Just so we’re on the same page here, capitalists, or capitalism, would oppose Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, Medicaid, etc. How is that taking care of everyone?
Not only “would”, but “did”. Their strident opposition to Medicare in the early 60s was really a perfect case study and object lesson in Republican extremism and mendacity that can be applied today to their opposition to Obamacare, Medicaid expansion, and the sporadic efforts to “privatize” Social Security.
The answer to the question is that the classic pure capitalist argues that he promotes an environment in which everyone can take care of themselves. The problems are that (1) this is never universally true even in the most robust economies, (2) it becomes increasingly less true the less regulated the capitalist system is, and the more that capitalists have direct control over economic institutions, and (3) it presupposes that all of society’s needs can be effectively served by private institutions and free markets, which is manifestly false.
It’s a logical fallacy where I, for example, decide that the definition of “clown” is a person who wears facepaint and murders children. When you counter that being a clown has nothing to do with murdering children, I can say, “No look, see? It’s part of the definition that I told you. I even found this book (by Steven King) that agrees.” And then I ignore it any time you say something which conflicts with the definition, since clearly you’re talking about something else that is wrong. I know what a clown is, after all, and ain’t no one going to fool me on that!
Basically, your definition of Capitalist is stupid and, outside of a few crazies that no one cares about (e.g., anarcho-Capitalists) doesn’t exist in the real world.
Yeah, and labor by itself doesn’t do any good either. You could bust your ass for years digging a huge hole, putting in oodles of labor, and unless there’s a need for that hole, you didn’t create any wealth, value or anything other than a huge hole in the ground… that some other asshole will probably have to fill in.
The fusion of labor and ownership is where it’s at. Let’s say there’s some other guy owns some land (and the mineral rights underneath) nearby, and he *thinks *there’s some sort of valuable ore not far below the surface, but he himself can’t dig it because he’s a quadriplegic.
Essentially you need pay to feed yourself, and he needs labor to dig up the ore. The usual way it works is that either he pays you some agreed-upon rate (where you assume no risk), or you take less or no pay, and a cut of any ore that’s found.
Capitalists would rather have people decide on how best to invest their money towards health and/or retirement instead of one obligatory system. ]I don’t think anyone would oopose Obamacare it you could opt in or opt out voluntarily and knowing the risks/benefits.
“Social” programs are not anathema to capitalism per se. The main objections are that, in many cases, it is not the best allocation of money nor the best way to help those who need it AND that they are not voluntary.
Far from being anathema, social programs are perfectly complementary to capitalism. They are anathema to conservative philosophy, which is what you summed up in your first paragraph.
And the big problem with the sentiment in your first paragraph is well illustrated by how you casually throw “health” and “retirement” into the same pot as if they were both just equivalent commodities. They are anything but.
Medically necessary health care is, by its very nature, non-optional. This isn’t a “liberal” concept, it’s a fact of life. If you try to make coverage opt-in or opt-out and treat it like a commodity to be bought and sold, well, you get the mess that you have in the US, which no amount of tweaking is going to really fix. Like a lot of other essential services, such as fire and police services, it only works on a community cost-shared basis. Yeah, the opt-in for fire services has been tried, and what happens is firemen show up to watch the house burn down of the guy that neglected to opt in. I don’t know if it’s been tried for police services, but I imagine if you were screaming for help because you were being robbed, the cops would ask to see your police services insurance card before they intervened. It’s just utter libertarian nonsense.
Retirement is different because it’s a broad continuum where people quite properly deserve the level of retirement amenities that they were able and willing to save for, and/or lucky enough to have provided for them by a long-term employer. Except for the fact that so many of us don’t do the former and may not have the latter. How many of us were actively saving for retirement in our 20s or 30s, or at least saving enough to sustain us? Wouldn’t it be so much nicer to have a hot sports car instead? Since all of us are going to retire if we don’t die first, it makes sense for the government to enforce a minimum level of retirement saving so that old farts don’t become burdens on the welfare system. Nothing in such a scheme prevents people from investing in their own retirement plans as well, especially when there are tax incentives to do, as there should be.
You’re right: if a company fires somebody they don’t have to worry about keeping him motivated anymore. He may have some worries, but they are not the company’s problems, so who cares?
Moving profits overseas is a way of avoiding US taxes. That may be a problem for the US, but it’s not a problem the owners, so who cares?
And you’re right. You don’t get to sit in first class for serving your country. It’s purely a question of how much money you have.
And if you fire enough people, and avoid enough taxes, who knows? Maybe you won’t have to fly commercial at all. Maybe you can have your own jet.
I think there’s a hint at the capitalist ethic in there, somewhere.
The other problem is there are always people who can’t take care of themselves. People who are disabled, mentally ill, children, people who are out of work, etc.
Not everyone can just borrow money from their parents, to start busines, as Romney said.
I feel like these sort of discussions always sort of dissolve into a bunch of “no true Scotsman” arguments.
Capitalism is an economic system, not an ethical one. That is to say, it is designed for the purpose of maximizing profit through the conversion of raw materials into goods and services that meet the needs and wants of the people in the economy through the free trade of labor and property. In that sense it is considered “ethical” in that it meets the needs and wants of people, allows people the freedom to negotiate whatever price they can, and respects private ownership.
But the ethics of a capitalist system is limited by the morality of the people participating in that system. If there is a demand for sex slaves or drugs or weapons of mass destruction, nothing inherent to capitalism would prevent a market for those goods from being created.
No. You’re using a very limited definition of labor. Labor includes planning, organizing and leadership (decision-making.)
A group of people on an island, who had nothing (no capital) could still provide for themselves. Alternatively, a group of people who had capital (say, some tools) could share them, and provide for themselves (no privately-owned capital).
But a group of people, no matter how much money they had, would starve. Unless or until they found somebody to do the work.
I’m disparaging money here. In fact I think it’s a great thing. I’m just pointing out that capital, by itself, does nothing, and labor is the source of all capital (to paraphrase Adam Smith).
Ownership is a way of transferring some of the wealth created by the work of others - using your example - without (necessarily) doing any of the work yourself.
Your goalposts are all over the place, here. You asked specific questions, I gave specific answers. Now you’re doing…whatever this is, as though it has anything to do with my post.
I’m sorry that airlines aren’t charities? They don’t have the luxury of selling seats at a loss to appease people who fetishize military service, as they are competing with other airlines to deliver the best service at the best price.
If you mean you’re hearing what you want to hear, you’re right.
I’m not sure I’ve given a definition, but by “capitalist” I mean someone whose income comes mainly or completely from ownership; as opposed to labor.
Capitalist can also mean someone who advocates or supports capitalism. I’m not sure I want to get into an argument about what “capitalism” is; but generally, I think, it is a system that supports mainly private, rather than public ownership, supports limited government and little or no taxation, and generally opposes social programs and progressive income taxes, as well as regulations on businesses.
Productivity can come from many sources, but even if productivity came strictly from automation, the robots were all built by somebody, the software was written by people, and the systems were designed by human beings. In other words, people with jobs, doing work. The difference between the value of the work, and what was paid to the people who doing it, is called profit - which in turn goes to the owners.
The owners, particularly if it’s a corporation, likely have no idea what’s going on, have nothing to do with it, and obtain their share of the profits for literally doing nothing.
If we have to look at why productivity is going up, we need to look at people doing work: solving problems, improving efficiency and and coming up with innovative solutions.
Not at people getting checks in the mail, for owning something.
Emphasis added. Those are going to be a small subset of mostly knowledge workers. Few are going to be line workers. Some are going to be owners.
But if you’re going to lead everyone down a discussion of the labor theory of value, best you read this thread, where it is ripped apart by folks more knowledgeable than I on the subject. You can skip to page 3 to begin.
Generally, when people decide how to direct their money, they direct it to themselves. If people could decide whether to participate in the tax system, most people would not. If they could choose whether to participate in a national health care program, they’d choose to do so only if they were sick. If they could choose whether to participate in a disability insurance, they’d do it only if they were disabled. If there was a voluntary draft, most folks would let someone else do the fighting. It’s called the free rider problem. If you let everyone do only what’s best for themselves, you wind up in a really shitty country where everybody thinks pollution, transportation, sickness & disease, abused and neglected children, and foreign armies are somebody else’s problems.
Capitalism and socialism are not especially well-defined terms, but I would argue that pretty much all first-world countries have mixed econonomies, meaning they have aspects of both capitalism and socialism.
Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Unemployment etc. are examples socialistic policies or programs. Some would argue that the Federal Reserve is socialistic. I’d agree, to the extent that it plans and regulates the economy and banks, and attempts to bail us out when capitalists fuck everything up, like they did in '09.