Why shouldn't the US intervene in Syria?

[DemonicAppleGuY]

My beef with what the US does and is doing in Syria is based on what it does for one class over the others. My problem is the SYSTEM that creates and perpetuates false divisions in our society -- because workers in US, UK & al have far more in common with Syrian workers than we do with members of our own gov't. I think that both US and Russia's motives are dubious, however, the US' rhetoric and action put it on the moral LOW ground.

Divisions are rarely artificial or false. We're Americans. They're Syrians. That's just how it goes man. Whether or not YOU believe these divisions should exist is completely irrelevant. They clearly do.

Who are you to define the "moral low ground" as well?

 

[Traitorfish]

Something or other about efficiency and having the total wealth be increased far more quickly than any other economic system.

Many avowed "capitalists" are hopeless fantasists, yes, but most are more reasonable than you allow.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Many avowed "capitalists" are hopeless fantasists, yes, but most are more reasonable than you allow.

I was being semi-serious. As a capitalist, I believe that statement to be true to a certain extent.

I couldn't think of a good way to phrase it that wouldn't sound a little cold though to the poor so what I did say may have appeared to mock capitalism.

Let's try something though.

Capitalism ensures that resources are distributed to people based on their contribution to the creation of those resources. This results in an efficiency greatly increasing the total wealth of a society that can at times create wealth inequalities but these inequalities often are matter not because everyone is still better off.

Something like that maybe.


This thread's about Syria anyways.

 

[Borachio]

Something or other about efficiency and having the total wealth be increased far more quickly than any other economic system.

Yes. I can understand that.

It's just this nomenclature of capitalist philosophy that's getting to me.

It doesn't seem to chime with what I see on the ground, as it were.

Capitalism, it seems to me, is a thing that's grown out of a long history of actions by individuals.

Who are these capitalist philosophers? Does it mean everyone who isn't a Marxist, for example?

And yet strangely the only well-known work that I can think of that features Kapital in its title was by Marx. Does this mean that Marx was a capitalist philosopher?

Or is a capitalist philosopher merely a Western liberal economist? But then no two of those agree so is it meaningful to talk about them as capitalist philosophers?

Or is Castro simply talking about the "bourgeois philosophers" who inhabit the Western world, in general?

Or is a capitalist philosopher someone who upholds the virtue of the market as the epitome of human endeavour (at a rough guess)? But I don't think any one does that. Or do they? Ayn Rand, maybe? But she's just some random nutter and hardly an important thinker on the subject (or do I betray my prejudices?).

Or is it someone of the likes of Milton Friedman? (And even he seems to think he made some kind of mistake.)

I don't know.

I'm rather intrigued by what he can mean.

edit: but anyway, the thread's about Syria.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

The "capitalist philosopher" you're looking for is Adam Smith my friend.

The Wealth of Nations was his hit title.

Many western economists likely could be considered "philosophers of capitalism" as well I suppose.

But the monolithic figure would be Adam Smith I'd say.

 

[Traitorfish]

I was being semi-serious. As a capitalist, I believe that statement to be true to a certain extent.

I couldn't think of a good way to phrase it that wouldn't sound a little cold though to the poor so what I did say may have appeared to mock capitalism.

Let's try something though.

Capitalism ensures that resources are distributed to people based on their contribution to the creation of those resources. This results in an efficiency greatly increasing the total wealth of a society that can at times create wealth inequalities but these inequalities often are matter not because everyone is still better off.

Something like that maybe.

Aspirational statements do not constitute a philosophy.

The "capitalist philosopher" you're looking for is Adam Smith my friend.

The Wealth of Nations was his hit title.

Many western economists likely could be considered "philosophers of capitalism" as well I suppose.

But the monolithic figure would be Adam Smith I'd say.

Adam Smith nowhere gives evidence of being acquainted with the concept of "capitalism", by that name or any other, which by all accounts was developed decades after his death. His work is strongly anti-historicist, and he sees himself not as describing a particular economic or social system, but the universal laws of human economic activity.

 

[Borachio]

Yes, Mr Guy, but he's described as an economist and moral philosopher. So I don't feel any more enlightened.

And I really wouldn't have thought anyone, including Castro, would still consider him a relevant authority on contemporary issues. Rather, an historical curiousity.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Aspirational statements do not constitute a philosophy.

One last try then.

Capitalists believe that economic actors should have freedom to do with capital as they wish. They believe this results in the most efficient allocation of resources.

That good?

Adam Smith nowhere gives evidence of being acquainted with the concept of "capitalism", by that name or any other, which by all accounts was developed decades after his death. His work is strongly anti-historicist, and he sees himself not as describing a particular economic or social system, but the universal laws of human economic activity.

"All accounts" is a strong phrase. The US is a notable exception I think. While an underdeveloped economy yes, a capitalist society nonetheless even in the early days.

From my understanding, he saw himself as describing the laws of human economic activity in a society with free and open markets (or a capitalist society as we often call it now). Markets were often far from free and open when he wrote The Wealth of Nations.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

One last try then.

Capitalists believe that economic actors should have freedom to do with capital as they wish. They believe this results in the most efficient allocation of resources.

That good?

However philosophical that is, why is it a Chamber thread on Syria? I only brought up the Castro quote because he was discussing the UN and its needed role in the world - i.e., that it's not US versus Syria...

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, Mr Guy, but he's described as an economist and moral philosopher. So I don't feel any more enlightened.

And I really wouldn't have thought anyone, including Castro, would still consider him a relevant authority on contemporary issues. Rather, an historical curiousity.

Most most people who appeal to Smith don't actually seem to know anything about him beyond his support for "free markets", which isn't even entirely true. (He says tariffs are bad, for example, but also argues in favour of retaliatory tariffs.) You really get the impression that the New Right felt they needed some theoretical figurehead to oppose against the Marxes and Keyneses of the left, but found that all more recent economists of sufficient stature were too foreign or Jewish or otherwise ineligible.

One last try then.

Capitalists believe that economic actors should have freedom to do with capital as they wish. They believe this results in the most efficient allocation of resources.

That good?

No, it's blatant nonsense. Almost all "capitalists" do and have always support some restrictions on economic activity, if only to contain negative externalities, and most argue that in at least some cases, maximum freedom is not productive of maximum efficiency.

"All accounts" is a strong phrase. The US is a notable exception I think. While an underdeveloped economy yes, a capitalist society nonetheless even in the early days.

Not capitalism, the concept of capitalism. Smith was under no impression that what we described represented an historically unprecedented form of human social organisation, even if he was aware that it was achieving an unprecedented level of economic complexity.

From my understanding, he saw himself as describing the laws of human economic activity in a society with free and open markets (or a capitalist society as we often call it now). Markets were often far from free and open when he wrote The Wealth of Nations.

Is there a difference? Smith did not believe that the laws he described only manifested themselves in the late 18th century, or that state interference in the economy was actually capable of suspending them.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Video related, Based Assad has a catchy song


Link to video.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Most most people who appeal to Smith don't actually seem to know anything about him beyond his support for "free markets", which isn't even entirely true. (He says tariffs are bad, for example, but also argues in favour of retaliatory tariffs.)

Well, he supported free markets but he was also realistic. That's how I reconcile that.

You really get the impression that the New Right felt they needed some theoretical figurehead to oppose against the Marxes and Keyneses of the left, but found that all more recent economists of sufficient stature were too foreign or Jewish or otherwise ineligible.

Hayek? Maybe he came a little late I guess. I don't know. Also, don't be associating my man Keynes with Marx now b:

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

However philosophical that is, why is it a Chamber thread on Syria? I only brought up the Castro quote because he was discussing the UN and its needed role in the world - i.e., that it's not US versus Syria...

With the number of threads we have about Syria I guess it wouldn't be too bad if one or two got hijacked.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

With the number of threads we have about Syria I guess it wouldn't be too bad if one or two got hijacked.

Yeah, but this is Tha Chamber. Tavern threads are born and bred for hijacking.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, he supported free markets but he was also realistic. That's how I reconcile that.

Pragmatic ignorance is still ignorance.

Hayek? Maybe he came a little late I guess. I don't know.

Too foreign and too Catholic.

 

[Alassius]

Too foreign and too Catholic.

And too left-wing, probably.

 

[Borachio]

One last try then.

Capitalists believe that economic actors should have freedom to do with capital as they wish. They believe this results in the most efficient allocation of resources.

That good?



"All accounts" is a strong phrase. The US is a notable exception I think. While an underdeveloped economy yes, a capitalist society nonetheless even in the early days.

From my understanding, he saw himself as describing the laws of human economic activity in a society with free and open markets (or a capitalist society as we often call it now). Markets were often far from free and open when he wrote The Wealth of Nations.

Oh, right? So you'd equate capitalism with a free market?

I wouldn't have thought that was a valid thing to do. But still.

Where does state capitalism fit in with this?

 

[Tahuti]

No, it's blatant nonsense. Almost all "capitalists" do and have always support some restrictions on economic activity, if only to contain negative externalities, and most argue that in at least some cases, maximum freedom is not productive of maximum efficiency.

Which is why capitalism and free markets are not the same thing, despite the strong overlap. And the thing with economic freedom (little inhibition of the markets) is essentially that there a lot more economic actors than in any form or degree of government intervention or planning, which is both the strength and weakness of such freedom: It allows for inefficiency, but you're not a forbidden from making it more efficient if you can do so. Whereas governments or communist communes can wipe inefficiency of the face of the earth, but also force it down on others (which has happened a lot).

Basically, markets are anti-fragile: These thrive on errors. Which is why not everyone likes markets.

 

[Birdjaguar]

With the number of threads we have about Syria I guess it wouldn't be too bad if one or two got hijacked.

Moderator Action: Don't. If you want to discuss capitalism do it in another thread. Now back to Syria please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[rkade8583]

I'm just popping in to say we should fix our own problems as a country before we go off trying to fix other peoples' problems.