Economic and Social Implementations for the Post Adam Smith World 

- Engineering solutions for positive results on the other side of coming social and economic changes -
by Richard Pearlman

Capitalism is not a way of life, rather a system of transactions and tracking results

Most people think of capitalism as a societal structure: This is impossible since capitalism lacks intrinsic rules, laws, or punishments required by all societal structures. Although capitalism keeps one punishment: poverty mixed with debt.

Adam Smith, whose work is mostly very accurate even about our modern economy, would agree with my definition of capitalism as a correct path/projection for what he wanted: to have the middle-class in control. His period of time never observed any social system not based on feudalism. In his time he observed the transitioning from agriculture to the industrial revolution. I think Smith deserves more credit for his observations as they were of a very primary and early form of capitalism, yet his observations still are mostly true today.

Two societal structures exist: ones with the laws and physical punishments integrated within the religion creating a way-of-life, such as Islam, and those running laws and punishments along side the religion, such as Christianity

Around the world, many variations, both local and area-wide, echo the two basic ways societies regulate themselves. Capitalism doesn't care what system underlies its transactions. Choose from feudalism, socialism, fascism, monarchy, tribalism, oligarchy, and even industrial communism. Take your pick remembering your society needs disposable savings to be capitalist. 

Note two forms of non-capitalist societies exist: those using central economic control to break the cycle of poverty and those using central control to avoid becoming capitalist or democratic.

The idea of competition to regulate prices is not a capitalistic concept. Who wins or loses is not capitalistic concern, only if the entrepreneur has enough capital to start and enough skills to successfully build "something". This "something" is not a concern of capitalism.  If an entrepreneur succeeds capitalism does not define nor create rewards. On the other hand, it punishes failure in a personal and harsh manner: poverty. In other words, capitalism never makes value judgements, even for such vital issues as water usage or climate change. Capitalism has no emotions or feelings, Just transactions and measuring. Everything about how capitalistic activity is punished or rewarded is due to an actual societal system/structure which formulates the laws of the land.

Entrepreneurs and capitalism are not really friendly to feudalism which hates individual initiative as well as a monetary transaction system. Religion supported the agrarian feudalism until the Protestant Revolution starting the idea of individuals being responsible for themselves. The individualism of Protestant religions made the industrial revolution possible in a hostile feudal atmosphere.

Again, capitalism can work with several structures very easily: Feudalism, socialism, fascism, royal, oligarchy as well as other small systems. Whatever structure you choose, the conduct of capitalism is regulated by the state, not the bankers. The most blatant example of government controlling the capitalistic transactions are the British Corn Laws (think mid 1800's and Prince Albert) restricting the import of food to Brittan thus preserving the inefficient farming methods of the big feudal estates. During this time many people in the cities starved to death, proving capitalism makes no moral judgements while societies do.

One of the great propagandized beliefs prevalent in America is we are getting away from capitalism and need to get back to capitalism. We actually have never gone anywhere from capitalism, only the propaganda of the feudal lords makes us think in the strange idea of capitalism as a societal solution, which, in reality, has no meaning. Currently we are still using feudalism as the base capitalism rides upon.

Knowing this, the issue is which societal system at this point in time, best does two things: 1. maximizes ROI for societal needs and 2. allows the middle-class to define economics.

The middle-class could not take command until enough middle-class people, mostly intellectuals, were educated and trained to run society. Today the middle-class is just starting to be strong enough to change from a top-down limited ownership (feudal) model to middle-class control. The only thing Socialism challenges is Feudalism. No wonder so much bad press is given socialism by the feudal lords power.
I want to point out the difference between "capitalism" and "economics". "Capitalism" is a very "pure" concept, while "economics" adds in all the emotions, political ambitions, wealth levels, integration of normal changes, and everyone's bad guess at economics to a muddling, misguided political attempt to sustain the status quo for the wealthy. Most attempts at economic theory do so under a concept called by Richard Thaler, the behavior economics guy: "as if everything was perfect...this theory would work". I'm an engineer needing ways that work for real people, who certainly deserve a decent amount of pride. If that is misbehaving, then I'm misbehaving.
Being too close to the problem prevents seeing the real underlying philosophies and solutions. At this point in time, tinkering with the current situation will not be a solution. Of course, if you are too close you may think you are having an "as if..." moment.     -Richard