The Church of Capitalism.

[Mojotronica]

Basically a utopic idealogy based on the notion that free-market forces will act to better humankind's lot in the long run. It goes beyond the idea that Capitalism is better -- it preaches that our only path to salvation is to unleash the full power of free-market forces by lifting any gov't subsidy, removing every tariff and privatizing every industry.

Suffering, it speculates, is the consequence of a free-market not yet fully realized.

I am a free-market capitalist, to the extent that I oppose tariffs and subsidies and I think that where it is feasible industries SHOULD be privatized. I don't think that such policies will ultimately eliminate human suffering however. The social safety net of some gov't programs may even benefit a purer version of free-market capitalism, by breaking up monopolies that have truly cornered the market, and providing incentive to take risks, and providing the education and security to allow the market to florish.

Whenever anti-regulation legislation comes into focus I try to think if this bill is going to undermine the core gov't protection that keeps the free market, well, free. I believe that SOME programs, that on their face smack of collectivism, actually benefit human freedom more than a pure "free market" would.

 

[thestonesfan]

It's the only sustainable system that doesn't rely on tyranny and oppression, but of course it wouldn't eliminate human suffering.

As for trust-busting and the 'safety-net', I see those as not only unnecessary, but damaging.

 

[Mojotronica]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
It's the only sustainable system that doesn't rely on tyranny and oppression, but of course it wouldn't eliminate human suffering.

As for trust-busting and the 'safety-net', I see those as not only unnecessary, but damaging.

I don't doubt that you have the best interests of the nation and humanity in general in mind, TSF, but I am more cautious about trusting in the system of Capitalism without some social safeguards. That may be counter-productive in the long run, but I think that they alleviate some of the dog-eat-dog brutality of a purely capitalist system.

Plus some of our most respected institutions -- particularly the military -- are collectivist in nature... I think that some organizations should be guided more by principle than by profits, and that is the antithesis of a pure capitalist idealogy.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
It's the only sustainable system that doesn't rely on tyranny and oppression, but of course it wouldn't eliminate human suffering.

Actually, what you're saying is quite untrue. China proves every day an economy can be hardline capitalist without any democratic institutions. Even worst, the Chinese model of society is about capitalism without individualism. My bf has been several times in China (he's fluent in mandarin chinese), what amazed him was how chinese people were working more for their country than for themselves ! Actually, Chinese capîtalism is quite a mix between Maoism and the US philosophy of capitalism and taxation. As a result, it's creating the most hardline capitalism ever.

It's not the first time that a tyrannical and oppressive system is using capitalism to devellop itself. Countries like Malaysia, Tunisia or even a bit 2nd Reich's Germany were (or are) no democracies at all and still capitalists. Actually, those model have been proven to be very efficient economically speaking.

Capitalism has never meant democracy... however, we've never seen any democracy that wasn't using a capitalist system.

 

[thestonesfan]

I don't see how you can have capitalism without individualism. If you work for the good of others, that's collectivism.

Total democracy can create or destroy capitalism at the whim of the majority. The Founding Fathers knew this, hence our Republic and our system of checks and balances.

 

[Amenhotep7]

As thestonesfan said, Capitalism is the most sustainable and free system. Privatization can be great, as long as the government never privatizes from the rest of soiety. Those who have read Max Barry's "Jennifer Government" will know what I'm talking about. Personally, I believe that Capitalism in the long run will sustain itself moreso than a Socialism.

 

[gael]

Capitalism is great, but a government should support education that allows everyone from every level of society to rise up to the standards to get a piece of the pie.

For those who aren't capable due to circumstances or ability, the government should provide free health care to look after those who are short on cash.

A government that has a utopian idealogy based on freedom and individuallity should take everyone into account, not just those who can afford it.

 

[Little Raven]

Originally posted by Mojotronica
Basically a utopic idealogy based on the notion that free-market forces will act to better humankind's lot in the long run. It goes beyond the idea that Capitalism is better -- it preaches that our only path to salvation is to unleash the full power of free-market forces by lifting any gov't subsidy, removing every tariff and privatizing every industry.

And like every other philosophy that argues that there is one simple solution to all of our problems, it is completely wrong.

The free market is a useful tool for society. It is an extremely efficient way to distribute non-essential resources, and is largely self-correcting. However, not surprisingly, it only works when both the buyer and the seller are free. For this reason, the market fails miserably at providing essential services. When the buyer is not free to turn down a product because that product is essential to life, the free market fails, because the producer has every incentive to abuse his position and no reason not to.

Because the free market it so very good at what it does best, it can be tempting to think of it as a kind of cure-all. But a free market only works in a relatively narrow set of circumstances; outside of those, it produces disastrous results. The free market should definitely be used whenever practical, but only with a keen understanding of its limitations.

 

[Archbob]

No, Modern day Chinese people of the current and upcoming generations are mainly working for themselves and their family.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Little Raven
And like every other philosophy that argues that there is one simple solution to all of our problems, it is completely wrong.

A purely capitalist system is hardly a simple solution.

The free market is a useful tool for society. It is an extremely efficient way to distribute non-essential resources, and is largely self-correcting. However, not surprisingly, it only works when both the buyer and the seller are free. For this reason, the market fails miserably at providing essential services. When the buyer is not free to turn down a product because that product is essential to life, the free market fails, because the producer has every incentive to abuse his position and no reason not to.

Food is essential to life. The government doesn't provide that. What other essentials are you talking about? Water? You can buy water at a store if you want to, and you still have to pay to get it from the government. Housing? I don't know of one place around here that I could get free housing from the government. A postal service? You can't tell me that wouldn't be better run by someone with a profit motive.

There are three services the government is there to provide for us: Police, Military, and a Court System. Things that protect our individual rights.

Because the free market it so very good at what it does best, it can be tempting to think of it as a kind of cure-all. But a free market only works in a relatively narrow set of circumstances; outside of those, it produces disastrous results. The free market should definitely be used whenever practical, but only with a keen understanding of its limitations.

And what are it's limitations? What are the disastrous results you are afraid of? Sweatshops? Bad working conditions? These things exist in areas where there is little wealth to speak of because of centuries of poverty. Capitalism doesn't create poverty, it inherits it. Do you think that if the United States repealed all of it's minimum wage, child labor, and workplace safety laws, that in the next year we would have 5 year olds making Nikes in an dirty factory with no air conditioning? Of course that wouldn't happen.

These things don't exist in the United States. Is it because of government regulation, or the fact that they just plain don't need to exist?

 

[newfangle]

Tis the ONLY morally correct system.
Tis the ONLY sustainable system.
Tis the ONLY system that allows man to live in accordance with his nature.
Tis the ONLY system that bars the use of physical force in society.


Tis a no-brainer, eh?

 

[cgannon64]

Considering I don't beleive laissez-faire capitalism will even improve the modern world, I doubt it will create a utopia.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by cgannon64
Considering I don't beleive laissez-faire capitalism will even improve the modern world, I doubt it will create a utopia.

Did 19th Century America improve the world? I'd give that a resounding yes.

That's the closest this earth has come to laissez-faire.

 

[Hayek]

Originally posted by newfangle
Tis the ONLY morally correct system.
Tis the ONLY sustainable system.
Tis the ONLY system that allows man to live in accordance with his nature.
Tis the ONLY system that bars the use of physical force in society.

Yeah, that's about what I think as well. I'm more of a Milton Friedman-style libertarian, though. Which means I favour a minimal safety-net for the poorest. Basically, I think vouchers for schools (and possibly healthcare) are needed along with a negative income tax for the poorest. I'm a wee bit immoral, I know.

I believe poverty is only a temporary condition in man's strive upwards and that capitalism is best suited to eliminate poverty (except proportional poverty, of course). When that happens, all safety-nets can be scrapped.

 

[gael]

Capitialism in americia, from someone looking from the outside, does look like its extreme, but when i lived there I had no problems finding a job and always had money in my pocket.

I remember thinking too when i was there that if i had a good idea or education in this country i could make it happen. It seemed easier, not just in laws or politics, but in peoples attitudes.
But i was young and niave then, it was just a simple observation.

What i'm basically saying is, if you are skilled in this country you can make a living, but if you are skilled in the US, and you have your head screwed on, you can really live well.
Its just raising money to get into college though that sort of made me feel that you need money to make money.

 

[Little Raven]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Food is essential to life. The government doesn't provide that.

Says a man obviously unfamiliar with US agricultural subsidies. The US government is extremely involved in food production. Just because the farms are not government owned does not mean that the free market is working. Heck, the agricultural market is one of the least free markets on the planet. And we have every intention of keeping it that way. Look at the recent CAFTA talks if you want proof of that.

What other essentials are you talking about?

Power comes to mind. Look what happened to California when they decided to turn their power over to private companies. The companies colluded to manufacture shortages, which in turn drove the price up. Now, what they did was illegal, but since collusion is all but impossible to prove, why should any provider of an essential service not do the same? The payoff is enormous, and the risks are minimal.

Health care is another good example. Drug costs rise 20-30% a year, and you know what? They're going to keep going up. Why should a drug company charge less for its product when it knows that people have to have that product or they die? What are people going to do, just go without the drugs? The free market teaches that Pfizer should charge whatever the customer can pay, since the customer has no choice but to pay the price or die. Why should Pfizer charge less than everything a particular man owns? It’s not like the man has a choice about paying.

Even overlooking the inhumanity of this approach, it isn't efficient, and society as a whole suffers when this type of system is allowed to continue.

There are three services the government is there to provide for us: Police, Military, and a Court System. Things that protect our individual rights.

But where actually falls under those categories? For instance, you mention the post office as an example of government inefficiency. But if you actually knew anything about the postal service, you'd know that part of their charter is insuring that military personnel can always send and receive mail, no matter where they are. If we turned the mail service over to private companies, they may decide that sending mail to Iraq is not profitable, so they won't do it anymore. Now our soldiers can't get mail, and our military suffers as a result. Or, more probably, various private mail companies collude and say that they will deliver mail to Iraq, but only at insanely high profit margins, supposedly justified by the security situation. Now our Federal government finds itself in the same bind as the California government did via energy. It can either bankrupt itself paying the insane costs or it can allow its military personnel to go without mail, compromising their effectiveness.

How do we safeguard against these scenarios? We maintain a postal service under Federal control. It's called the Post Office.

And what are it's limitations? What are the disastrous results you are afraid of?

Its limitations are that it only works when both the buyer and seller are free. That means that seller has to have the choice of selling his product or holding onto it, and the buyer has to have the choice of buying the product or living without it. When the buyer does not have that choice, when he needs to product simply to exist, the free market breaks down, because there is no reason for the seller not to engage in behavior that leads to an inefficient distribution of resources. (ultimately creating social unrest)

 

[Speedo]

Greed drives capitalism; this we know. Some of you even see greed as a virtue. We also know that the greedy man will never be satisfied, he will always want more. This is both good and bad.
We know that "bigwigs" have no problem with screwing over their workers to line their own pockets more: employees are given measly wages while CEOs making millions get raises; a small airline is boughts out by a larger one, all of the pilots laid off and told to sue if they want the severence packages they are due (this happened to my uncle last fall, but they did have the union behind them to sue); etc.

Now, you oppose their being no limitations to that. You assume that basic principle of capitalism will not hold true; that greedy men will be satisfied because the market is doing fine. People, when the greedy big guys see that they cut pay, working conditions, or whatever to get more profit, and there's absolutely no limits on them, nothing stopping them at all, they'll do it.

If you think otherwise, then you should believe that communism will work to... after all, who would take power for themselves when everyone can be equal?

 

[cgannon64]

Just wondering, Little Raven, what are your political beliefs? Communism? Socialism? Capitalism with some government invervention?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
It's not the first time that a tyrannical and oppressive system is using capitalism to devellop itself. Countries like Malaysia, Tunisia or even a bit 2nd Reich's Germany were (or are) no democracies at all and still capitalists.

I object to that, being Malaysian. Malaysia is pretty much a democracy, and has been since independence. I have my vote and all the works. Just that the same moderate coalition has always held power since independence - the main alternative today being the Islamist fundamentalist party. Not much of a choice there...

 

[Perfection]

Capitalism works, but there must be standards in place to prevent the creation of anti-competitive practices. The control of an important good or service by a single company is often problomatic.