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.
Communsm is an economic system in the same sense that Intelligent Design is science.
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.”
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.
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.
Could you explain why those statements of mine are wrong?
This is all I’m saying. We are in complete agreement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ach - so many replies so quickly! I’ll try to respond; forgive me if I miss something.
That may be. I am neither an economist nor a mathmatician (or whatever discipline game theory falls under).
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?
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…
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.
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.
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.
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 about economic transactions and zero sum games.
I think you’re both wrong. What **Sam ** has described is Libertarianism; **Spatial **seems to be talking about Egalitarianism.
OTOH,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or, for a more eloquent response, see Spiritus Mundi’s response.
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.