Along with millions of other bananas that got eaten. You're arguing against economies of scale here, and you'll need to show your work rather than dismissing long-distance trade as "madness".
Environment, living and working conditions, resources and materials being taken from non-renewables sources, all of those are unimportant under capitalism, all of those are unimportant with capitalism and are the reason why no one asks themselves whether it's really worth shipping fruits from the other side of the world. Sometimes even by plane.
Doing stuff causes other stuff to happen. People die in car accidents, but a lot of death is prevented because we have cars, but then people also die because of pollution or get depressed because of noise pollution, and it keeps goin from there. It's hard. Let's be empathetic with each other, and good, and also think a lot about what is going on.
Price systems work by simplifying and transmitting information relevant to production and consumption decisions. If the price goes up, consumers who can go without the thing can stop buying it and producers who can make more of the thing can start making it, and they each have the incentive to do so.
When it comes to externalities with the environment, these can be incorporated into the price system. That’s how a carbon tax would work. It turns out that the intuitions of would-be central planners are often completely wrong.
The truth is, lots of people do ask themselves if it’s really worth it to ship bananas from Latin America to Europe. They work for the fruit company and their decision is based on the costs and benefits. If there are costs that they aren’t considering, then the solution is to incorporate those costs into the price system, not to have some banana commissar decree that oceanic banana shipping is banned because, in his enlightened gut feeling, it’s “absurd”.
> The problem isn’t capitalism; it’s the imperfection of humanity. No economic system in history has eliminated waste.
The fact that no economic system yet implemented at scale has eliminated waste does not necessarily imply that waste is unavoidable; we'd need to convincingly show that no such economic system could be possible. Similarly, I don't believe we can conclude that capitalism minimizes waste among all feasible, stable economic systems.
As far as balancing exploration and exploitation goes, it might be argued that we should focus on reaping the benefits of our current economic system and deprioritize the exploration new economic systems, but it's too much at this point (imo) to assert that exploration is futile.
My other thoughts:
• "Capitalism or central planning" is a false dichotomy; there are economic systems besides capitalism that have free markets.
• The goal of capital holders in a capitalist system is not efficiency (in the colloquial sense), but profit – planned obsolescence is perhaps the perfect example of this.
• I agree with you that central planners can be catastrophically wrong, and my current opinion is that incorporating externalities into the pricing system (through taxes) is a good idea. It can be difficult to correctly identify, distinguish, and price externalities; I wonder if a benefit of more local economic systems is that there are fewer externalities (by which I mean, actors experience more of the effects that they cause and impose fewer incidental effects on third parties), which would reduce the number of things we need to manually identify and correct.
This myth has been proven wtong again and again. It assumes that everything is available through a market; if my city doesn't have good cycling infrastructure, where do I put money so it improves ? Where do I find a more efficient justice system and how is its price ?
It assumes that all decisions are taken rationally based on a thorough analysis of the situation. The mere existence (and efficiency) of advertising, and the luxury sector, show that a not insignificant part of decisions are not taken based on self-interest.
It assumes that everyone has enough money to "vote with their wallet". I don't need to tell you how out of touch this assumption is when there is a whole class of people considered poor, aka not able to buy whatever they want/need.
> When it comes to externalities with the environment, these can be incorporated into the price system.
If you take into account how much a system like planet Earth provides and give it a realistic cost you realize it doesn't work. Take the ISS: it's cost around 100 billion dollars and provides the bare minimum for ~10 persons. That means that planet Earth costs at a minimum 10 billion dollars per capita, and that's far from covering it all.
The only thing you can do is have a central system that puts limits on capitalism, by introducing taxes and such. Which exactly means it's not able to handle everything.
> not to have some banana commissar decree that oceanic banana shipping is banned because, in his enlightened gut feeling, it’s “absurd”.
I hope the arguments people are giving are not making you believe that the only alternative is a central authority acting on feelings. That would be a complete misconstruction of the opposing POV.
Or eating locally grown stuff that doesn't need to be shipped form the other side of the planet, but when you say that people think you're the mad man... I'm telling you, the whole system is mad, you're just too deep into it to realize, the dissonance would be too strong
Economies of scale means individual suffering turns into statistical noise.
What I can say is that on a more local scale, the non-capitalist systems I've had experience with have been much more pleasant than the ones where a small set of people held most of the power over production.
For example, the government sector makes up a third of New Zealand GDP. https://www.statista.com/statistics/436523/ratio-of-governme...
Also if you look at how you “spend” your own time you might find that a lot of it is not on purely capitalist hours, but instead time is spent on hobbies, sports, children, friends, family and other pursuits that would be regarded as non-capitalist.
Edit: I would be regarded as a capitalist within New Zealand (I am a successful founder, I don’t much believe in agricultural/industry subsidies), but I would be regarded as on-the-left in the US (I’m generally supportive of government health systems and social equality).
