Should the government increase environmental regulations to prevent climate change?
"Crony Capitalism" is still just capitalism; Capitalism is merely an umbrella term that encompasses…
It’s true that capitalism can lead to negative outcomes, such as environmental degradation, this is…
The issue with your claim that negative outcomes are not a result of capitalism, but of inadequate regulation, is that regulation itself has to actively work against capitalism in order for it to offer any benefits to begin with. If the only way to prevent negative outcomes is by endlessly regulating the decisions of private interests just to ensure their decisions actually benefit the public, then why not just cut out the middleman and we can make our decisions directly, without relying on having to oversee the decisions of otherwise unaccountable individuals? So long as private individuals are in control of the economy for their own personal interests, we would have to endlessly increase regulation just to maintain a state of equality between classes, whereas just dissolving this class distinction in the first place would solve that issue
Secondly, of course public-ownership is not a panacea, but it ensures that decision-making power is held by all people, instead of by a private minority. This is simply a matter of democracy vs oligarchy. After all, which system of decision-making is more likely to produce better results for everyone: a system in which a handful of unelected individuals have sole decision-making power, or a system in which all people share equal decision-making power?
In terms of national examples, there is currently no nation, nor any nation in modern human history, that does not operate under the global capitalist structure, hence why it is the progressive alternative to capitalism, similarly to how capitalism was, at the time, the progressive alternative to feudalism.
Be the first to reply to this disagreement.