Ay, there’s the rub, and here’s why you are wrong: people do use systems that have no goal. A river, for example, has no goal, but we can take water from it, play in it, and use it for factories. Prima facie case for your statement being wrong. You are mistaken because you confuse the utility of a system* with its goal. The two are not identical.
Capitalism is a utility system with no goal. A laborer has goals. A given business merges them to create a small-scale system with both goals and utility. The business, as a group, wants to make money. Capitalism is not a “system” in the sense you understand it, butrather a framework for creating systems.
[quote]
Even if it isn’t stated in bold print is some text book for you to parrot off, it is there.
[quote]
Careful, chum.
No, I don’t accept this. People have goals that go in different directions, goals that conflict, and goals that simply have nothing to do with one another, even in an economic sense. I don’t believ one can accurately say there is a “collective goal” of capitalism, certainly not one that takes precendence over any one person’s desires.
That’s a problem, though. There is no person, or group doing this. Capitalism didn’t evolve to do any of that, just make money for individuals, none of whom care about mass economic management. There is, in fact, nothing regulating the response sof supply and demand except for individual choices. Likewise, I don’t see how you can tie the control of monopolies to capitalism in any way. While control of monopolies is not inherently socialist (I don’t think anyone would accuse Teddy Roosevelt of socialism), it is not the main concern of any “capitalist system”.
You accuse me of searching for an “official goal” for Capitalism and failing, but it seems that you here are guilty of making one up on the spot.
Yeah, I think it is important. Understanding the nature of capitalism is not of insigificant value.
My bolding. I’ve always found this particular aspect of communism to be so contrary to common sense and everything that science tells us about human naturse that I’m astounded that anyone would still believe it was true. I’m not sure if your agreeing with this or just stating what communism is about. If the former, can you provide some scientific info (other than hypnotism) that this can actually be accomplished?
JM:But if you state that even this society [British HK] was in no way truely capitalist, then how can you make a statement about what capitalism produces? Is it just conjecture?
Nope, it’s based on numerous examples of the downsides of liberalized markets. The underlying principle is a very simple one, namely: Since the mainspring of capitalism is the profit motive, it provides a perpetual incentive to cut costs and increase profits. Therefore, if it is profitable to pay starvation wages, degrade the environment, cheat consumers, etc.—and if there exists inadequate “socialistic” regulation to prevent such practices—many capitalist organizations will do so.
Consider just one of the many examples where moving from a more “socialistic” regulated economy to a more “capitalistic” free-market one impoverished many people:
The former Soviet Union. While the USSR’s communism was bad in just about every possible way, it did at least provide a social safety net, government regulation, and secure employment that have largely vanished in the rush to privatization. Even the World Bank recognizes the resulting impoverishment and immiseration:
Similar market-liberalization policies required by the IMF and World Bank throughout the Third World have produced similar results: in order to attract foreign capital, countries have to relax regulation, adopt policies favorable to investors, and impose budget-cutting domestic austerity programs that cut social services. As a result, investments are made, the economy grows, the investors reap a profit, a few of the locals get very rich, some others get jobs, but many of the non-rich become even poorer.
Again, even the chief international institutions of global capitalism recognize these problems. The World Bank again:
You may say “Oh, but that wasn’t really the fault of capitalism, that was due to government corruption and lack of infrastructure and crime, etc. etc.” To which I reply: Okay then, advocates of socialism can use the same excuse to argue that the disadvantages of socialist economies are the result not of socialism but of other problems.
If you’re going to claim that pure capitalism without any socialist-type government regulation and social policies really can make everybody more prosperous, you have to explain why market liberalization in the real world so often has the opposite effect. If capitalism by itself was really such a cure-all, you’d think somebody would have got it right by now.
JM:Let me clarify about HK. Gov’t housing is largely besides the point. Taxes, regulations, and general interference with free trade are the measures I’m using.
What?!? How can you not consider government provision of social services among your indicators of “socialistic” tendencies? That’s one of the things that defines socialism.
In the second place, as I pointed out above, the government of British HK did make use of taxes and regulations to interfere with market operations.
As I said, I really have a hard time understanding why so many people are so resistant to the clear and reasonable idea that markets can’t fulfill all social needs by themselves, just as government regulation and social policies can’t fulfill all social needs by themselves.
We can experiment and debate about what the relative proportions of socialism and capitalism ought to be to produce the best society, and in fact countries throughout the developed world are carrying on such experiments and debates all the time. But it is very clear—except, apparently, to the market fundamentalists—that you need some amount of “socialistic” regulation and social services to ensure prosperity for all.
Actually, I’m not trying to argue the virtues of capitalism in this thread, at least not on purpose. As you have surmised, I am a fan of capitalism. As such, I took exception to your statement that “captialism produces a largely impoverished society”. I’ve asked you to defend that. To the extent that I have allowed our discssion to stray from that topic, I apologize.
I would love to debate capitalism and socialism with you some time in another thread. For now, I’d just like to understand how you still stick by that original statement, which I believe is demostrably false.
JM:As such, I took exception to your statement that “captialism produces a largely impoverished society”.
You did, and I’m still not sure why. Is it because you object to my use of the term “largely”, as per your remark that you wouldn’t consider your son’s classroom to be “largely composed of blonds” if it had 25% blond kids in it?
If so, fine, I’ll change the term. Would you accept “substantially” or “significantly impoverished” as a better way of expressing “having a significant number of its people living in severe poverty”?
Or is it because you don’t agree with such a claim? If so, I can only direct you again to the arguments and evidence that I provided, and ask you what your specific and substantive objections to them are. But as you said, perhaps that debate can wait for a separate thread on the virtues of capitalism and socialism.
I would certainly agree that capitalism allows poverty to exist. It’s unclear to me that it produces poverty except as a realtive comparison to the wealthy in that society.
At any rate, I think we have finally connected on the issue, and we could probably go back and forth forever tweaking the various adjectives. Probably not a productive exercise.
I hope we do get the change to debate cap/soc one of these days.
JM:I would certainly agree that capitalism allows poverty to exist. It’s unclear to me that it produces poverty except as a realtive comparison to the wealthy in that society.
Then I think we are more in agreement than we thought: my point was that capitalism without any socialist policy safeguards produces a society that allows a significant amount of severe poverty to exist.
We could argue about whether it’s capitalism that actually produces the poverty or whether separate poverty-inducing factors take advantage of capitalism’s tendency to concentrate wealth, but that’s tangential to my basic claim that some socialism is needed to counteract the impoverishment.
I hope we do get the change to debate cap/soc one of these days.
Okay, start the thread whenever you like! But I warn you in advance, you won’t find me advocating socialism instead of capitalism or saying that it’s better than capitalism. My whole position here is that certain aspects of both socialism and capitalism are required (along with some non-economic requisites like individual rights) to produce a society with a decent standard of living for all.
Well, when I feel like getting totally pummeled, I’ll start the thread. It’s not like this hasn’t been hashed and rehashed here dozens of times though, and I have no doubt that you’d have a numerical advantage over me in terms of number of supporters.
Alright, but you’re going to have to follow a logical train of thought in order for me to prove that something is logically unsound. Ready?
**
That you compare a human invention of capitalism that is an economic idea and compare it to a river is telling. I will assume that you aren’t joking and respond seriously. If you are only kidding, then the joke is on me.
A river is not a system, it is a natural resource where man is concerned. It would only be considered a system by mother nature herself, and from her perspective a river would have a goal: to drain water that falls in precipitation back to the ocean where it can be readily evaporated. The simple instance of mistaking resource for system, mother nature for mankind is, in itself, logically unsound. And this is only the beginning.
**
So capitalism is now a “framework” for creating systems? Let’s start with a dictionary definition for “framework.”
framework: the basic structure, arrangement, or system.
Are you catching my point? Use whatever synonym tickles your fancy but it is still essentially a system. A system can utilize other sub-systems, and I would concede that capitalism is a system of systems, but that doesn’t alter the fact that it is an economic system, no matter how much you try and wriggle out from under the fact.
**
You don’t, or you can’t. accept that a bunch of people’s goals cannot constitute a collective goal. On this specific point you are lacking the broad perspective that reveals that individual goals and collective goals are inseparable. An individual has the inherent goal of economic growth in his region/nation even if he doesn’t think too much about it. A man benefits from economic affluence in his area, and his working overtime and improving his skills promotes the very same, even if he is only interested in the benefits that it will directly bring him and his family. You seem to think that because Joe wants a Corvette and Bill wants to holiday in Hawaii, that their goals are different. You are mistaken because their economic goals, everyone’s economic goals, are inherently aligned. They are aligned by the innate human drive to expand their personal viability. Capitalism is a system that has been utilized with some degree of success in modern time in cultivating opportunities for such. That you dispute the essential interlinking of goals of people in a society in a fundamental economic sense is logically unsound.
This in turn brings us to the very core of the unsound logic that you rest your argument upon: That a system invented and employed by people can exist without a goal. This defies logic in the most basic sense. For men to invent something requires that they have a goal or objective that they hope their system will facilitate. For others to utilize this invented system requires that others see a purpose to using the system. What man is going to use a system that has no purpose, goal or objective? What kind of asinine basis for an argument is that?
**
What? Have you ever heard of governments, societies, cultures, states, towns, etc. These are all groups that are interested in the effective management of economies. Furthermore, any citizen with a half decent collection of IQ points to rub together recognizes that the social group’s economic management directly affects his/her own economic situation.
**
Capitalism is a system that manages economic principles because individuals want to make money. That is what manages the economy. Are you following this? I suggest you read “The Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith. It is probably a good place to start, at least.
**
That’s how capitalism works, sport. That’s the system.
**
A capitalist’s end goal in striving to outperform competition and assert market dominance is, ultimately, a monopoly. I find it difficult to see how you fail to recognize this. Wouldn’t it be the goal of any capitalist businessman to control the industry in which he operates, to buy out or bankrupt his competitors, to establish a market dominance that gives him control over prices and distribution? Take that a couple of logical steps further to the monopolization of sectors of an economy and then an entire economy, and you have Communism. Doesn’t it strike you as convenient that socialism and capitalism dovetail so neatly together in western societies? I’ll let you in on a little revelation: It is because they are both different brands of the same idea which is monopolization of economic means.
**
I am guilty as charged. Just because the text books you may have read and the economists you may have listened to didn’t give you an “official goal” doesn’t mean that if you apply a little of that grey matter that you can’t deduce what it is. You may call it making it up on the spot, I call it simple deduction of the plain and obvious. Whatever makes you fell better about yourself, I guess.
I agree, it is important. You just seem somewhat fixated on a single remark that I made about the goal of capitalism as opposed to the basic notion that capitalism and Communism are but different brands of the same ideology which is centered around the concept of a monopoly.
What?!? How can you not consider government provision of social services among your indicators of “socialistic” tendencies? That’s one of the things that defines socialism.
But I warn you in advance, you won’t find me advocating socialism instead of capitalism or saying that it’s better than capitalism. My whole position here is that certain aspects of both socialism and capitalism are required (along with some non-economic requisites like individual rights) to produce a society with a decent standard of living for all.