is no such thing as pure Capitalism, nor pure Communism. Our current system is a mesh of both, as are all others.

But, in principle, I do not believe in Capitalism. It's growth rate is too gaudy--it tears up everything in it's path. It consumes resources at a manic pace. It does nothing to ensure a fulfilling social, creative, and intellectual life.

And, of course, it's on it's way out.

It breeds creativity. It's not on the way out. Freedom will prevail. Capitalism is freedom.

^This

And we are not about to stagnate. Communism is stagnation. Capitalism is progression. A 100% communist society could never find cure to anything, since it's people are instilled with the idea that their life is perfect as it is.

[Offenheim]

There is no such thing as pure Capitalism, nor pure Communism. Our current system is a mesh of both, as are all others.

But, in principle, I do not believe in Capitalism. It's growth rate is too gaudy--it tears up everything in it's path. It consumes resources at a manic pace. It does nothing to ensure a fulfilling social, creative, and intellectual life.

And, of course, it's on it's way out.

It breeds creativity. It's not on the way out. Freedom will prevail. Capitalism is freedom.

^This

And we are not about to stagnate. Communism is stagnation. Capitalism is progression. A 100% communist society could never find cure to anything, since it's people are instilled with the idea that their life is perfect as it is.

B.S. There are two responses. First, people would have the time to devote to finding cures without worries of funding or various other stress factors that get in the way.

The other option is to say, well if life is considered perfect, is there really a problem?

[Sibirsky]

There is no such thing as pure Capitalism, nor pure Communism. Our current system is a mesh of both, as are all others.

But, in principle, I do not believe in Capitalism. It's growth rate is too gaudy--it tears up everything in it's path. It consumes resources at a manic pace. It does nothing to ensure a fulfilling social, creative, and intellectual life.

And, of course, it's on it's way out.

It breeds creativity. It's not on the way out. Freedom will prevail. Capitalism is freedom.

^This

And we are not about to stagnate. Communism is stagnation. Capitalism is progression. A 100% communist society could never find cure to anything, since it's people are instilled with the idea that their life is perfect as it is.

B.S. There are two responses. First, people would have the time to devote to finding cures without worries of funding or various other stress factors that get in the way.

The other option is to say, well if life is considered perfect, is there really a problem?

Funding gets in the way? In communism, cures are harder to come by, because there is no incentive to create cures, as there is no profit motive. The Russians are just as smart, if not smarter than the Americans. They are better educated, and have a higher literacy rate. Yet, the Americans have far more inventions. The profit motive bred creativity.

[Self--Esteem]

There is no such thing as pure Capitalism, nor pure Communism. Our current system is a mesh of both, as are all others.

But, in principle, I do not believe in Capitalism. It's growth rate is too gaudy--it tears up everything in it's path. It consumes resources at a manic pace. It does nothing to ensure a fulfilling social, creative, and intellectual life.

And, of course, it's on it's way out.

It breeds creativity. It's not on the way out. Freedom will prevail. Capitalism is freedom.

^This

And we are not about to stagnate. Communism is stagnation. Capitalism is progression. A 100% communist society could never find cure to anything, since it's people are instilled with the idea that their life is perfect as it is.

B.S. There are two responses. First, people would have the time to devote to finding cures without worries of funding or various other stress factors that get in the way.

The other option is to say, well if life is considered perfect, is there really a problem?

No worries of funding? Sure. If you exclude the fact that funds are money and therefore need a working economy. Something which failed in most communist and socialist countries, after a set period of time.

And yes. There is a problem. Considering life to be perfect does not actually make it perfect. I consider my life good (though far from perfect), but this would change if I were to get infected with AIDS.

[The Adrian Empire]

There is no such thing as pure Capitalism, nor pure Communism. Our current system is a mesh of both, as are all others.

But, in principle, I do not believe in Capitalism. It's growth rate is too gaudy--it tears up everything in it's path. It consumes resources at a manic pace. It does nothing to ensure a fulfilling social, creative, and intellectual life.

And, of course, it's on it's way out.

Capitalism is only to be out until the mixed market is crushed under the weight of it's own failed programs, I pray it doesn't come to that and we will just learn when Greece is forced to default and open it's self to free market economics.

I certainly agree with you on those other points, capitalism is most certainly the only form of economics which produces a healthy growth rate, one that is consistently growing, and so long as you aren't a fatalist, you can see the benefit of humanities growth. For free men have given us the greatest things the earth possess, we may approach a deadly catacylsm in society, but it is upon freedom's wings we will soar above the problem, lifted by human ingenuity and creativity.

Capitalism doesn't really consume resources any more then any other economic system, it just grows faster, however when the resources are scarce capitalism shines as the only method which brings about proper distribution and enough profit to safeguard against such scarcity in the future. Whereas Socialism in vain attempt to bring resources to everyone in equality either starves all or feeds some to the exclusion of others and afterwards develops no more efficient technology, nor methods of safeguarding future shortages, so the people are continually fighting over shrinking market supply.

As it happens, only capitalism can ensure a fulfilling social, creative and intellectual life, for intellectualism is dangerous in socialism, writings cannot be spread among the people unless the people as a majority support those writings, further they may go against the collective or state and therefore must be banned. In capitalism so long as there are enough in the minority who approve of the intellectuals writings he will be successful, even Karl Marx was. In fact such social growth is necessary in a capitalist society, as such the intellectual is a praised figure in capitalism, and one synonymous with bourgeois oppression to the socialist.
This is the exact truth of art, Capitalism is the only form of economic system in which men (and by men I mean men and women) are free to pursue any career they wish, in socialism they must be in a career that benefits the whole. Artists, do not, so must take a job and reserve their practice to leisure time, though artists may have to take a job to afford living necessities in a capitalist society, he or she is free to sell their products of leisure hours, and can become self-sufficient on them from even a small minority. In the socialist paradise only those artists who attract the attention of the government or in the more free state collective can survive as their labours are not their own but everyones and thus have no value. Those who live a life of the bourgeois social class, know only capitalism affords the leisure time, prosperity, happiness and goods necessary to have an active social life.

Capitalism enables every man to survive upon his own work, and this is the only way one is to find great artists, the greatest of mankind's artists were not appendages of the state nor were they working for free, they had wealthy patrons who enjoyed art and sought to support them. They took hold of the masses and brought them to their galleries for charge. They painted and sold, meagre works to get by. The artist is among the greatest of capitalists, though many would refuse to claim so. I as an artist of the theatre, can whole heartedly tell you this.

[The Adrian Empire]

There is no such thing as pure Capitalism, nor pure Communism. Our current system is a mesh of both, as are all others.

But, in principle, I do not believe in Capitalism. It's growth rate is too gaudy--it tears up everything in it's path. It consumes resources at a manic pace. It does nothing to ensure a fulfilling social, creative, and intellectual life.

And, of course, it's on it's way out.

It breeds creativity. It's not on the way out. Freedom will prevail. Capitalism is freedom.

A one sentence surmise of my 1000 word post. This most emphatically this^

[Sibirsky]

There is no such thing as pure Capitalism, nor pure Communism. Our current system is a mesh of both, as are all others.

But, in principle, I do not believe in Capitalism. It's growth rate is too gaudy--it tears up everything in it's path. It consumes resources at a manic pace. It does nothing to ensure a fulfilling social, creative, and intellectual life.

And, of course, it's on it's way out.

It breeds creativity. It's not on the way out. Freedom will prevail. Capitalism is freedom.

A one sentence surmise of my 1000 word post. This most emphatically this^

Example. When I left the Soviet Union in 1991 I have never heard of an automatic dishwasher. It was a luxurious item a very few elites had. While on the other side of the world in the United States it was invented in 1886 and became available in the consumer market in the 1950s. By the 1970s they were commonplace. That is creativity. Examples like that are abundant. Just like consumer products are abundant under capitalism.