Establishment, media, scholars, actors, politicians, and influential people will unison tell you – that this type of capitalism is the only possible. Please make no mistake – I am not saying to replace this with communism, socialism, or even mixed economy. What I try to insinuate is that this type of capitalism we live in isn’t the only possible option.
With capitalism’s emergence, all of the critics appeared, and in the vast majority of cases – rightfully so.
But its replacement proved to be horribly wrong, either socialism or communism or a kinds of mixed economy.
Needless to say, capitalism is something extremely complex. But what they want is to leave it intact, a savage-like system with zero regulations. And even if some redistribution takes place, its allocations are bad or are just low.
In this era of unprecedented inequality, when super-rich families rule us, they try to make us believe this type of capitalism is the only option. This article tries to debunk this.
History of capitalism emergence
Capitalism, as a distinct economic system, began to take shape in the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance in Europe. Its roots can be traced to the decline of feudalism, which led to the rise of market economies and commercial trade. Early forms of capitalism were characterized by the growth of trade networks, the accumulation of capital, and the development of banking systems.
The Commercial Revolution (11th to 18th Century)
During this period, European nations expanded their trade networks globally, leading to the accumulation of wealth and the growth of merchant classes. The Commercial Revolution set the stage for capitalism by promoting private enterprise and profit-seeking behavior.
The Industrial Revolution (18th to 19th Century)
The Industrial Revolution marked a significant turning point in the development of capitalism. Technological advancements and the rise of factories led to mass production and significant economic growth. This period saw the consolidation of capitalist practices, including wage labor, capital accumulation, and the expansion of markets.
Classical Capitalism (19th Century)
Classical capitalism emerged as an economic theory with the works of economists like Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill. Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” (1776) is often credited with laying the intellectual foundations of modern capitalism. This emphasizes free markets, competition, and the “invisible hand” of the market.
Industrial and Post-Industrial Capitalism (20th Century to Present)
Capitalism continued to evolve through the 20th century, adapting to changes such as the Great Depression, the rise of welfare states, and the globalization of trade. Post-industrial capitalism, characterized by a shift from manufacturing to service and information economies, has seen significant technological advancements and increased economic interdependence.
Everything gets its criticism, even capitalism
One of the primary criticisms of capitalism is that it leads to significant economic inequality. Critics argue that capitalism disproportionately benefits those who own capital. This leads to a concentration of wealth among a small percentage of the population while leaving others in poverty.
Critics, including Karl Marx, have argued that capitalism exploits workers, as capitalists extract surplus value from their labor. This exploitation is seen as inherent to the capitalist system, where profit maximization often comes at the expense of fair wages and working conditions.
Capitalism’s focus on profit and growth is often criticized for leading to environmental degradation. The drive for constant economic expansion can result in overconsumption of natural resources, pollution, and damage to ecosystems.
The capitalist emphasis on profit maximization and competition can lead to a short-term focus, where businesses prioritize immediate financial gains over long-term sustainability and social responsibility.
Capitalism is also criticized for its tendency to produce economic cycles of boom and bust. Critics argue that the system’s inherent instability can lead to financial crises, unemployment, and economic recessions.
Marxist critiques highlight the concept of alienation, where workers become disconnected from the products of their labor and from their own humanity. This alienation is seen as a result of the capitalist emphasis on profit over personal fulfillment.
Critics point out that capitalism can exacerbate global inequalities, with wealthy nations exploiting poorer countries for resources and labor. This dynamic can perpetuate economic disparities on a global scale.
Criticism of criticism as alternatives proved not futile
Of course, millions are dying now in capitalism (due to its effect), but communism, Nazim, or socialism make those numbers “envy”.
Food shortages, genocides, political dissent, lack of democracy, and great tendencies for the regimes to abruptly cease to exist.
Labor camps, widespread torture (even though this exists in higher numbers now as the planet is more populous), disappearances, purges, famines, abuse of justice, poor health care, and so on.
The core truth is that they failed to provide such economic outputs as capitalism did.
This type of capitalism only possible: Capitalism in its current form as unsustainable
Capitalism, in its current form, is increasingly seen as unsustainable due to its reliance on perpetual growth, resource depletion, and rising inequality. The system depends on constant economic expansion, which puts immense pressure on finite natural resources, leading to environmental degradation and climate change. As wealth and power concentrate in the hands of a small elite, inequality continues to grow, leaving large portions of the population struggling with stagnant wages and limited social mobility. This imbalance threatens social stability and undermines the long-term health of economies. Additionally, capitalism’s focus on short-term profits often sacrifices long-term sustainability. This drives overconsumption and unsustainable business practices that further strain ecosystems and human well-being. Without significant reforms, the model risks collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.
Only this type of capitalism possible? So how does it look like
The distribution of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) among various sectors varies widely across different countries and stages of economic development. On a global scale, the services sector dominates, accounting for approximately 60-70% of GDP. This sector includes a broad array of activities such as finance, insurance, real estate, professional services, education, healthcare, retail, and entertainment. The prominence of services reflects a shift from traditional manufacturing-based economies to those increasingly centered around service-oriented industries. This happens particularly in advanced economies where services have become the primary driver of economic activity.
Industrial sector
In contrast, the industrial sector, which encompasses manufacturing, mining, utilities, and construction, typically contributes around 20-30% of global GDP. This sector’s share has declined in many developed countries as they have moved towards service-oriented economies. But it remains a critical component in developing nations where industrialization is a key driver of economic growth. For example, in rapidly industrializing countries like China, the industrial sector retains a significant role in the economy, reflecting its ongoing development and manufacturing prowess.
Agriculture
Agriculture, which includes farming, forestry, fishing, and related activities, generally represents about 5-10% of global GDP. The agricultural sector’s contribution has diminished over time as economies industrialize and urbanize. However, agriculture remains crucial in many developing countries, where it supports rural livelihoods and ensures food security. In these nations, the sector still holds a more substantial share of GDP compared to developed economies, where agriculture’s relative contribution is much smaller.
The only type of capitalism with different GDP composure
In specific country examples, the United States exhibits a pronounced service-oriented economy, with the services sector accounting for about 80% of GDP. Meanwhile, industry and agriculture contribute only a small fraction. China, on the other hand, demonstrates a more balanced distribution with the services sector contributing approximately 55-60% of GDP, while industry accounts for around 40%. In India, the services sector also plays a significant role, contributing about 55-60% of GDP, with industry and agriculture making notable contributions as well. Brazil shows a similar trend, with services comprising around 70% of GDP, followed by industry and a smaller share of agriculture. These patterns illustrate the varying economic structures and stages of development across different nations. Therefore highlights how shifts from agriculture to industry and then to services reflect broader economic transformations.
Scientific research as an engine. Wait, they don’t care
Do you want to cure diseases, get rid of human labor, or live in the top 1 %? With billions of dollars directed toward research, we could expect rapid progress in fields such as renewable energy, artificial intelligence, and space exploration. Innovations in these areas could lead to groundbreaking solutions for pressing global challenges, combating climate change, and enhancing sustainable living.
The only issue is you would have to replace this kind of capitalism and implement vital alternatives. But they are very uncomfortable with the ruling elites.
In 2022, global investment in scientific research and development (R&D) totaled approximately $2.5 trillion, representing about 1.7% of global GDP. Among leading economies, the United States invested around $700 billion in R&D, equivalent to about 3.1% of its GDP, reflecting its strong focus on innovation and technology. Japan’s R&D spending was approximately $180 billion, or 3.2% of GDP, indicating its commitment to advanced research. South Korea stood out with an R&D intensity of 4.8% of GDP, investing around $80 billion in scientific research. China, with an R&D expenditure of about $450 billion, allocated 2.4% of its GDP to scientific development. The European Union collectively spent around €400 billion ($430 billion) on R&D, representing 2.2% of GDP, with notable contributions from member states like Germany and Sweden. These numbers highlight the significant role of scientific investment in driving technological progress and economic growth across various countries.
So this is this type of capitalism. No science, just money making.
Transnational corporations, international lobbyists, super-rich families, and their battleground
Are you sure the POTUS is the most powerful? No, the international lobbyists are. They say money, power, and fame. The super-rich families (some of them Anglo-Saxxon, some of them Jewish) own the vast majority of wealth on this planet.
While they are moving with local political systems (USA, France, and Germany – just for example), they are really fighting for money and power. And fame? Yes, some of them would like to have fame. But if they reveal themselves, it wouldn’t make their situation more difficult (because people are unbelievably stupid, one-third of the population is stupid), but their position wouldn’t be as great as it is now.
Global banks such as Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Deutsche Bank are interconnected through ownership stakes, shared board members, and secret agreements. They control global finance, ensuring that a small elite group benefits while the rest of the world remains economically dependent.
They control the issuance of currency and setting interest rates, these elites can manipulate entire economies. For example, they are said to have the power to create economic booms or busts at will, profiting from crises by buying assets at depressed prices or lending money at high interest rates.
How complex the relationships in capitalism are?
50 % of the surplus value that an international company owns would go to more able people who also tend to have more children, to research and development of medicine, and AI, to fund sustainable agriculture and clean energy technologies, to support digital literacy and online access in developing countries, etc.
As Al Capone famously proclaimed: “Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class.” And if it is a legitimate racket, the economists can work with it.
Capitalism is an intricate system, marked by a web of interconnected flows of assets, banking activities, investments, and innovations. At its core, capitalism is driven by the interaction between markets, financial institutions, labor, and technological advancements, all of which form a dynamic system where value is constantly being created, shifted, and sometimes destroyed. This complexity is what makes capitalism both a powerful engine of growth and a source of inequality and disruption.
Financial infrastructure
One key complexity of capitalism is its financial infrastructure. The banking system plays a crucial role in allocating resources through credit creation, investment, and risk management. Banks do not just hold deposits. They create money through loans, facilitating the flow of capital to businesses and individuals. When banks extend credit, they essentially create new financial assets. These can be used by businesses to invest in new technologies, expand operations, or hire more workers. This credit system is the lifeblood of capitalist economies, allowing companies to grow even when they do not have immediate access to large sums of money.
Capital flows in capitalism are also deeply interconnected across borders. International banking and financial markets allow companies to raise capital from investors all over the world. This often leads to the concentration of wealth in financial hubs like New York, London, or Hong Kong. For instance, a company based in Brazil might issue bonds on a European exchange, borrowing money from investors in Germany or Japan. This global web of financial transactions increases liquidity and makes it easier for businesses to access the capital they need, but it also introduces risks. A financial crisis in one region, such as the 2008 collapse of the U.S. housing market, can quickly spread across the globe due to these interconnections.
The drive
Within this framework, assets – ranging from physical assets like machinery and factories to intangible assets like patents and intellectual property – play a central role in driving economic activity. Companies constantly seek to acquire, improve, or create new assets that can generate profits. The valuation of these assets fluctuates based on market conditions, technological advances, and investor sentiment, creating a complex dance of supply and demand. This is especially evident in the tech sector, where companies like Apple or Google are valued not just for their current profits, but for the potential future value of their intellectual property, innovation, and market dominance.
Science and innovation are also critical components of this capitalist system, benefiting from and contributing to its complexity. In a capitalist economy, scientific research and technological advancement often receive funding from both private and public sources. Venture capitalists, for example, are constantly looking for the next big technological breakthrough to invest in, pouring money into startups that show promise in fields like biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and clean energy. These investments help to push scientific boundaries. It enables researchers to pursue groundbreaking work that might not be immediately profitable but has the potential to revolutionize industries.
Capitalistic pseudo research
Moreover, governments often play a role by funding basic research that may be too risky or long-term for private investors to back. This interaction between public funding and private profit is a key feature of capitalism’s complexity. For instance, many of the foundational technologies behind today’s tech giants – such as the internet, GPS, and even touchscreen technology – originated in government-funded research programs. Once these technologies reached a certain level of development, private companies were able to commercialize them, creating new markets and generating immense wealth. In this way, the flow of capital into scientific research can lead to innovations that benefit society as a whole. Though the profits from these innovations often end up concentrated in the hands of a few companies or individuals.
The allocation of resources in capitalism is another layer of complexity. Markets, in theory, allocate resources efficiently by directing them to where they are most needed. However, in practice, this allocation is influenced by a multitude of factors – some efficient, others less so. Speculative bubbles, where asset prices inflate beyond their real value, can distort resource allocation, channeling money into unproductive sectors. The housing bubble before the 2008 financial crisis is a prime example of how capital flows, driven by speculation, can lead to misallocation and eventually economic collapse.
Resource allocation
In the world of high finance, investment banks, hedge funds, and asset management firms constantly analyze market trends, geopolitical events, and macroeconomic data to make decisions about where to allocate resources. These firms hold immense power, as their decisions can shift billions of dollars across sectors and even countries in a matter of seconds. This creates a feedback loop where financial markets not only reflect but also shape the real economy. For instance, if a hedge fund predicts that renewable energy will be a major growth sector, it might pour capital into solar companies, which in turn helps those companies expand, innovate, and drive further investment in the sector.
One of the key features of capitalism is its ability to turn almost anything into a tradable asset. This is particularly evident in the financialization of many aspects of the economy, where things like mortgages, student loans, and even patents are packaged into securities and traded on financial markets. This increases liquidity and creates opportunities for profit but also adds layers of complexity and risk to the system. When financial products become too disconnected from the real economy, as was the case with mortgage-backed securities before the 2008 crisis, the result can be disastrous.
Human greed can be useful
Yet, within this complexity, capitalism has also created incredible advancements in living standards, technology, and health. People benefit from the fruits of this system, often indirectly. For example, the development of new pharmaceuticals or medical technologies is made possible by the complex interaction of research funding, intellectual property laws, venture capital, and corporate investment. While the companies that produce these innovations seek profits, the end result can be life-saving drugs, improved medical treatments, and better healthcare outcomes for people around the world.
Capitalism’s ability to innovate and produce wealth is also tied to its inherent inequalities. As Al Capone famously proclaimed, “Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class.” This underscores the reality that capitalism tends to favor those who already hold capital. The rich have access to better financial advice, more lucrative investment opportunities, and greater political influence, which allows them to shape the system in ways that preserve their wealth. While the system generates innovation and wealth, it also reinforces existing social hierarchies.
Dubious attempt to change it
Nevertheless, economists and policymakers can work within this complex system to propose solutions that spread the benefits of capitalism more equitably. By understanding the flow of capital, the allocation of resources, and the interaction between science, technology, and finance, it is possible to craft policies that encourage sustainable growth, fund important scientific research, and ensure that more people benefit from the system. This might include progressive taxation, incentives for companies to invest in green technology, or better regulations on speculative financial products.
In summary, capitalism’s complexity lies in its intricate web of financial flows, asset interactions, and innovation cycles. It is a system that can produce extraordinary wealth and innovation, but one that also risks concentrating power and creating inequality. The challenge for economists, policymakers, and society at large is to harness the dynamism of capitalism while addressing its structural imbalances and ensuring that its benefits are more widely shared.
Feel free to buy a Masserati three times but current inequality is preposterous
I don’t care if someone owns a jacuzzi, two Ferraris, or 3 mansions, but the system we are living in now is not unequal. It is absolutely out of any thinkable proportions.
Capitalize profits, socialize losses. If you have such political power, everything goes.
Who wouldn’t be in love with capitalism? Definitely the 1 %. Or the 0,0003125 % (this number is just a gross estimation of how many super-rich families’ members are there). As you may have understood, I am joking with the 1 %. Because even they don’t get their “fair” share. If you think that making 300,000 – 500,000 USD per year is a lot, you don’t know the super-rich. So we should contemplate an alternative to capitalism.
Welcome to the church of compumtion
Debauchery, people eating out, buying new cars, pools, wives, secret lovers, mansions, yachts, designer clothes, private jets, lavish vacations, expensive jewelry, art collections, exclusive parties, luxury watches, exotic pets, VIP club memberships, personal chefs, extravagant weddings, custom-built furniture, rare wines, exclusive resorts, high-end electronics, penthouses, racehorses, private islands, luxury spa treatments, high-stakes gambling, personal trainers, personal assistants, helicopter rides.
However, consumption-driven economies often prioritize short-term profits over long-term innovation. It causes companies to focus on developing products that sell quickly rather than investing in research and development. This short-sighted approach slows the pace of scientific breakthroughs and technological advancements, as businesses allocate more resources to marketing and production, leaving less for innovative exploration. The pressure to meet immediate market demands reduces the incentive to fund ambitious research projects, stifling progress in fields like medicine, energy, and technology.
At the same time, capitalism fosters inequality by concentrating wealth in the hands of those who control production. With large corporations dominating while smaller innovators struggle to compete. This uneven distribution of resources means the benefits of scientific and technological progress often remain reserved for the privileged few. However, with massive investment in science and technology, society could see radical improvements in the standard of living for everyone. Breakthroughs in healthcare, renewable energy, and automation could make life more sustainable and equitable. Advanced technologies would provide greater access to education, improved healthcare, and resources, closing the gap between rich and poor and creating a world where basic needs are universally met.
The economists make only theories for savage-like capitalism
You may object that their theories work a lot of times with some regulation. But the core is the same. They don’t want to touch the super-rich. They wouldn’t even get a Nobel Prize because – as someone suggests – it is connected to clientelism.
I provide you with many examples, the mainstream economists develop theories around the concept of Human Capital, which explores how investments in education, skills, and health contribute to economic productivity. The theory suggests that a well-educated and healthy workforce is essential for long-term economic growth. By improving access to education and healthcare, economies can boost innovation and competitiveness. Related to this is the theory of Labor Market Segmentation, which argues that the labor market is divided into distinct segments, with certain groups of workers, like women or minorities, facing systemic disadvantages, resulting in lower wages and fewer opportunities.
The theory of Financialization
Another key area of study is the theory of Financialization, which looks at how the growth of financial markets and financial instruments has reshaped economies. This theory suggests that when economies become too focused on financial markets, there can be negative consequences. Such as increased income inequality and financial instability, as resources are diverted from productive investments in the real economy. Linked to this is the theory of Speculative Bubbles, where economists study how asset prices, like housing or stocks, can become detached from their intrinsic values, leading to financial crises when these bubbles burst.
Economists also explore theories related to Innovation Systems, which emphasize the role of government, institutions, and networks in fostering technological advancement and economic growth. These theories suggest that innovation is not just the result of individual firms or entrepreneurs but comes from the interaction of various actors in the economy. This approach contrasts with the more traditional view that markets alone drive innovation and growth.
Fiscal Multipliers
Another significant theory is that of Fiscal Multipliers, which examines how government spending impacts the overall economy. It suggests that in times of economic downturn, government investment can have a larger-than-expected effect on economic activity, stimulating growth and reducing unemployment. Conversely, in a booming economy, government spending may have less impact and can lead to inflation. Related to this is the theory of Automatic Stabilizers, which refers to fiscal policies like unemployment benefits or progressive taxation that automatically counterbalance fluctuations in the economy without the need for new legislation.
Income Elasticity of Demand is another theory studied by modern economists, which looks at how demand for certain goods changes as people’s incomes increase or decrease. Luxury goods, for instance, tend to see a greater rise in demand as incomes grow, while demand for basic necessities changes less. This theory helps economists predict consumer behavior and adjust economic models accordingly.
Do you see any superb theories on how to replace capitalism with something smarter? And why it is dangerous?
Yes, we don’t want communism, socialism, and mixed economy. But we don’t see the top minds doing anything but benefiting the super-rich.
There are no such theories as academia is completely controlled by the super-rich or religious clientelism.
They need their peasants or AI to work, but they don’t want to lose their power, therefore if some scholar had an idea of how to change capitalism, a bad accident could happen.
In order to have a good alternative to capitalism or a capitalist-like alternative, we must get rid of the super-rich
The influence of financial giants like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Deutsche Bank often connects to the super-rich families behind these institutions, families whose wealth and power shape the global financial system. These families, controlling major stakes in these institutions through generations of wealth accumulation, help direct the flow of global capital. This ensures that their interests remain prioritized. This network operates beyond the visible structure of these banks, with powerful family dynasties working behind the scenes to maintain control over global financial markets. Their influence extends through ownership stakes, shared connections with other wealthy elites, and their ability to influence government policy. As a result, they help shape the rules of global finance in ways that ensure they remain at the top of the economic hierarchy while much of the world becomes increasingly financially dependent.
Global capital as an influence maintainer
These families use their control over global capital flows to maintain their influence. They direct investments, manage funds, and offer credit to governments and corporations worldwide, ensuring that their wealth grows while creating dependency. When developing nations or businesses seek capital, they often have little choice but to turn to the banks controlled by these elites. Countries become dependent on loans and investments that are under the influence of a handful of powerful families. These loans frequently come with conditions that benefit the lenders, such as austerity measures, privatization mandates, or favorable trade terms, which entrench the power of the super-rich and create a global economic structure that works for them while limiting the autonomy of others.
These families also influence global finance through monopolizing critical financial services. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Deutsche Bank dominate key areas like investment banking, asset management, and financial markets. All of which are controlled by or heavily influenced by the super-rich. By managing these services, they hold the keys to major global financial decisions. Thus, controlling everything from market liquidity to corporate mergers. This allows the elite to shape industries and economies, making countries and companies reliant on their services. If these families decide to pull back investments or limit credit, entire economies can collapse. Their ability to dictate financial conditions keeps the world reliant on the smooth functioning of these banks, which in turn reinforces the power of the families behind them.
Central banks and lobbying
Through their influence over monetary policy and government regulation, these families solidify their grip on global finance. They lobby governments, fund political campaigns, and shape economic policy to align with their interests. Central banks and financial regulators often respond to their needs, creating a regulatory environment that allows these families to accumulate even more wealth. Whether through tax loopholes, deregulation, or favorable trade policies, the financial elite ensure that the rules work in their favor. This influence often undermines democratic accountability. As governments become more concerned with pleasing these powerful financial players than addressing the needs of the broader public. The families behind these banks ensure that monetary policy favors the continued accumulation of wealth for the few. While the rest of the world faces tighter economic constraints.
Debt is another powerful tool used by these super-rich families to create dependence. Developing nations, often struggling to finance infrastructure or pay off existing debts, must borrow from the very institutions these families control. This cycle of debt creates long-term dependence, as countries find themselves unable to escape the financial grip of these institutions. The super-rich profit from the interest on these loans, while nations must adhere to strict repayment terms. When countries can’t repay, they must accept new loans, often with conditions that force them to sell off national assets, privatize public services, or implement harsh austerity measures. This debt dependence keeps nations tied to the financial systems controlled by the elite, limiting their ability to grow independently.
The super-rich family and a parody of capitalism
These families also play a major role in the consolidation of industries through mergers and acquisitions. They finance corporate mergers that allow industries to centralize power, creating monopolies or oligopolies in sectors like technology, energy, and pharmaceuticals. By reducing competition and concentrating economic power in the hands of a few large corporations, the financial elite create an environment where their influence extends further. As they control the financing of these deals, they gain seats on corporate boards and a direct say in corporate governance. This allows the families to influence global corporate strategy, ensuring that it aligns with their financial interests. As industries consolidate, they become even more reliant on the financial institutions controlled by these families, reinforcing the cycle of dependence.
Speculation in financial markets is another way these families manipulate global economies to their benefit. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Deutsche Bank engage in speculative trading in commodities like oil, food, and metals, as well as currencies and derivatives. This speculative activity, often driven by the financial interests of the super-rich, can artificially inflate prices, causing price spikes in essential goods. These price changes can destabilize entire regions, particularly in developing countries that rely on stable commodity prices. Speculative trading often leads to higher costs for consumers, while the families behind these banks profit from market volatility. This speculative influence makes nations more vulnerable to the whims of global financial markets, which are ultimately controlled by a few wealthy families.
Do you think they pay taxes?
The use of offshore tax havens is another tool these families use to protect and grow their wealth while weakening global financial stability. Through the financial institutions they control, they facilitate the movement of wealth to jurisdictions with low or no taxes, allowing the super-rich to avoid contributing to the public funds that governments need to provide services. This starves governments of revenue and increases their reliance on borrowing from these same financial institutions. At the same time, the elite grow their wealth offshore, out of reach of national tax authorities. The result is a growing divide between the wealth of the elite and the economic realities faced by most people and governments. This offshore finance system allows the families to concentrate their wealth and power while leaving nations increasingly dependent on external financing.
Politics to benefit their interests
The families behind these financial institutions also exert influence through corporate governance. By holding significant ownership stakes in multinational corporations, they have the ability to shape corporate strategies and decisions at the highest levels. Many of these families have representatives on corporate boards. This gives them a direct role in deciding how companies operate and where they invest. By controlling corporations, these families can ensure that industries remain aligned with their financial interests. As companies grow larger and more powerful, they too become reliant on the financial systems controlled by the elite, creating a closed loop of wealth accumulation and corporate control that benefits a select few at the expense of broader economic growth.
The super-rich families (Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Astors, Morgans etc.) behind Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Deutsche Bank maintain control of global finance through an intricate web of influence, ownership, and financial power. They ensure that capital flows in ways that benefit their interests, creating global dependence on their financial institutions. Whether through debt, monopolization, speculation, or offshore finance, these families use their control of financial markets to maintain and grow their wealth. Their influence over government policy and corporate governance further entrenches their power, making it nearly impossible for nations or industries to operate independently. This financial system, controlled by a few wealthy families, ensures that the global economy works for them, keeping much of the world economically dependent and vulnerable to their decisions.
A foretaste
Capitalism can be reshaped without dismantling its core principles. Stakeholder capitalism, for example, broadens the focus from shareholders to a wider range of interests. Companies don’t just work for profit but also for employees, customers, communities, and the environment. Surplus value still plays a role here, but instead of concentrating profits among a few, businesses spread the gains. They reinvest surplus into training workers, improving sustainability, or helping local communities. The challenge is balancing these diverse interests while still keeping businesses profitable.
In employee ownership models, companies give workers a stake in their success. Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) allow workers to own shares and participate in profit distribution. The surplus value that typically goes to shareholders is now shared with the people creating the value. Workers feel more invested in the company’s success, which can improve productivity. However, challenges arise when workers prioritize short-term dividends over long-term growth, potentially undermining the company’s future.
Progressive wealth redistribution
Another approach involves more progressive wealth redistribution. Under this model, the wealth created through capitalism stays in the market but is taxed more progressively. The idea is to ensure that those who generate and control the most surplus value contribute more to public services. This can fund things like healthcare, education, or universal basic income. The complexity lies in keeping wealth redistribution fair while maintaining incentives for innovation and investment.
Impact investing shifts focus from pure financial returns to social and environmental outcomes. Investors look for companies that align with their values, seeking both profit and positive societal impact. Surplus value here is judged not only by financial gains but also by how companies tackle issues like climate change, inequality, or public health. But it’s tough to quantify these impacts, and investors might not always get the financial returns they’re used to.
Integrating a circular economy into capitalism is another way forward. Here, businesses focus on reusing and recycling materials, designing products that last longer. Instead of chasing relentless growth, companies capture surplus value through efficiency. They reinvest these savings into sustainable practices, like reducing waste and energy use. However, adopting a circular model requires upfront investment in new technology and infrastructure, which can be a hard sell for traditional companies.
Universal basic income
A universal basic income (UBI) can also fit within capitalism. In this system, all citizens receive a financial safety net, funded by taxing industries that generate a lot of surplus value, such as tech and finance. UBI ensures that the wealth generated by capital-intensive sectors benefits everyone, not just the few at the top. However, there are challenges in ensuring that UBI doesn’t reduce people’s incentive to work or create inflationary pressures.
Platform cooperativism brings worker ownership to the gig economy. Instead of companies like Uber or Airbnb extracting surplus value from workers, the workers themselves own and manage the platforms. They get a direct share of the profits and a say in how the platform is run. This creates a more equitable distribution of surplus value. However, scaling such cooperatives is difficult. Democratic decision-making slows things down, and they face tough competition from traditional, capital-heavy platforms.
More is not always better
Capitalism could also embrace degrowth principles. This approach rejects the idea that more is always better. Instead, it focuses on producing fewer but higher-quality goods that are sustainable. Surplus value is no longer driven by expansion, but by making production more efficient and environmentally friendly. Companies reinvest their savings into regenerative practices like reforestation or carbon capture. The challenge here is that shrinking certain industries could lead to job losses and slower economic growth, which society must navigate carefully.
These are just a few ways capitalism can be reshaped. By rethinking how we generate and distribute surplus value, it’s possible to create a system that is more inclusive, sustainable, and equitable without abandoning the market-driven dynamics that have fueled innovation and prosperity. Each of these changes introduces its own set of challenges, but they all keep the core elements of capitalism intact while addressing some of its most glaring flaws. Surplus value remains central, but its role and distribution shift in ways that can create a more balanced economic system.
Top minds and alternative for capitalism, you will get run over by a car
The smartest minds create such complex and elaborate theories that even the highly intellectually gifted (IQ 145+) are clueless. For example, the Theory of consumption, Game theory, Efficiency wage theory, Behavioral economics, Contract theory, Mechanism design theory, and New growth theory.
For the record, I am not a socialist or communist. I detest the right-left spectrum those with influence are slipping to us (link).
I get that Americans and the Commonwealth want to be the only ones who have a good educational system (link). So if there are 10 139 (approximately) Americans with an IQ of 160+, there can be huge discoveries (if other countries basically cannot discover anything). Even if it the rare IQ means talent for economics. Nobody serious will tell you that there are no vital alternatives to this kind of capitalism. Even if it means it may be some hybrid with capitalism.
If you are among the top talented, do such studies, not only it not resonate in the heavily politicized (and, of course, academia is equal to politics) universities, but you will be expelled, your research will be marginalized, you will be silenced by media and maybe run by a car.
Leave a Reply