An interesting article indeed, by a respectable journalist to whose often engaging and thought-provoking broadcasts I have listened on BBC Radio from time to time; that said, it might be seen by some as somewhat disappointing that you merely link to it rather than open a discussion of it and provide your views on its contents but, since your intention was perhaps to initiate such discussion first before throwing in your own hand, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this.
For all that there is considerable substance in what he writes here, were capitalism in any and all of its forms (from the most to the least corrupt) indeed to be on the way out, I wouldn't hold out much hope for its replacement by anything better or indeed by anything at all; the rise of the information age will not alone provide any salvation either, since the power will come increasingly to lie in the hands of those with the most of it, just as it does today in the hands of those with the most money. "The end" altogether, perhaps...
One of the perennial problems within capitalist practice (I do not say capitalism per se) is the encouragement - sometimes tacit, sometimes overt - to treat everything as "capital". Also, the Thatcher definition of the phenomenon as "how to turn sixpence into a shilling" conveniently omits that the additional sixpence invariably comes at the expense - and to the disadvantage - of someone else; this kind of attitude to capitalism does it few favours, insofar as it seeks, among other things, to promulgate the mindless notion that, if something does not make - or is at least inherently incapable of generating - a profit, it must be no good.
Some of what Mr Mason posits appears to be related to co-operative ideas, yet it would be as well to remember that co-operative movements of various shapes and sizes - for all that they have never repesented more than a very tiny proportion of economies as a whole - have been around for decades and been tried and sometimes found wanting; that said, the envy and power elements have not always been wholly absent even from these - "my co-operative's better than yours" and all that.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is well-nigh ubiquitous and has, in the past century alone, contrived to survive two world wars and many other smaller-scale ones, the Wall Street crash and subsequent depression, numerous economic crises of which the 2008 débâcle was perhaps just one of the more significant, not to mention the wiping off the face of the earth of at least 100m (that's now the equivalent of around 1 in every 70) of its population at the hands of just three dictators - Mao, Stalin and Hitler - as well as of millions more victims of other smaller-scale but no less horrific genocidal actions. Whatever system or none within which we might find ourselves obliged to try to function and in whatever environment we may live at any time in the future, the sheer power and tenacity - I almost wrote "rampancy" - of capitalist thought, desires and practices appears to determine that there will always be humans - I don't say all, by any means, but more than sufficient of them - who will remain determined to continue the practical exploration of capitalist practices )to their own ends and in pursuit of their own agendas), not least the more speculative ones and most especially corrupt ones, irrespective of the nature of the available currency/ies in and with which to do so.
All that said, I cannot help but come away from this piece with a sense that, ultimately, it all adds up to little more than just another of those "the end is nigh" expressions, albeit dressed up in the finery of genuine thought; the wise advice "never Armageddon; he might shoot you" is perhaps worth taking here...
What about it? Is your post intended to indicate that you have nothing to say about it (as you've not said anything in it) or is it supposed to imply something else or that the excalamation following it might be taken to suggest that you consider the notion to be risible, or...?
Last Edit: Jul 22, 2015 16:34:56 GMT -5 by ahinton