Capitalism should promote competition, competition should be rewarded in the form of private property and market participants should be subject to as few controls as possible, so that in the end the system remains in balance for the benefit of all. So much for the simplified theory. In practice, the picture is often quite different.

Although there are many different forms of capitalism, such as the social market economy, neo-liberalism and state capitalism, to name but a few, they all share the basic idea of competition. Now competition is a euphemism for struggle and conflict, in the worst case by any means. If there is no suitable regulatory framework for unlimited competition, the consequences can be as unpleasant as desired for the losers of the capitalist system.

The losers are all those who were unable or unwilling to withstand the competitive pressure or were forced out of the market by unfair means. Because of the principle of competitiveness in any form of capitalism, a loser does not necessarily have to be bad; he is only, in some cases gradually, worse than the best. Bester also does not imply the height of the level. It is merely a comparative parameter that can be used as a basis for evaluating current human development. So a low level is possible despite competition.

Now, any system devised by man for man should only serve the great mass of people involved in this system. In this way, capitalism also increases the prosperity of many and promotes the equality of individuals. Provided that conflicts are always conducted in a fair and balanced manner, this basic principle would not be subject to much criticism. However, high competitive pressure in particular brings with it the temptation to reduce this pressure in its own interests as a dominant market player, often using disreputable means and methods.

Cartels, oligopolies and even monopolies, corruption, exploitation of nature and the weak, ruthlessness and even criminality can be the consequences of rampant capitalism. Without any controlling measures taken outside the capitalist system, this path of competition always leads to unequal distribution, exploitation and oppression of the weaker members of society.

The economic form of capitalism must be rethought from the ground up so that the few do not rule over the many, but so that everyone can live together in fair coexistence and at the same time increase prosperity for all.

In many practical fields of research, the focus is not on stability, safety and foresight, but on feasibility, hoped-for future opportunities and financial viability.

This applies in particular, but not only, to the paradigms of program development. However, these can be taken pars pro toto

• Security? Too expensive and time-consuming!
• Stability? The customer / user informs us if something is not working!
• Future-proof? In times when only the new counts, the old can no longer be supported
• New functions? Of course. As fast as the Internet lines transmit the data.

Decisions on the global implementation or introduction of new technologies/research findings are not madeon the basis of risk-conservative standards of systemic equilibrium, but on the basis of the pursuit of short-term advantage.

The list of disasters is not limited to those triggers that underlie the above principle, but also includes those that do.

Financial feasibility and actual feasibility are sometimes mutually exclusive. More on this later in this blog.