# Let's talk about capitalism again. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 12, 2005, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690 "2005-08-12T05:10:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/21 "2005-08-12T16:31:55Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > A point that made me stop and think for a moment, but that I believe is incorrect. How is “to each according to need from each according to ability” not an ethical statement? Or is communism not an economic system? Can they be so easily separated? This may be a reduction of a set of economic postulates into a single ethical maxim, but it certainly does not stand for a system by itself. You could dream up a theoretically limitless set of economic systems that could conform to this maxim. It does not necessarily imply a command economy and public ownership of all goods. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/22 "2005-08-12T16:33:07Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > A point that made me stop and think for a moment, but that I believe is incorrect. How is “to each according to need from each according to ability” not an ethical statement? Or is communism not an economic system? Can they be so easily separated? Communsm is an economic system in the same sense that Intelligent Design is science. ---
**Author:** ![kelly5078](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/6f9a4e/32.png) [@kelly5078](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kelly5078)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/23 "2005-08-12T16:38:30Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > How is “to each according to need from each according to ability” not an ethical statement? It’s an ethical statement, of course. But even in the smallest communal units, it quickly degenerates into “to each according to what he can grab, from each according to what he feels like doing.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/24 "2005-08-12T16:41:35Z")
> [@Spatial Rift 47](#): > > Agreed. What you outline here is the ideal scenario of capitalism, and if this happened, I’d have no problem at all with it, because it would remove the only objection I’ve been presenting all along: unequal distribution of resources. The fact is that today, the general trend is that those who are rich are rich because they or their families were rich(er) to start with, and those who are poor are poor because they or their families were poor(er) to start with. OK,. That’s something to be debated. How often and by what mechanism can we “rest the clock” so that the natural advantage is taken away? Unfortunately, you’re just going to end up with the solution that we already have-- government interviention to minimize the effects of people becoming poor. Then, you’re left with arguing about how much intervention and by what method. Which is what we do all the time in countless threads about welfare, the min wage, etc. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/25 "2005-08-12T16:54:15Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > How is “to each according to need from each according to ability” not an ethical statement? Or is communism not an economic system? Can they be so easily separated? Because “need” is a subjective term. I may feel I need a private jet. Or a thousand kilos of cocain. The statement “to each according to need from each according to ability” does not automatically confer any moral value to what those needs may be. ---
**Author:** ![Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a8b319/32.png) [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/26 "2005-08-12T17:21:26Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Wrong > > No > > Incorrect Could you explain why those statements of mine are wrong? > [@msmith537](#): > > This touches on the inherent flaws of capitalism: > > 1. It tends to skew in favor of those who own the means of production. Let’s face reality. It’s less of a hardship for the factory owner to replace the worker than it is for the worker to replace the factory. This is especially true where geography limits the number of employment opportunities. > > 2. It assigns no morality to what is bought and sold. If there is a demand for it, there’s a market for it. > > 3. It does not account for people with not sellable skills, services or resources. If you do not have anything to bring to the table, you are left out. This is all I’m saying. We are in complete agreement. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, I agree that many misconceptions exist, but how this demonstrates a failing of capitalism escapes me. Because, as I said, capitalism is just an idea in people’s heads. If most people have in their minds an economic scheme that they call capitalism that doesn’t work, then capitalism doesn’t work, because those people will act on that unworkable scheme. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/27 "2005-08-12T17:35:42Z")
> [@js\_africanus](#): > > So…what separates capitalism from everything else is that capitalism is the only ism that doesn’t rely on barter? Yet, even barter is quantified; e.g., two skate keys for six eggs. So, even barter is capitalism. Thus everything is capitalism. It’s been operating since the some of the earliest human settlements—neolithic Britons were intercontinental traders in flint (cite)— at the very least; therefore, captialism does work. a) Never said capitalism “doesn’t work”. b) Barter isn’t a quantified exchange, or at least not in the fashion that I intended. I suppose it is a sort of primordial proto-capitalism but rather than everything being pegged to a medium of exchange and quantified accordingly, things are exchanged for each other based on their immediate appraised value in terms of the opposite item without being pegged to a medium. I would not apply my criticisms of capitalism to bartering systems. Nonetheless, c) Not everything is capitalism or even capitalism+protocapitalist barter. General reciprocity isn’t barter. Tribal systems in which neither goods nor services are specifically paid for in any fashion, so much as one’s general reputation for doing one’s share of the work and sharing when one has stuff to share, are not barter. Certainly they are not capitalism. > [@](#): > > Those statements are are mutually exclusive. The first statement denies the conclusion that optimization happens on the margin, the second statement is relies on the notion that it does (to a ridiculous extent). You’re interpreting “does not work” (i.e. my statement about redistributivism) to mean “if you did this the system would immediately grind to a halt”. Optimization (if you wish to call it that; I believe I used the term “Band-Aids”) certainly exists and capitalism thusly modified certainly does keep chugging along — to a degree of unfairness of the first sort sufficient to piss off the liberals and to a degree of unfairness of the second sort sufficient to piss off the conservatives, but along it does indeed chug. What I meant by “does not work” is that it does not work to fix the problems that the marxist-socialist critics have spoken of. Thus the continued existence of the unfairness of the first sort. The “ridiculous extent” of which you speak — my statement that the welfare state pays people to be lazy and to not work —meh. It’s ridiculous enough of an extent to piss off the conservatives, ridiculous enough for at least some of them to have encountered folks who genuinely _are_ content to live off the dole and/or are trodden down sufficiently that they feel continued attempts to rise out of their situation are futile, and to feel annoyed that “their tax dollars” go to feed, house, and provide medical attention (however rudimentary these may be) sufficient for “these people” to just stay in that state of affairs as a permanent solution to their survival needs. Ridiculous enough for such people — “welfare queens” and other non-fond phrases leap to mind — to have become a feature of the conservative economic-critic’s landscape. > [@](#): > > That makes no sense. How can “from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs” be just as absolutely correct “welfare pays people to be lazy”? Under capitalism (which is to say ‘the money system’), effort does _not_ come from each according to his ability. It comes from each according to the ability & opportunity of each to land a job commensurate with their abilities and contribute accordingly, which is a very very different thing. Under capitalism, you can be paid a survival-level pittance to be lazy while not getting the opportunity to do useful and productive work that you’re willing to do, are capable of doing, and actively want to do. It is simultaneously oppressive to be in that situation and also infuriating to the taxpayer who resents supporting folks who are not carrying their share of the proverbial load. The statement makes more sense than you give it credit for. It makes more sense than the situation it describes, at any rate. ---
**Author:** ![Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a8b319/32.png) [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/28 "2005-08-12T17:36:03Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Um…where did these ‘rich’ families come from? Were they created by god at the moment of creation as ‘rich’? Are the ‘rich’ families in the US decended from the wealthy aristocracy of old Europe and just inherited their wealth back to…whenever? Afaik most (if not all) of the ‘rich’ families in the US started off as poor or perhaps middle class. Bill Gates is one of the richest men in the country…IIRC he came from a middle class family. Can you provide some evidence to back up your claims? It seems to me you are looking at the results (i.e. ‘rich families’ today) and then basing your theories off of them…without looking at the historical context. Perhaps you could just show that (Some? Most? All?) the richest families in the US have always been rich? Say for the last 200 years (I won’t make you go back into the mists of time)? > > -XT No, I can’t produce a chart showing where all the money in the world has been all this time. I figured the existence of rich families that have been so for a long time was common knowledge. Their wealth has been, of course, reinforced by prudent investing – which goes back to my original point that capitalism makes it far, far easier to make money if you already have it. Anyway, as far as I know, the wealth imbalances we see today came from Europe’s varied landscapes (both physically and in terms of resources) which created different economic classes there. Obviously some major changeups have occurred due to the introduction of America’s vast resources, which created some new economic dynasties, like the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Duponts, and now the Gates family. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/29 "2005-08-12T17:40:04Z")
Ach - so many replies so quickly! I’ll try to respond; forgive me if I miss something. > [@Maeglin](#): > > This claim is bizarre. Perhaps your understanding of either capitalism or a non-zero sum game is nonrigorous. That may be. I am neither an economist nor a mathmatician (or whatever discipline game theory falls under). > [@](#): > > There is also considerable confusion between the concepts of capitalism and markets. This distinction is critical. Your criticisms, **DS** , seem to be levied at markets, not at the idea of private ownership otherwise known as capitalism. Socialism is not in any way incompatible with a market economy. Not only do I not see a clear distinction, but I don’t think such a distinction is normally made. I’m not saying one _shouldn’t_ be made, mind you. Can you make it clear for me what the distinction is? > [@](#): > > Competitive markets are not zero-sum because each transaction generates value or wealth. Two price-taking agents who freely transact each end up with an object of greater value than they began with. How anyone can describe this environment as zero-sum is a mystery to me. This seems to be another instance of my non-rigorousness. Or perhaps I simply misuse the term “non-zero sum game”. I humbly apologize for it, yet I also see it as an analogy that is appropriate. I ask some leniency on the analytic front for communication purposes. I also ask, for my own edification, what is a “zero sum game” as it concerns a market system? As I understand your above quote, there is no such thing. If that’s the case, then you are absolutely correct – I fundamentally misunderstand the term. I had a number of paragraphs explaining my thoughts, but then thought better of posting them, as it would end up being nothing more than a distraction (due to my probable misuse of terms). Essentially, what it comes down to is the difference between George Bailey and Mr. Potter (from _It’s A Wonderful Life_, if you don’t get the reference). In my thoughts, I’m equating George with an ethical business person. His sacrifice of monetary value for ethical considerations benefits the entire town; the benefits of cooperation indicate a non-zero sum game. Mr. Potter, on the other hand, acts only on monetary value as if it were a zero sum game; the pure competitiveness is to the detriment of everyone. So. Step away from the terms I introduced. The more I think about it, the more I realize they’re inappropriate (although I’d certainly appreciate a concise correction). Instead, focus on my point that capitalism is inherently amoral, which I see as it’s major failing. I’ll get to more in subsequent posts… ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/30 "2005-08-12T17:56:36Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > This may be a reduction of a set of economic postulates into a single ethical maxim, but it certainly does not stand for a system by itself. You could dream up a theoretically limitless set of economic systems that could conform to this maxim. It does not necessarily imply a command economy and public ownership of all goods. > [@DanBlather](#): > > Communsm is an economic system in the same sense that Intelligent Design is science. > [@kelly5078](#): > > It’s an ethical statement, of course. But even in the smallest communal units, it quickly degenerates into “to each according to what he can grab, from each according to what he feels like doing.” > [@msmith537](#): > > Because “need” is a subjective term. I may feel I need a private jet. Or a thousand kilos of cocain. The statement “to each according to need from each according to ability” does not automatically confer any moral value to what those needs may be. While all these may be correct, my only point was that it is possible to have an economic system that does, in fact, include ethical considerations. Please, I was responding to the specific statement: _Economic systems can’t have ethics, people can._ in a very specific way. Unless one is willing to argue that by reifying any concept, the concept itself cannot have ethical considerations. Which is a stupid, counter-productive, and dead-end stance as concerns discussions of ethics. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/31 "2005-08-12T18:01:30Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > This seems to be another instance of my non-rigorousness. Or perhaps I simply misuse the term “non-zero sum game”. I humbly apologize for it, yet I also see it as an analogy that is appropriate. I ask some leniency on the analytic front for communication purposes. I also ask, for my own edification, what is a “zero sum game” as it concerns a market system? A zero-sum game is a game where given x number of players, the gain of one must equal a total loss in an equal amount split across one or more of the other players. Most economic situations are not zero sum because you and I can engage in a transaction where we each give up something in exchange for something else that has equal or greater value to each of us. This is an important concept because the misconception that economics is a zero-sum game leads to other misconceptions like there is a finite amount of work to be done (ie if we halve the workday, companies will be forced to hire 2x as many workers) or that we can dispurse one groups cash and raise the standard of living for another. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/32 "2005-08-12T18:08:30Z")
Sorry to have sounded like a pompous ass. You don’t need to use jargon to have a thoughtful opinion. To make our lives easier: Capitalism implies nothing more than private ownership of property. In practice, this usually comes to include competitive markets, too. But it is helpful in discussions like this to differentiate between the two, since the both have their own benefits and problems. For example, it is possible to imagine an economic system in which individuals own their own property but either the markets or not competitive or the markets don’t even exist. Likewise a system of public ownership but free markets. In a zero-sum game, my win _has_ to be offset by your loss or vice versa for any outcome of the game. There are no circumstances where both agents receive a positive payoff. Transactions in competitive markets are not typically zero-sum because if both agents transact them freely, they get more value after the trade than when they started. A zero-sum transaction generates no value, it is merely a transfer of wealth. Gambling is a zero-sum game, as are some kinds of financial instruments. Capitalism is only as amoral as its agents desire it to be. If corporations discover that there are high costs to acting immorally, they will reorient. People wring their hands too much over the _system_ and not over the structure of incentives that allow corporate immorality to exist. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/33 "2005-08-12T18:23:03Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > A zero-sum game is a game where given x number of players, the gain of one must equal a total loss in an equal amount split across one or more of the other players. > > Most economic situations are not zero sum because you and I can engage in a transaction where we each give up something in exchange for something else that has equal or greater value to each of us. I don’t mean to be obtuse, but this doesn’t clear things up for me. I don’t want to hijack this thread any more than I’ve already done, so I’ve started [a new thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6467781#post6467781) about economic transactions and zero sum games. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/34 "2005-08-12T18:29:44Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > > [@Spatial Rift 47](#): > > > > The idea behind capitalism is fairly straightforward: everyone gets a chance, and success depends on how much hard work and creativity you put into your work. With enough of those two qualities, the theory goes, anyone can successfully market his or her product or service, or successfully move their way up the ladder by helping the corporation market its product or service. Capitalism is all about selling; whoever has the best way of getting more people to purchase the product or service gets the most money. > > Ah, no, this is not the idea behind capitalism. The idea behind capitalism is that a society exists to maximize the freedom of the citizens to live their own lives and keep the fruits of their own labor. As an organizing principle, the idea behind capitalism is that it is the individual who has the best information about what that individual needs, and when you allow individuals to negotiate with each other, the true value of goods and services emerges, and this makes organizang an economy around voluntary transactions very efficient. > > Capitalism does not guarantee any individual outcome. It does not exist to fulfull what you see as social goals. That is what government does, or private organization, or individual charity. Capitalism as a system simply ensures that goods and services are created by those most efficient at it and sold to those who will pay the most for them. I think you’re both wrong. What \*\*Sam \*\* has described is [Libertarianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian); \*\*Spatial \*\*seems to be talking about [Egalitarianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism). OTOH, > [@](#): > > Capitalism has been defined in various ways (see Capitalism in Wikiquote). In common usage it refers to an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated, almost always for profit, and where investments, production, distribution, income, and prices are determined by market forces (a “free market”), rather than by centralized state control (as in a command economy). Capitalism contrasts with socialism and communism, where the means of production, and the resulting products, are owned and used by the state, or by the community collectively. Capitalism is also contrasted with feudalism, where land may be privately operated, but is owned by the state and held in fee. > **[Capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)** > > Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labor. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by owners of wealth, property, or production ability in capital and financial market Economists, h... ---
**Author:** ![kelly5078](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/6f9a4e/32.png) [@kelly5078](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kelly5078)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/35 "2005-08-12T18:42:41Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > Capitalism implies nothing more than private ownership of property. I disagree. Markets are a necessary component of capitalism. Mere ownership without an exchange of goods and services may be imaginable, but I doubt that it’s possible; in any case, it’s not capitalism. > [@Maeglin](#): > > Capitalism is only as amoral as its agents desire it to be. If corporations discover that there are high costs to acting immorally, they will reorient. You are mixing “amoral” with “immoral.” I contend that capitalism is amoral: it rests on the desire to accumulate wealth, which in and of itself does not have a moral component. But that does not imply that it is necessarily immoral. I would define as immoral mainly those exchanges resulting from coercion (or the largely equivalent unfair restraint of trade), or from a misrepresentation of the nature of the exchange. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/36 "2005-08-12T18:43:52Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > I don’t mean to be obtuse, but this doesn’t clear things up for me. I don’t want to hijack this thread any more than I’ve already done, so I’ve started [a new thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6467781#post6467781) about economic transactions and zero sum games. Imagine playing poker with your friends. Once you buy in, there are a fixed number of chips. You can’t win any without someone else losing the same amount. No new chips are created. The market, OTOH, does create new chips. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/37 "2005-08-12T18:53:33Z")
Capitalism is not an ethical philosophy. That is neither a criticism nor a laud; it is a simple statement of fact. One point of the OP appears to be that capitalism is perceived by some to be an econimic system that fosters (or perhaps even determines) ethical values. I find this to be an interesting idea, and it is one that my own experiences would certainly support. I have often run into folks who use the outcomes of a capitalist market as a supporting argument for an ethical evaluation. I find such arguments to be seriously flawed, but that is because I view ethics as a prescriptive study rather than a descriptive exercise. There are certainly ethical theorists who would disagree with me on that point. As I see it, the OP is arguing that the tendency of many people to ascribe ethical value to teh workings of a capitalist market represents a weakness in capitalist economic theory/practice. On that point I disagree. It represent s a weakness in ethical education. A related point is the question of whether an economic theory ought to be designed to reinforce specific ethical values. Marx and Engels certainly thought so, but you could make an argument that so did Adam Smith (and Milton friedman and Ludwig Von Mises and . . .) In practice, economic realities dominate so many practical realities of human existence that any attempt to isolate an economic practice from ethical concerns can only be successful if your ethical system places no value upon material experience. I lack the faith in human wisdom to feel comfortable with the idea that an economy can be appropriately designed and effectively implemented to directly fulfill an ethical prescription. I do think, however, that it is dangerously naive to imagine that an economic system can or should be created without ethical considerations. ---
**Author:** ![mazinger\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mazinger\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mazinger_z)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/38 "2005-08-12T19:14:17Z")
> [@Spatial Rift 47](#): > > Because, as I said, capitalism is just an idea in people’s heads. If most people have in their minds an economic scheme that they call capitalism that doesn’t work, then capitalism doesn’t work, because those people will act on that unworkable scheme. **Spatial Rift** , look at **John Mace’s** reply. Once your terms are in order, as well as anyone else who is unsure of what capitalism is, John’s reply is what the argument boils down to. People are participating in capitalism and do not even know it. If you told everyone that the current economic system in the U.S. is Mazinger\_Zism, people will have the same gripe about how Mazinger\_Zism is ruining the country, it’s unethical, and it’s screwing poor people, keeping the rich richer and the poor poorer. If you want to debate what is actually happening in the country, that we’re not practing Capitalism, or that it’s changed somehow, by all means, bring forth your arguments. Everyone in this thread who has a problem with Capitalism (see **msmith537’s** post for a good definition) really has a problem with the government and not with the economics. And, please, no arguments that it’s because of Capitalism that allows the government to do X and not Y, because this isn’t a case of “don’t hate the player, hate the game that allow [the government] to do that.” The government via the people (please note) are injecting ethics and morality and laws into the system. The government sets up the laws and the programs to attempt to even the playing field, introducing inequalities which for all intentions may be good, may also have worse consequences. ---
**Author:** ![mazinger\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mazinger\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mazinger_z)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/39 "2005-08-12T19:17:53Z")
Or, for a more eloquent response, see **Spiritus Mundi’s** response. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690/40 "2005-08-12T20:06:08Z")
> [@Spatial Rift 47](#): > > Because, as I said, capitalism is just an idea in people’s heads. If most people have in their minds an economic scheme that they call capitalism that doesn’t work, then capitalism doesn’t work, because those people will act on that unworkable scheme. But wait a mo’. Are we talking capitalism, the ideal theory (where everyone is assumed to operate with perfect efficiency and with perfect information and technology is fixed, as described in the problems in innumerable macroeconomics textbooks) or capitalism, the rough-n-tumble reality? Your line of logic suggests that because people make mistakes in applying a theory, the theory must be worthless. This is no more valid than discounting mathematics because people make errors in arithmetic. Given that no economic theory can be perfectly applied, among such theories capitalism is the easiest to get mostly right, most of the time, in that individual rewards are tied to an individual’s effort and his/her voluntary cooperation with other individuals. Had humans a more hive-like mentality, possibly communism would be the economic system easiest to apply. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-capitalism-again/316690.md?page=3)