When I asked the question, is asked “whether there’s anything anything like a capitalist ethic,” not whether there’s a capitalism ethic. Contrasting it to the “work ethic”.
Maybe there’s not. If the answer is"no", that’s fine.
Ah yes, this always comes up, the call of the person who does not know anything about how business works in the real world.
In fact, the majority of business is done by small to medium sized corporations where the owners are immediately involved in the business and know precisely what is going on.
[QUOTE=LinusK]
Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Unemployment etc. are examples socialistic policies or programs.
[/QUOTE]
-
What 's “Socialistic”? Is that the same as socialist?
-
If you mean socialist, no, they’re not. Government programs to alleviate poverty or mitigate externalities are not particular to whether the country has a largely capitalist or socialist economy, and are not inherently “socialist” in nature. Government spending money isn’t “socialism.”
I barely have time to keep up with my own threads. But maybe I’ll look at it if I have a chance.
But I think you’re wrong about it being a “small subset”.
People have this image in their minds - I’m not sure why - that “workers” refers only to people who’re hammering things. But it also includes surgeons and lawyers and managers and accountants, and anybody who works for a living.
I’m not going to google starts, but I think most workers, today, aren’t on the assembly line. But just because your work includes Microsoft Outlook or Safari doesn’t mean you’re not a worker. It just means you’re a producer (you produce things) as well as a consumer.
I think both terms tend to be defined most accurately as terms people want to use when they want to criticize something! 
IMO, the question is where a society strives to set the balance between socialism and capitalism. Also, IMO, the further you move towards the capitalism end of the spectrum, a couple of significant issues arise.
-Capitalism does result in a lot of low cost consumer goods. But it is not terribly well suited for creating jobs paying a living wage - especially for the least-able workers. I’m not quite sure how capitalism accounts for the least healthy, least intelligent, least advantaged. Not everyone is able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
-There are some societal needs that impress me as less well suited by capitalism than others. I would offer health care as one possibility. It seems pretty well established that we pay more than anyone else for far from the best health care.
-Capitalism creates undesireable incentives. I find it hard to see it as a “good thing” that so many of our brightest young people gravitate towards financial services. And, I’m not sure it is a “good thing” to have financial services comprise such a significant portion of our economy.
I’m a small business man myself. A sole proprietorship, though, not a corporation. There is nothing that precludes someone from being both an owner of a business and a worker. In fact, I’d guess that many small businesses are run by the people who own them. In at least some of them, the owner is also the only employee: meaning he does all the work.
Most large corporations, however, are owned by people who don’t do any of the work. They may not even know which which corporations they own. Those decisions are made by others.
Bill Gates’ money is managed by a man named Michael Larson, for example. Gates tells a story about staying in a hotel, and only finding out later that he owned it. Gates’ fortune is so large, Larson’s firm doesn’t even manage all of it: they farm out some of the work to other money management firms.
One of the heirs to the Johnson & Johnson fortune inherited hundreds of millions when he turned 21. No member of his family has worked there for generations, though. (Or worked at all, so far as I can tell.) I suspect - though I don’t know - that the J&J fortune is diversified. If it is, the heir probably doesn’t know what he owns and doesn’t own.
How do you define “socialist” and “capitalist”?
I’m not sure what you mean by moving the goalposts. My initial question was “what is the capitalist ethic?”
Most of the responses haven’t addressed that question. Some of them I’ve responded to, and some I haven’t. When I’ve reaponded to related issues, maybe that’s what you mean by moving the goalposts?
In terms of answering the question directly, the few who’ve done it have said there is none. I agree.
I think it’s interesting that “work ethic” is part of our collective culture, but no one expects capitalists - who I’d argue are a huge beneficiary of the work ethic - to have ethics themselves.
I agree that airlines aren’t charities. They’re corporations that serve the interestsq of their owners. Which is to make as much money as possible. Which is why people with money - regardless of how they got it - sit in front, and people without money - regardless of how hard they work, how productive they are, or whether they’re risking their lives for their country - sit in back. I’m not attempting to move the goalposts by saying that. I’m merely making a comment on the nature of capitalism.
As the song goes, most people hear what they want to hear, and disregard the rest. If you tell me how I’ve specifically done that, I’d be happy to try address it.
I refer only to the quoted post. You characterized the work ethic as a moral obligation; I cited business writing to the effect that the work ethic is something cultivated by employers by treating their employees well. You replied that this was only true until downsizing or offshoring was needed; I noted that these decisions had no bearing on how current employees were treated and thus how hard they might work. Your reply:
…represents a shifting of goalposts: from what the work ethic is and where it comes from, to me/capitalists not caring if workers are harmed by downsizing. It seemed to me to be non-responsive to my original points. If I am misinterpreting you, I apologize.
Everyone expects capitalists (whether you mean owners of capital, or proponents of capitalism) to have ethics. Everyone expects everyone to have ethics. There is no class of people who are considered to be above ethical considerations, by anyone other than a handful of assorted radicals.
Now, people can reasonably disagree as to what is or is not ethical; for instance, I don’t consider downsizing-related layoffs to be an unethical practice, and it appears that you do. But that’s not remotely the same as no one expecting [group of people] to have ethics.
Frankly, I think you’re putting waaaay too much stock in this little phrase. You interpret it to refer only to workers, which you define as being distinct from owners of capital. In so doing, you’ve divorced it from its context and distorted its meaning. All it means is to accomplish your tasks dilligently. That applies to owners of capital as much as anyone else. It’s only through your interpretation that a work ethic is thought to only apply to one particular class.
And what are the implications for me, the humble passenger? It seems to me that I only benefit from this arrangement: the airlines compete with one another to capture my business, and they’ve (mostly, some don’t) settled on a system wherein a person can pay a lot of extra money for a better seat; money which offsets the price of my business or coach class ticket and drives down its price.
If, instead, first-class seats were handed out based on some person’s calculation of each passenger’s moral worth, would my ticket likely cost more, or less, do you think?
I agree. Like I said before, all first world countries have mixed economies, with both socialist and capitalist aspects. A purely capitalist country would implode.
Google “capitalism definition”.
I’m not advocating the labor theory of value.
I’m arguing that labor is the source of wealth.
The value (or, at least the market-price) is determined by supply and demand.
Air is completely free (at least so far). Nobody owns it, it’s not bought or sold, it’s not listed as an asset anywhere, yet it’s essential for life.
Diamonds are useless baubles, but are incredibly expensive.
It’s supply and demand that determines price.
[QUOTE=LinusK]
I’m arguing that labor is the source of wealth.
[/QUOTE]
All labor or just some labor? How do you determine which labor is the source of wealth? The people who have labored on Oak Island for the last century, were they a source of wealth and if not why not?
What determines ‘market-price’? What’s the ‘market’? And why this split between value and wealth? If I am walking down a riverbed enjoying the scenery and happen to find a large 5 lb pure gold nugget, is it my ‘labor’ that creates the ‘wealth’ or the ‘market’ that sets the ‘value’? And why doesn’t the ‘market-price’ set the price for labor as well? Why isn’t labor simply another commodity on the ‘market’ that people buy, sell or trade??
But that’s only because you seem to be setting rather arbitrary lines and limits where you split ‘wealth’ and ‘value’ and decide, again seemingly arbitrarily where those demarcations are and what they mean.
Does the ‘value’ and amount of ‘wealth’ generated change if I labor for 5 years to find a 10 caret diamond or if I happen to find the same diamond in a stream while sneaking over to scrump my neighbors wife? I think the diamond is worth exactly the same and generates exactly the same amount of ‘wealth’ regardless of how much or how little labor I put into getting it. If I create a bunch of robots to build my cars for me, they will be worth the same amount (with some variation that has nothing to do with labor) as the ones you have being built using hundreds of laborers. You will make X, and assuming my cars are comparable I’ll make X as well, so we will have generated the same amount of wealth and given or provided the same amount of value.
The supply and demand for labor determines the price as well, and labor, while having an impact on the price and value isn’t the sole determination…nor is it the source of wealth.
I agree with you; but I think the problem with capitalism goes deeper than that.
I was talking to a professor of economics and I asked him about his association with Warren Mosler (author of Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy, which you can read for free here). The professor had written the forward to Mosler’s book.
He mentioned that he liked Mosler because he usually felt intimidated around rich people, but not Mosler. It stuck me at the time, and I think in retrospect I know why.
Being rich just means you’re rich. It doesn’t mean you have integrity, or wisdom, or courage, or character. But we’ve come to a place where being rich is seen as an accomplishment. An intimidating accomplishment. Perhaps the most important accomplishment of all.
Jesus warned about the worship of mammon 2000 years ago.
But capitalism doesn’t just encourage it, it practically demands it.
Republicans complain about “punishing” the “most successful” Americans with progressive taxation, as if “successful” and “rich” we’re the same. And millions of Americans buy into it. (Including, ironically, millions of Christians, who, if they read their own book, or listened to the words of Jesus, ought to know better).
It’s a kind cancer eating away at the heart of the country. And it’s sad, because many of the people afflicted with it aren’t bad people. They just don’t know they’re being tricked.
Sorry I didnt mean to change the goalposts, or to implicate you personally. Honestly I saw a chance to vent, and I took it.
It’s not so much capitalism strictly that bothers me. I understand you can’t assign seats according to integrity, productivity, or patriotism. What bothers me is people’s complacency, and the way they rationalize a system set up to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
It may be we have to accept some aspects of capitalism to make things work. But we don’t have to be complacent about it, and we don’t have to lie about what’s going on.
I think there was a time when people recognized that being rich didn’t mean you were better than everyone else. Today more and more people seem to believe that.
As far as the work ethic, and where it comes from, I think it has at least two origins. One is that when people care about their jobs and take them seriously, everyone is better off. The other is what you stated. Owners are better off, because they can pay less for labor, and keep more in profits. The problem is that many (not all) owners care only about profits. They have little concern about how their profits affect society, their country, or anyone else. To me that’s a problem, when you have group of people with both outsized resources and outsized power, who are entirely self-absorbed.
I don’t agree that everyone expects everyone to have ethics. There’s a substantial number of people who think a capitalist’s only responsibility is to make as much money for himself as possible, by whatever legal means necessary. Whether it’s by fracking, dumping toxins, ducking safety regulations, abandoning their country, selling toxic securities, or hiring lobbyists to make passing on the social and environmental costs of their profits easier. So long as it increases profits, and is technically legal, it’s OK.
And there’s a number of people who think being rich is simply a sign you’re a better person than everyone else. And that anyone who criticizes them is just a player-hater. To me, that way of thinking is cancer.
I’m curious: what is the source of wealth, if not labor?
I never said that all labor produces wealth. I said all wealth is produced by labor. Those are two different statements.
Market price, of course, is easy to define. It’s the price sellers are willing to sell, and buyers are willing to buy.
Wealth is much harder. You could have a wealth of ideas, for example, or a wealth of knowledge. You could have a wealth of love, or a wealth of relationships. I doubt those are the ones you mean, but if you tell me what you mean, and how that form of wealth does not involve labor, I’d be happy to discuss it.
I agree that sometimes a lot of labor goes into something that has no value, and sometimes a small amount of labor goes into something that has a lot of value.
And I’d also argue finding wealth and creating it are two different things.
[QUOTE=LinusK]
I’m curious: what is the source of wealth, if not labor?
[/QUOTE]
Human thought and the human ability to conceptualize concepts such as ‘wealth’. Why is a rock worth more or less? Because humans THINK it is. Why are scraps of paper worth anything at all…and why are some worth more than others? Same answer. Why is my labor sitting at a desk hitting plastic keys or drawing pictures on a white board worth a bakers labor to make the bread I had with my sandwich at lunch, the various folks involved in building and fueling the car I drove to work today and the folks who created the soda I drank just now? Because of human thought and human interaction. Labor is simply another marker and another human concept…just like wealth and capitalism.
Except I pointed out several instances where wealth is created without labor, which was my point. All wealth is not created by labor…both labor and wealth are human concepts and are created by the human mind and human collective society and world view. Wealth is whatever humans THINK it is, collectively, and it doesn’t require labor to create…merely human thought and a buy in or agreement from the society we live in that shinny pebble is worth something or that me hitting plastic keys or drawing on a white board is worth something.
Well, that’s the definition, certainly, but, again, it’s a human concept and is created by the human mind just like the other things. That’s the ultimate source of all of this stuff.
And sometimes no labor at all.
Only in your own mind. If I find something that we, collectively believe has worth then it’s worth is equivalent to you working for days, weeks, months or years. They are the same, in the end as long as we believe that your labor for over that time period is worth X and my found item is worth X as well. If we, collectively think your labor is worth nothing then it’s worth nothing, regardless of how hard you work. If we, collectively think that what I’ve found is worth nothing then the same thing.
The problem with your conception of wealth is that while it’s hard to argue with, I’m not sure it’s very useful.
It’s sort of like arguing about the artistic merit of a painting and then saying, “well it’s all in the eye of the beholder.”
If course wealth is whatever people think it is. If we, collectively, decide that triangles have four sides and four corners, then triangles have four sides and four corners.
My point - and Adam Smith’s, I think - was that real wealth lies not in stacks of coins or gold bars or currency, but in the productive capacity of a nation. (Or any group of people.) The ability, in other words, to produce whatever is necessary, beneficial, or desirable. The problem with gold bars or nuggets is that they don’t produce anything.
[QUOTE=LinusK]
The problem with your conception of wealth is that while it’s hard to argue with, I’m not sure it’s very useful.
[/QUOTE]
As is your nebulous concept of ‘labor’. What IS labor? Human labor or any labor? Does human ‘labor’ include simply thinking of or conceiving of an idea? Does it include a steam engine, or an overshot water wheel…or a computer? The trouble with saying that all wealth stems from labor is defining what that means. Since wealth and labor are basically both human concepts and symbols it’s both true and meaningless except in the context of how humans and human societies view it. As an example, would an ancestor of ours from 5000 years ago even view what most of us do as ‘labor’? I’d guess not. Hell, my folks can’t wrap their heads around the fact that someone can basically play a video game and talk about it and make a lot of money to do that. Is this labor as well?
Sure they do, as do little scraps of paper with numbers printed on them…or 1’s and 0’s that represent both of those things in a computer. They are all symbols that are used to represent value to the humans who use them…and in turn are used to represent the value that humans place on various things including labor. But labor itself isn’t a fixed value and is highly variable. Like I said before, if you have a factory where you have a thousand workers building cars and I have 10 robots and 100 workers building mine, it’s not the amount of labor involved that sets the value, only what the cars are subjectively worth to the society buying them. If you have a bunch of guys hand weaving cloth and I have a bunch of automated looms doing the same thing your cloth won’t be worth more than mine simply because you have more folks working on it. And both of our goods will be able to be bought by some guy who just found a big chunk of gold or has little pieces of paper with numbers on it, as long as those numbers are high enough to purchase our wares.
Sure, but you can’t simply and arbitrarily decide what is ‘real wealth’ and what isn’t using such a nebulous concept as ‘labor’.
At any rate, I think we are kind of wandering off the topic of ‘Capitalist ethics’.