The Promise of Capitalism.

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by vonork
A nice quote from a Swedish ship company on the quastion if they had any thoughts about renting out ships to transport troops to the Gulf.

"We don't mix moral and money"

Ain't that the beuty of Capatalism

Try telling that to those Russian companies who sold radar jammers to Saddam...

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Remorseless
Graedius, again, I salute you for your valiant yet wasted effort to educate some of the true morons on this board.

I appreciate your defense (though, you coulda taken the high road) but I'm not here trying to educate anyone who doesn't want to learn... I want intellectual discussion, which threads like these can be until someone from way out of left field, heavily indoctrinated into sticking this type of rhetoric on his ears and jumping into a thread like a bomb throwing it completely of course.

Originally posted by Antonius Block
Oh well, so Greadius chose to decide Thadlerian was plagiarizing and he didn't feel like responding to the alleged plagiarism. Sounds like a good way to bow out of an argument to me.

I haven't bowed out. I'm still discussing with everyone else that replies.

I want an intellectual exchange, a dialogue. I don't consider posting other people's work back and forth an exchange as much as a competition to find the best rhetoric available on the web that supports your arguement... and I'm certainly not going to waste my time responding to people that won't listen.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Antonius Block
Spoken like a teacher, Knowltok!

Go figure that one.

The response I usually get is extreme guilt and immediate confession. But that is not on the anonymous internet, it is face to face.

I've never had a full confession. I'm still somewhat new at this though. As for the anon. internet, I believe we have discussed before people's reluctance to admit when then were wrong, or when someone has refuted their point. Instead we see more of this: "" Too bad, really.

Oh well, so Greadius chose to decide Thadlerian was plagiarizing and he didn't feel like responding to the alleged plagiarism. Sounds like a good way to bow out of an argument to me.

I disagree. If I were choosing to bow out, I would either have responded to the charges with counter arguements, or responded with follow-up arguements that show that while I might have borrowed some prose, I was capable of sustaining the thoughts I had originally pasted. Depends whether I had actually done the copy-pasting or not.

 

[test_specimen]

Originally posted by Greadius
Its not his arguement. He skipped 3/4 of what I said and instead posted someone elses take about FTZ, which is a red herring tactic to take a macro-economical historical discussion of the economies of the world and turn it into "Look how bad this three mile stretch in Africa is compared to American suburbs" discussion.

"Macro Economical Historical Discussion"? Please explain.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

edit: @ Knowltok- complete agreement.

edit: @Greadius


Allright, so you and I let's debate. I've thought of some major problems of capitalism:

1) It encourages overpopulation. I know you won't want to discuss this because we've exchanged our views of overpopulation before, but the problem I have with captalism is that the desire for more consumers contributes to the same misguided valorization of big families that the Catholic Church among others vigorously promote- more voices praising God, and "as many babies as possible, each of them a Gerber baby".

2) It encourages maldistribution of education and other resources. Let's face it, the best consumer for most products is an undereducated one. The dumber they are, the easier it is for advertisers. Now on the flipside, of course all of the industry demands a very high level of education for those who comprise it. But it doesn't want to bring it to a universal level, part of problem 3...

3) Capitalism, like any -ism, isn't real, but confuses people into thinking it is. The biggest danger there is the absolute emprical success of Capitalism. Again, like the Church before it, it has the potential to swallow up all kinds of thinking about reality, and I do believe that unchecked unreformed Capitalism is leading us to the same kind of Dark Ages that the Church did- denial of critical thinking, inability to move debates outside of the framework, over-rewarding its zealots and over-killing its opponents.

 

[HuckFinn]

(metalhead's "you" is not in reference to me, but I felt a need to respond to this one)

Originally posted by metalhead
I guess this view just boils down to a difference of opinion, but it smacks of self-righteousness. Nobody is guaranteed economic equality. Nobody has an inherent right to wealth or property, and I have a hard time understanding where this viewpoint comes from.

To a degree, it comes from the notion that a lot of people have -- that people have some inherent human rights, such as basic survival when they face very bad times or are unable to care for themselves. The alternative is to let them die.

You say you can't see why someone wants or needs $40 billion - who the hell are you, or anyone else for that matter, to dictate what someone else wants or needs to have? It's not up to a group of people to determine what amount of wealth another group of people should have.

Do you realize you just argued against yourself in that? If that is how you feel, what right do you have to define what others need or should have...

You are also dead wrong about the poor getting poorer. The rich do get richer in the US - but the middle-class and lower-class does as well. The standard of living of ALL people living in the US, with the possible exception of those completely unwilling to improve their standing in life, has continuously risen, and quite substantially I might add, over the past century.

I am sure we can find numbers to counter that notion.

I agree that pure capitalism can lead to some serious ills, such as slavery, and we can't allow for the capitalistic system to run completely roughshod over the working class.

Excellent, full agreement there. My point about democracy holds there, if the people are recognized as sovereign, the people who suffer from capitalism's ills won't -let- the system overrun them, if their number grows big enough. Like it or not, they have the right to vote for better conditions, even by limiting capitalism. Do you not disagree?

But here you have this idea of equality again. Where is it dictated anywhere that people should have economic equality?

Try to decide whether you are talking of pure economic equality or "equality" in general. I get the creeps when a lot of right-wingers constantly use the term "equality" when they claim they REALLY mean, *cough* "economic" equality. Of course, deep down, they just simply believe some people count more than others.

Men should be held equal before the law, but that has nothing to do with equal wealth. Man isn't entitled to anything just for being born.

Wrong... a lot of basic ethics systems in force in the Western world, say, Christianity, disagree with you. Men are entitled to things because they're born, you can't just kill them off at will if they happen to be unproductive or otherwise "undesirable".

See what I mean about getting the creeps about these "people don't have rights to ANYTHING" kind of arguments?

People in capitalistic systems get paid based on their ability and their work ethic, and what they can accomplish. How this is bad is really beyond me.

It would be great if this held. However I don't think that you can get rich in a capitalist system by working, no matter how hard you work. The more money you already have, the more money you will make... that's the trick. And that's not neccessarily good. Actually, the people who make the most money in capitalist systems produce next to nothing - they just sit on their butts and watch money work.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by test_specimen
"Macro Economical Historical Discussion"? Please explain.

Macro- The big picture, taking everything into account.
Economical - of or relating to the production, development, and management of material wealth, as of a country, household, or business.
Historical - Concerned with events in history through the present.
Discussion - The act of discussing or exchanging reasons; examination by argument; debate.

Didn't need me to do that, did you?

Originally posted by HuckFinn
I am sure we can find numbers to counter that notion.

You'd have to make them up, or find someone that did... but, yeah, if you look hard enough you can find just about everything.

Originally posted by HuckFinn
Of course, deep down, they just simply believe some people count more than others.

Conversely, from a governmental perspective... taking a lot of wealth from person A and giving it to person B & C, aren't they showing favoritism (as in counting more) towards B &C?

Originally posted by HuckFinn
Wrong... a lot of basic ethics systems in force in the Western world, say, Christianity, disagree with you. Men are entitled to things because they're born, you can't just kill them off at will if they happen to be unproductive or otherwise "undesirable".

I think he meant material things...

Originally posted by HuckFinn
It would be great if this held. However I don't think that you can get rich in a capitalist system by working, no matter how hard you work.

There are countless people who would disagree with you... you know, people that have done it. Wealth in America is very fluid. You're right in a general sense... that is, the old rock quarry arguement when one man builds a cart and can move more rocks, another drags them one by one. The man with the cart works much less, but is much more efficient. The man who carries them works much harder, but doesn't move as much. Who deserves to be paid more? In America, we reward productivity and not effort.

Originally posted by HuckFinn
The more money you already have, the more money you will make... that's the trick.

Thats actually logic. You double your wealth your starting point will determine your endpoint... its the OPPERTUNITY to double your lot in life that capitalism offers, but will never guarantee. But the money they have didn't just mystically appear in their bank accounts. Most millionaires in America are first generation.

Originally posted by HuckFinn
Actually, the people who make the most money in capitalist systems produce next to nothing - they just sit on their butts and watch money work.

Oh boy, more 18th century mercantilism Marxist myths that some people just WON'T LET GO. They measure work by sweat.

Originally posted by Antonius Block
Allright, so you and I let's debate.

You're a glutton for punishment

Its tough for me to play advocate for the premise and then examine the flaws in the same thread... so for the sake of compensating you, I'll go into premise mode. But if anyone else jumps in on my responses questioning the legitamcy of capitalism I'll ignore them.

Originally posted by Antonius Block
1) It encourages overpopulation. I know you won't want to discuss this because we've exchanged our views of overpopulation before, but the problem I have with captalism is that the desire for more consumers contributes to the same misguided valorization of big families that the Catholic Church among others vigorously promote- more voices praising God, and "as many babies as possible, each of them a Gerber baby".

I don't know if capitalism encourages procreation more than any other system... I think it is much more a cultural thing than economic. For example, one of the earliest economists (and the originator of the economic), Malthus, said that overpopulation was the DOWNFALL of capitalism. Likewise, Mao advocated procreation because he believed it built a healthier, socialist society (and look at the mess in China as a result). In Africa, cultural dominations encourage lots of kids, and on that continent you can find capitalist and socialist policies from nation to nation, with overpopulation a problem in all of them. Contrast that with the most capitalist countries in the world, the wealthy, ones, and we have a very low birth rate.

Originally posted by Antonius Block
2) It encourages maldistribution of education and other resources. Let's face it, the best consumer for most products is an undereducated one. The dumber they are, the easier it is for advertisers. Now on the flipside, of course all of the industry demands a very high level of education for those who comprise it. But it doesn't want to bring it to a universal level, part of problem 3...

Not exactly... the best consumer is one with money. There is a direct correllation between wealth and education... so from the view of the producer (depending on what they make), they want to advertise to people who can afford their products. I think the biggest problem with this is essentially the leech consumers (who are the #1 target of advertisers), i.e. KIDS. Educated parents, relatively wealthy, but their kids are clueless with allowance.

Still, the producers of products don't have enough motivation for collusion (since every product is essentially a niche market) to try and keep public education in the dark. Additionally, the people who run these companies and work at them have kids too, and need an educated work force and co-workers.

You can argue that they have a vested interest in keeping people dumb, but they have a much larger vested interest in public education. Contrary to popular belief, when businessmen who run corporations go home they are, in fact, people.

Originally posted by Antonius Block
3) Capitalism, like any -ism, isn't real, but confuses people into thinking it is. The biggest danger there is the absolute emprical success of Capitalism. Again, like the Church before it, it has the potential to swallow up all kinds of thinking about reality, and I do believe that unchecked unreformed Capitalism is leading us to the same kind of Dark Ages that the Church did- denial of critical thinking, inability to move debates outside of the framework, over-rewarding its zealots and over-killing its opponents.

Capitalism is ill-defined. Its a collection of policies a government ought to adhere to in order to create a prosperous & efficient society. The tenets of capitalism and economics for that matter, isn't dependant on indoctrination... at all. I think your perception of capitalism has Rush Limbaugh and the dittoheads as its major proponent, when in fact, he's just borrowing arguements from Academia.

Now, where I learned it from its treated like a science. There are no rules in economics that are beyond contradiction, healthy debate is encouraged, there are many, many competing theories to explain the different workings of the markets, and there is healthy study of competing ideas. Capitalism 50 years ago was very different than it is today, as Keynesian gave way to Friedman, who is giving way to another generation of economists with different ideas (and Keynes theories are almost completely archiac and discredited). Its one of the reason I get so annoyed when I hear Marx's criticisms of capitalist theory circulate like they're still relevant in todays debate.

Its kind of insulting to me, the years I've spent here studying these things, to hear you say its a close-minded indoctrination that doesn't allow opposition and rewards zealots... that is certainly not the world I live in. There is little consensus amongst economists about many of the innerworkings and issues of it. For example, there is a long run joke I've heard too many times that you get four economists in a room and ask them to explain the velocity of money, you'll end up with six different theories.

Emperical evidence is difficult to come by in Economics, because, obviously, you can't have a control group, and you can't have just one variable. However, there are mountains of evidence that requires a lot of analyzing because there are so many variables and factors working at once. The one thing they've managed to piece consensus together on is that centralized, command economic systems fail to produce growth, and that government spending is an inefficient method compared to private business.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

response point 1- the countries with the shrinkingest populations are the Scandinavian countries with the most socialist infusion and the white Russians who were communists for decades.

response point 2- I think it is an interest in an unbalanced education system... not universally uplifting. I mean, not that there are necessarily people who go home at night and say "yes let's keep the inner cities down" but that there is not sufficient economic interest in universal quality education to make it a reality, and that's cause there are some things (new cars as opposed to slightly used cars, everything on HSN, etc.) that are primarily bought by the less-than-swiftest...

point 3- oh, I am not saying that a person like you is "close minded" but I am saying that the overarching paradigm of capitalism, now largely unopposed (and certainly not opposed by anything that could demonstrably unseat it) runs the same risks to worldwide intellectual progress an overarching Church did in the Middle Ages. Alternatives that might be just around the corner in such a world might stagnate longer than the fuel cell car while people stay satisfied with "what works".

But, I agree with your points in general, and I've always been a fan of your presentation.

 

[HuckFinn]

Originally posted by Greadius
Conversely, from a governmental perspective... taking a lot of wealth from person A and giving it to person B & C, aren't they showing favoritism (as in counting more) towards B &C?

You're making an analogy that talks of (just) money when I was talking of people's lives. You're suggesting that money actually counts in comparison.

I think he meant material things...

Basic material things can be very concrete in implemeting some simple human rights when you think of it. People don't survive on good intentions and holy spirit alone. I was previously already complaining of people first making all-encompassing statements of the type "people are not entitled to anything just by being born" and then backtracking when someone points out how nasty a world they are asking for...

Thats actually logic. You double your wealth your starting point will determine your endpoint... its the OPPERTUNITY to double your lot in life that capitalism offers, but will never guarantee.

Hmm. And after stating that you still claim that differences between the rich and poor do not increase? Or have you claimed that?

But the money they have didn't just mystically appear in their bank accounts. Most millionaires in America are first generation.

But over time they will produce second generation millionaires... do they squander the wealth or what?

Oh boy, more 18th century mercantilism Marxist myths that some people just WON'T LET GO. They measure work by sweat.

Could you please explain to me how exactly does a guy who gets massive gains merely from investment work or produce anything? Yes I know that they're contributing capital, but I do not feel it counts as "work". They are not even working "efficiently" because they are not working at all -- just sitting on their butts in front of the tv watching wrestling all day.

I thought it was supposed to be... the one who doesn't work, doesn't eat

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by HuckFinn
You're making an analogy that talks of (just) money when I was talking of people's lives. You're suggesting that money actually counts in comparison.

That mean you concede my point... anything a government does can be viewed as favoritism?

Originally posted by HuckFinn
Basic material things can be very concrete in implemeting some simple human rights when you think of it. People don't survive on good intentions and holy spirit alone. I was previously already complaining of people first making all-encompassing statements of the type "people are not entitled to anything just by being born" and then backtracking when someone points out how nasty a world they are asking for...

What material things are people inherently entitled to upon being born?

"Freedom of the press does not mean newspapers should be free"

Originally posted by HuckFinn
Hmm. And after stating that you still claim that differences between the rich and poor do not increase? Or have you claimed that?

I'm not sure, actually. Probably the 'poor' are becoming relatively wealthier to where they were previously, and the rich are becoming relatively better off at a faster rate. Since, idealistically, the rich are being paid for something valuable they contributed (economically), not really having a problem with this. I think a lot of it has to do with mathematical and statistical anomalies... mainly things like a 1% rate of inflation causes someone with $100,000's raise to have a lot more zeros than someone with $10,000. Doesn't mean his purchasing power is increasing relative to their starting positions.

Originally posted by HuckFinn
But over time they will produce second generation millionaires... do they squander the wealth or what?

Pretty much. A lot of them spend it before they die (i.e., retire at 50-60 and live like kings). Or the split it between their kids. And of course the estate tax

A millionare is a measure of income, not a measure of wealth.

Even then... so what? I want my kids to be raised as millionaires and provide them with everything they want and need. If I happen to be a millionaire, does it become immoral?

Originally posted by HuckFinn
Could you please explain to me how exactly does a guy who gets massive gains merely from investment work or produce anything? Yes I know that they're contributing capital, but I do not feel it counts as "work". They are not even working "efficiently" because they are not working at all -- just sitting on their butts in front of the tv watching wrestling all day.

Okay... well, there are several ways of looking at this:
1. They somehow to got the money they invested. At some point, somewhere in their life, they got enough of a chunk of change that they can simply live off investments. Returns on investments aren't always (or rarely are) enough to just sit off of, unless you have a HUGE chunk of change out there gathering wealth. If you do, either you, or your parents, or someone that really, really liked you did SOMETHING that was economically valuable enough to gain that kind of compensation, and you're free riding on THEM, not on society.
2. There is a lot more to investing than sitting on your behind. Its tough to find any investor, true investor, that just throws money at random projects.
3. Investing is a risky business. Someone that invested in 2000 is likely going to be looking for a job now, because they don't always pay off. The investor takes the risk, and reaps the reward. That is the exchange. Investing isn't a job, its what everybody with money does so it goes to people who have a better plan for that money than hide it under their mattress. The rewards the system provides to those who, by your definition, do nothing, are designed to provide motivations to take risks in industry; the thing that drives business, drives the economy, and ultimately drives this country.

But, enough of my defending investing: what do you suggest? Any 'excess' wealth possessed by individuals should immediately be seized by the government?

Originally posted by Antonius Block
response point 1- the countries with the shrinkingest populations are the Scandinavian countries with the most socialist infusion and the white Russians who were communists for decades.

Patterns require more than two examples.
I think a part of that is the fact that the scandinavian countries don't allow much immigration compared to other developed nations... a misleading statistic that isn't measuring birthrates, but total population.
Still, do you have anything that says its economics, not culture, that dictate that? You said capitalism needs more consumers, but 'capitalism' doesn't have kids... parents do. Have you ever heard a married couple say "To stay in line with long term growth projections of the company we work for we need to expand the pool of potential consumers; lets have kids!"

Originally posted by Antonius Block
response point 2- I think it is an interest in an unbalanced education system... not universally uplifting. I mean, not that there are necessarily people who go home at night and say "yes let's keep the inner cities down" but that there is not sufficient economic interest in universal quality education to make it a reality, and that's cause there are some things (new cars as opposed to slightly used cars, everything on HSN, etc.) that are primarily bought by the less-than-swiftest...

Okay, but we've never depended on the market to provide education... we rely on voters, and laws, and representatives. The fact is that people want great education for their kids, they just don't want to pay for it. I think there is enough government money spent on education in America, it is just painfully mismanaged... but the educational system is a public system, so I fail to see why telling me how miserable it is critisizes capitalism? People vote for tax cut candidates, and then complain their public schools stink...

Originally posted by Antonius Block
point 3- oh, I am not saying that a person like you is "close minded" but I am saying that the overarching paradigm of capitalism, now largely unopposed (and certainly not opposed by anything that could demonstrably unseat it) runs the same risks to worldwide intellectual progress an overarching Church did in the Middle Ages. Alternatives that might be just around the corner in such a world might stagnate longer than the fuel cell car while people stay satisfied with "what works".

Okay, but that is really a 'potential' critisism. I think they can be defensive, but accepting of better alternatives... the 'great minds' in economics dogma change every few years. I'd be skeptical of any 'alternative' that turned it all on its heads, but claimed to work... as skeptical as I am of any capitalist theory that claims to do the same. Any theory needs to prove itself, and for an alternative, prove itself in practice before it ought to be embraced. I think its fair to expect a middle ground between skepticism and open-mindedness towards new ideas.

And fuel cell cars still aren't economically efficient

 

[HuckFinn]

Originally posted by Greadius
That mean you concede my point... anything a government does can be viewed as favoritism?

If that is how you wish to put it, yes. Government typically favours for example victims of crimes over criminals. People are not entitled to publicly enforced, tax-paid protection of property as a given -- in our "natural state", if you can steal it and keep it, it's yours. However, we have set our standards so that theft is criminal and we pay policepeople to chase down thieves. It's a matter of agreement.

This relates strongly to your second question which was:

What material things are people inherently entitled to upon being born?

This is just as much a matter of agreement.

Fundamentally, there is no difference to the previous case; I will again note that democracy is crucial and that it is the parliament's job to set the standard on this. Personally, I believe there things outside an individual's control -- illness, to take an obvious example -- that he needs protections from, just as he might need police protection from violent crime.

Too bad some elements in our society cry foul only at the other side of the equation in their advocacy of govt non-interference and "morality"...

Even then... so what? I want my kids to be raised as millionaires and provide them with everything they want and need. If I happen to be a millionaire, does it become immoral?

No, it does not make you immoral. Just stating that simply because I see that so much from right-wingers who see bogey men where there are none

1. They somehow to got the money they invested. At some point, somewhere in their life, they got enough of a chunk of change that they can simply live off investments.

Ok, this person made the money himself. It's all good. Still, after reaching this critical mass in wealth, he's not working for the income anymore. My initial argument was about getting there in the first place, though... the tough part. And .. one doesn't get rich by working, because your wage is low enough to maximize gains on someone's capital. Of course, this is about working for pay, being an enterpreneur is a different matter...

There is a lot more to investing than sitting on your behind. Its tough to find any investor, true investor, that just throws money at random projects.

There are people who do that for a living. No need to do it oneself.

Investing is a risky business. Someone that invested in 2000 is likely going to be looking for a job now, because they don't always pay off. The investor takes the risk, and reaps the reward.

Or "nukes" entire companies or sectors of industry in the process, leaves with a golden handshake and whatever he can salvage and leaves the employees dying on the streets... Enron anyone?

But, enough of my defending investing: what do you suggest? Any 'excess' wealth possessed by individuals should immediately be seized by the government?

Bogey man alert...

No, and my intention was not to attack investing itself. The argument was that the big wins are in capital gains, and I do not consider those "earned" in the same way that a person who "works" earns wealth. Confiscation? No thanks... I'd much rather keep on paying the reasonable (but definitely not nonexistant) taxes on my own investment returns when I happen to get some.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by HuckFinn
Personally, I believe there things outside an individual's control -- illness, to take an obvious example -- that he needs protections from, just as he might need police protection from violent crime.

To be fair, most things that happen in our lives were outside our control. Heck, even the fact that we're alive is outside our control.

I respectfully disagree; anything that isn't the fault of the individual does no become the responsibility of government.

Originally posted by HuckFinn
No, it does not make you immoral.

Would you advocate government policies which prevent it?

Originally posted by HuckFinn
My initial argument was about getting there in the first place, though... the tough part. And .. one doesn't get rich by working, because your wage is low enough to maximize gains on someone's capital.

Which, depending on the value of the capital and the skills required for the job, can be a LOT of money. Only because people are paid at the margin doesn't mean the margin is low. Particularly if the job skill is exclusive enough to warrant bargaining power (which is how people get rich working for others)... idle capital causes the maligned investor to lose money, he NEEDS people to operate it. If he's not willing to offer enough to entice people as wages, he'll be the one losing money.

Originally posted by HuckFinn
There are people who do that for a living. No need to do it oneself.

See, investors create high quality, high paying jobs

Its not like they're the only one's benefiting from their wealth.

Originally posted by HuckFinn
Or "nukes" entire companies or sectors of industry in the process, leaves with a golden handshake and whatever he can salvage and leaves the employees dying on the streets... Enron anyone?

Oh, please, enough with the hyperbole. That is the exception, not the rule, is still being resolved, and was the perfect example of a risky investment (because, I'm sure you don't know this, but Enron stockholders, the investors, got screwed).

Show me one former Enron employee 'dying on the street'.

Originally posted by HuckFinn
No, and my intention was not to attack investing itself. The argument was that the big wins are in capital gains, and I do not consider those "earned" in the same way that a person who "works" earns wealth.

'eh, all the cogs that make the machine run are equally as important. Its not the same thing, but its not a bad thing either.

Scrooge McDuck and Montgomery Burns are a myth. The real investors are middle to upper class families and retirement funds.

Originally posted by HuckFinn
Confiscation? No thanks... I'd much rather keep on paying the reasonable (but definitely not nonexistant) taxes on my own investment returns when I happen to get some.

Because nobody knows better to do with your money than the government

'Reasonable' is an ill-defined figure.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Antonius Block
1) It encourages overpopulation. I know you won't want to discuss this because we've exchanged our views of overpopulation before, but the problem I have with captalism is that the desire for more consumers contributes to the same misguided valorization of big families that the Catholic Church among others vigorously promote- more voices praising God, and "as many babies as possible, each of them a Gerber baby".

2) It encourages maldistribution of education and other resources. Let's face it, the best consumer for most products is an undereducated one. The dumber they are, the easier it is for advertisers. Now on the flipside, of course all of the industry demands a very high level of education for those who comprise it. But it doesn't want to bring it to a universal level, part of problem 3...

I don't want to touch #3, but -

1. You're wrong; population growth trends in developing agricultural economies are as a rule always far higher than in countries that have recently experienced capitalist industrial revolutions.

In a capitalist economy, remember that the people who make decisions about reproduction are the reproducers, not ad agencies or financial companies. To the individual "baby producer" in an agricultural or socialist economy, more kids = more laborers or more state income for a family. In a capitalist economy, more kids = more financial burden to one's own consumption.

(This is why most capitalist economies are immigrant-intensive; the only way they can prevent population LOSS is by opening their economies to the movement of people from less capitalist economies into their own. And frankly, this is a socially progressive trend in my view)

Your remark applies much more closely to many state-planned economies - and, in fact, statist governments ranging from the USSR and Nazi Germany right down to the fairly Quebec* are the first to grant "baby bonuses" and other incentives to breed. China is an exception - and, ironically, it should be noted that their rationale for brutally restricting reproduction is their belief that it will help them match the $ per capita of capitalist economies.

2. You're also, again, wrong. This is the assumption taught by a lot of high-school "media studies" teachers and bad ad reps. But in truth - as Ogilvy and Mather proved all too well - the capitalist economy needs smart people to read their ads, smart people to produce new products and markets, and smart people to make enough money to buy it all.

Ask a real company trying to make real money what they would prefer to market to: 1 million dumb uneducated consumers, or 100,000 smart educated and informed consumers. Nine times out of ten, the answer will be the latter, because they will tend to be more comfortable buying, will tend to have higher incomes, will tend to have better defined brand preferences, and will tend to be upwardly mobile, thereby seeking to add to, replace or enhance their existing experience/stuff/possesions, etc.


* I by no means am trying to say that my friends in Quebec are on par with stalinist russia here, but rather just making the case that the more planned an economy, the more likely it is to create incentives for breeding. Since the PQ has just proposed re-instituting the baby bonus to rebuild the Quebec nation, I think it's a fair point.

 

[vonork]

Originally posted by Antonius Block
Try telling that to those Russian companies who sold radar jammers to Saddam...

I belive they followed that vision... Money & Moral don't always mix so let's make some money here & be moral over there.

 

[test_specimen]

No, I did not need you to look this up in a dictionary, greadius. I just wanted to remark that the discussion is more about ethics than about capitalism or even makroeconomics (though it took a turn somewhere).

There are only very few people anyway who argue that there is a better system. But still you cannot just dismiss everything that came before, say Keynes or Friedman just because it is "old" or has been re-thought. A lot of writings were a perfectly good description of the economy at that time. Maybe the wrong steps for change were proposed, but IIRC Marx mostly critizices unbearable working conditions.

The situations in a lot of third world countries today are similar to this industrialization period. This is because western enterprises not only buy work force, but also regulations. By threatening to move into another country, they can enforce almost everything and produce for an absolute minimum. This seems like leftist propaganda, but from a capitalist point of view, they would be stupid if they did not do this. I bet you would take your money out of this company if you found out that it does not produce for the minimum.

And during this shift from an agricultural society, living conditions are worsened by capitalism. While it would be desirable to have a fast industrialization this is off course hindered by foreign companies, since this would mean a rise in wages.

I would not see international companies as "sources for opportunity" or "a better lifestyle" or "choice". Those are not the reasons why they produce in 3rd world countries. They do it for profit. Still that does not make them necessarily the bad guys.

 

[test_specimen]

I don't think that education is something that is reduced by a capitalist system. But still I would rather have it financed by government and protected from political and economic influence than purely for the fittest and richest. A totally free market education system would be too one directional towards profitability.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Antonius Block
3) Capitalism, like any -ism, isn't real, but confuses people into thinking it is. The biggest danger there is the absolute emprical success of Capitalism. Again, like the Church before it, it has the potential to swallow up all kinds of thinking about reality, and I do believe that unchecked unreformed Capitalism is leading us to the same kind of Dark Ages that the Church did- denial of critical thinking, inability to move debates outside of the framework, over-rewarding its zealots and over-killing its opponents.

Isn't it already the case ?

If you're voicing against capitalism, then you're a dumb uneducated cretin that know nothing about economics and that is fed up with left-wing propaganda.

Looks awfully like a religious dogma to me.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Akka

Isn't it already the case ?

If you're voicing against capitalism, then you're a dumb uneducated cretin that know nothing about economics and that is fed up with left-wing propaganda.

Looks awfully like a religious dogma to me.

You don't have to be against capitalism to be fed up with left-wing propaganda.

In serious answer to your question, it would depend upon whether you knew anything about the system you are proposing to replace, and if you are proposing a system that has already been tried and discredited. Propose something new, with a firm understanding of what you want to replace, and your ideas will gain a lot more acceptance. This of course applies to all types of ideas for change.

 

[Plastic]

I guess we can sum this discussion as this:

Capitalism is amoral and produces a gap between the rich and the poor.

But no other known system works as well.


And about the homeless, I attended a lecture given by a researcher who studied the homeless in America by pretending to be homeless and living as a homeless person for months at a time. What his lecturer said is that the vast majority of homeless people chose to be homeless. Most homeless people would rather live a carefree life as a homeless person than work. That is their choice, and I'm not criticizing it. I'm just saying that people who work do not have a responsiblity to give money to these people. They can if they want, and it would make them good people. But they shouldn't be forced to do this.

 

[HuckFinn]

Originally posted by Greadius
I respectfully disagree; anything that isn't the fault of the individual does no become the responsibility of government.

And that's something we need the democracy for so that we can vote on it.

Let us assume you are a rich capitalist pig. Furthermore, let's assume I desire your riches and that my stick is bigger than yours. It is not under your control whether you keep your riches or not.

I see no difference between the two scenarios... yet you say that govt must enforce something that is not automatically a given in that case, but when it comes to creating other norms that are not there by themselves, you say it's not government responsibility.

I am merely trying to show that these are pretty close to choices of conscience, and democracy is a good way to find the middle ground that we can have a society to begin with. After all, society in itself is in no ways given, but we must agree upon having one. We know what a lousy government Anarchy is, do we not.

Would you advocate government policies which prevent it? {transfer of millions to kids}

No. In theory, if I were a pure idealist, it would be interesting to demand that everyone be a self-made man/woman...

Because nobody knows better to do with your money than the government.

'Reasonable' is an ill-defined figure.

Reasonable = enough to balance the budget, after the parliament has decided what it seeks to accomplish with the money.

I'd much rather see the money used for healthcare and education than aircraft carriers that go project themselves up other people's posteriors, causing major annoyance and counter-reactions.

Right-wing propaganda in the US seems to be talking beside the point enough to suggest that the lefties' only goal is to rid people of their money. Over here I vote for people who stand for the maintenance of some fundamental services for the entire population, but otherwise are pretty laissez-faire. I know that the law of the jungle doesn't mandate these "services", but neither does it mandate a lot of other things that are hallmarks of society. In an ultra-capitalist system, our parliament representatives could just go home, they would not be needed at all.

@Plastic -- You're invoking the right-wing nightmare scenario of the poor sitting on their butts and watching wrestling by choice. Try to come here and do that and see how much money you get off society. Doesn't work that way, not even here. If a government is to function at all, it needs a budget, and that means that people are "forced" to part with their cash to some degree.

One of the most disturbing hypocrisies I hear from the right is the one about charity. Why not agree to legislate something if you feel that it is "right"? The answer to me seems to be that it's all talk... besides, I believe in legislating basic, inalienable rights for citizens anyway, because that doesn't leave much room for squirming away. But, that again, is an ethics question, hardly a capitalism question.