I am curious about your thoughts on this passage from the book “Outgrowing Capitalism.”
It reads as follows:
“Worldwide, the most important feature for a fulfilled life is family (32% of respondents), with success far behind in second (12%), and giving at third (8%). What are the barriers? Money was the biggest (44%), followed by time (33%), and work (20%). These are what people believed to be important in general. But in the assessments of their own life fulfillment, the highest scores were linked to people valuing family and spirituality. It’s interesting to note that the lowest life fulfillment scores came from the people who cited success as their main determinant for living a full life.”
What sort of reflections surface for you in reading this?
In the “Great Books, Great Minds” spirit of community, connection, and conversation, let it rip.
I think any substantial discussion in this area necessitates a very specific definition of 'capitalism' (as lots of things are called 'capitalism' that aren't) as well as a definition of 'personal fulfillment' (which may be so subjective as to be nearly impossible to quantify).
If we don't establish from the very beginning what these terms mean, then we might not even be talking about the same thing.
100% agree on the need for definition of capitalism. I’ll revisit the book in a bit for what the author offers. In the meantime, would you mind opening this discussion up by sharing your definition?
I will steal a definition from someone much smarter than me--in this case Elaine Sternberg, who said “Capitalism is an economic system characterised by comprehensive private property, free-market pricing, and the absence of coercion”.
Even that isn't an exhaustive treatment of it, but we can get lost in the weeds later.
Oh, and at the risk of getting head of myself, Sternberg also says: "Critics who denounce capitalism for not achieving positive goals, or for necessarily promoting outcomes they denounce—e.g., greed or acquisitiveness, alienation or inequality.—are thus fundamentally mistaken. The outcomes that ensue from the workings of capitalism are not necessary, and neither are nor could be the choice or responsibility of capitalism as a system. Holding capitalism responsible for them, is as misguided as blaming the thermometer when the patient has a fever."
Oh my, where do I even start?
I think any substantial discussion in this area necessitates a very specific definition of 'capitalism' (as lots of things are called 'capitalism' that aren't) as well as a definition of 'personal fulfillment' (which may be so subjective as to be nearly impossible to quantify).
If we don't establish from the very beginning what these terms mean, then we might not even be talking about the same thing.
100% agree on the need for definition of capitalism. I’ll revisit the book in a bit for what the author offers. In the meantime, would you mind opening this discussion up by sharing your definition?
I will steal a definition from someone much smarter than me--in this case Elaine Sternberg, who said “Capitalism is an economic system characterised by comprehensive private property, free-market pricing, and the absence of coercion”.
Even that isn't an exhaustive treatment of it, but we can get lost in the weeds later.
Oh, and at the risk of getting head of myself, Sternberg also says: "Critics who denounce capitalism for not achieving positive goals, or for necessarily promoting outcomes they denounce—e.g., greed or acquisitiveness, alienation or inequality.—are thus fundamentally mistaken. The outcomes that ensue from the workings of capitalism are not necessary, and neither are nor could be the choice or responsibility of capitalism as a system. Holding capitalism responsible for them, is as misguided as blaming the thermometer when the patient has a fever."