You’re just repeating what you said earlier, citing luck and unfairness as “facts of life” instead of recognizing that maybe the operative structure of capitalism may be responsible. See AHunter3’s post above for a more elegant explanation.
sigh I’ll say it again, I suppose. This thread is NOT about alternatives to capitalism. It is about whether or not capitalism is doing a good job. So in fact the question is “whether capitalism is fair.” It seems to me the general consensus thus far is that capitalism, because of the way it operates, is not fair.
I don’t think much is needed, but you could start by cutting barriers to entry, like meaningless “certifications” needed for things like being a hardresser or even a plumber. Capitalsim offers its own rewards to plenty of people with good ideas and a good work ethic. There are millions of small businesses in the US run by people of modest means. What do they have, that others don’t? Your earlier argument about the who couldn’t get a loan because of his wife’s operation is the exception, not the rule.
I had to read this and Lemur’s post a couple of times, and now I see what you are saying. First off, nothing in economics is universal. All statements are that things are going to be more than likely to happen. There will always be exceptions.
Anyway, to restate your argument, you believe that the rich (in the general sense, not that it matters for my point), are conspiring to keep the rest of the nation (and the world, why not) to keep the rest of us poor. I won’t even address the fact that in the long run, this is not to their best interest. And, this is indicatively bad of capitalism, how exactly?
In your world view, the rich are monopolizing resources, creating barriers to entry, doing everything they can to eliminate competition and reap all the profits for themselves. Feel free to correct me, because this is how I am reading your argument.
The rich would be eliminating competitors in any economic system. Like I posted before, this is a case of government action/inaction that allows these perceived injustices, unfairness, and inequities to happen, i.e. hate the government and not the system. This will exist in any system. In fact, if you read Lemur’s post more closely, he even states that big corporations don’t like free market capitalism. In fact, this will happen in any economic system that allows individual action, authority or control.
Yes, I don’t dispute the figures. Read my statements a little closer: The MYTH is that a wealth gap is somehow DETRIMENTAL to the nation or economy. It is not. The economical data shows that everyone is wealthier across the board. Cf. other nations where capitalism isn’t the main economic system: North Korea, Vietnam, China (particularly 10 years ago, sad still now compared to Taiwan), there is your example of the poor staying poor (or getting poorer) and the wealthy retaining/growing wealth. Contrast the GDP growth to a similar country that embraces capitalism. Tell me, without even looking at any data, where the poor are better off: North Korea or South Korea, China or Taiwan/Hong Kong (or both); Vietnam or India; any of those countries or the US. And, when I say poor, I’m not talking dirt poor, but even those who live at or below the politically contrived - you have to put it somewhere - “poverty line.”
Yes, there has always been a gap. No one doubts that. Why is it bad, in of itself? What other system doesn’t perpetuate this (or even extend it) without doing harm to itself?
They don’t have to be innovators. They just have to have (is that grammatically correct?) their money available to be used. This is what I meant by supply side economics. Look at the article you posted: while it doesn’t say it specifically, the wealthy are investing. They are either investing through stock and bonds or they are putting their money in vehicles that will ultimately invest in the innovators and creators.
Being against proverty and wanting everyone to be wealthy are two different things, ultimately depending on how one defines “wealth.” Either you are concerned about the standard of living of others, or you are driven by hatred and envy of the rich. Wealth isn’t just about nominal sums. Look at Italy pre-Euro: I was a millionaire in that economy, but it didn’t really buy me much more than in the states; in terms of US goods, it actually bought me less. Wealth is about production and efficiency. America is wealthy because its people are the most productive and the most efficient, not because it is riding the backs of the poor, stealing from them.
I was being a bit snarky with that last comment. I had an idea where this debate was headed and I just threw that little bit in there to see what your view was on economics in general. Depending on the data, and which media-influenced definition you believe, growth in many key indicators were very apparent in the Reagan years. (My original source was a handout in my monetary policy class, but I think CATO (a libertarian site) institute has similar numbers).
IRL, I believe in a balanced approach between a Keynesian and Supply Side approach. They’re really two sides of the same coin.
Forgive me for I was being a bit snarky with that last comment. Jobs are up (I believe Sam Stone has a post on it), and though not the explosion that republicans put it out to be, it is still good news. The key point here, which is what is missing in most people’s view of supply side economics, is that the money has to be doing something. Either it is invested in stocks and bonds directly, or it is spent in the open market for goods and services. Obviously, with the growt that we’re experiencing, with the activity in the DOW, money is being invested. This is the same money that creates new jobs, that gives corporations more capital to buy, that is stimulating demand. Like I stated before, this is only half of the equation. A Keynesian monetary policy must be in place to balance the effects.
How may of the early posts patiently explained that this is not “the idea behind capitalism”? Yet it keeps coming up again and again. If the myth is so pervasive, perhaps it is valid to judge capitalism by how well it has lived up, no?
A quick and dirty test might be to compare the relative impact of education and parentage on individual wealth. Google comes up with a wealth of information on the former but not so much on the latter. Studies that claim to measure economic mobility seem to be focused on the individual, and how individual income changes over time (which is really a no-brainer). Others seem to adjust for family size, which isn’t helpful at all.
What would be more enlightening would be a study of individual wealth at, say, age 60 vs. one’s parents’ wealth at the same age. The correlation could then be compared to that of the education studies. An obvious flaw might be that children from wealthy families are more likely to reach higher education, but it still seems to me that if we’re living in a meritocracy education would would be far more predictive of one’s wealth than the family one was born into.
Just a few lower-class success stories involving higher education would suffice to see a difference. Likewise, just a few slackers drawing 6-figure allowances would skew the charts in the other direction. Does anyone know of such a study?
I thought the general consensus, assuming there was one, was that life, because of the way it operates, is not fair. Capitalism does not attempt to artificially impose fairness, on the assumption that enlightened self-interest (encompassed with a reasonable ethical and legal framework that can make the system somewhat less unfair, at least) is the best way to maximize satisfaction. Alternative systems (and it doesn’t matter if that’s NOT what you want to talk about; pointing out the flaws in capitalism is a purely academic exercise unless you can suggest alternatives) that try to impose fairness have proven less efficient at maximizing satisfaction, and in fact more inclined to increase misery.
The problem with this is, “good” is a relative term. We need to know what we’re measuring capitalism against to know whether it is doing a good job or not, which is what all the capitalists in the thread have been pointing out. If we’re comparing systems based on capitalism with the alternatives that we’ve tried, then capitalism is doing a damn good job. If we’re comparing it to a utopian fantasy, not so much. As such, talking about alternatives is completely relevant to this thread.
Also, what Bryan Ekers said about it being an academic exercise.
Public misconception is not a valid way to judge the accuracy of any theory. I cannot see any reason to permit judging capitalism in this way and preventing it from spilling onto other sciences. A very dangerous proposition, from my point of view.
Hoo boy. Time to reboot the thread, I think. First of all, let’s get rid of this “life is not fair” crap. You seem to be arguing, rather, that there is something inherent in all human societies anywhere and anywhen that produces an unequal distribution of resources. My contention is that the resources were distributed unequally before us humans even got here. Indeed, I feel silly having to contend that, it seems so obvious. The planet is not covered in even layers of iron and gold and oil, there are irregular pockets only in certain places.
So. We have essentially random pockets of things that people can exchange for other things with other people. We have a system governing those exchanges, called “capitalism.” I would like to discuss the disadvantages of that system, and why they are there. And this is my thread, so I get to make that decision. That is all.
Yes, this thread is indeed a purely academic exercise. We are judging capitalism against reasonable standards of quality of life for everyone. In my opinion, capitalism has not enabled our society to meet such standards.
But political theory isn’t really a science in that sense. It is subject to empirical fact, but it would be literally impossible to implement policy based on pure factual analysis. There has to be a goal and the goal has to be subjective.
In this case, simply maximizing the wealth output of a society would be a goal that seems on observation to be forwarded by capitalism. For some that is enough.
But suppose that the majority of people, when asked what they like about/expect from capitalism, were to answer that it tends to create an egalitarian meritocracy. Wouldn’t it then make sense to test that theory in an evaluation of capitalism as policy?
P.S. debating on the internet is, by definition, an academic exercise.
You seem to be misunderstanding (deliberately or otherwise) that we’re not using “life is not fair” as an excuse for defending capitalism, but merely pointing out that capitalism matches up reasonably well to the movement of goods and services, which at times will go through cycles of surplus and shortage. In contrast, economic systems that attempt to centrally manage the movement of resources do a generally worse job at it.
This being a reasonably free marketplace of ideas, you don’t get to make that decision. You can complain to the authorities that your thread is being hijacked, or request that it be closed, or withdraw from it entirely, but beyond those, you have no means to impose a particular conversational path. You could guide it, if you wish, by offering us points we would like to debate, but this:
…won’t cut it. What is a “reasonable” standard for everyone? Was it ever achieved? If capitalism can’t provide it, what can? What fixes, if any, are you proposing to capitalism to raise the standard?
How are you measuring ‘reasonable standards of quality of life’ and how does ‘capitalism’ no meet them? Seems to me that either you have a ridiculously narrow vision of what exactly ‘capitalism’ is, or your ‘reasonable standards’ are not so reasonable. Historically speaking I don’t see how you could make this case stick to be honest. What economic process has achieved the greatest standard of living across the board? Capitalism. What nations of the world are the most successful and have the highest living standards? Those who are Capitalist…which includes most if not all of the ‘Western’ nations, including nations like Japan and South Korea. Even China, who’s standard of living is rising, is quasi-Capitalist.
So, you are going to need to take a bit of a step back and define some terms and also define what you mean by ‘reasonable standards of quality of life’ and how Capitalism ‘has not enabled our society to meet such standards’. Cause from where I’m sitting this seems a ridiculous claim.
It seems to me that you’re still judging capitalism by comparing it to the alternatives instead of by absolute standards. I’m not interested in how much better than communism it is, because better than communism isn’t good enough.
Actually, I do. As far as I know, the custom on the SDMB is that spinoff discussions belong in a new thread. If you wish to discuss capitalism v. the alternatives, I encourage you to start a new thread, and I will happily participate in it.
Let’s start with everyone having enough food, clothing, shelter, and medicine to maintain good physical health.
Not to my knowledge.
Ah, here’s the tough part. Well, my initial objection was that imbalanced resources tend to stay imbalanced rather than smooth out to grant everyone a certain means in which to live. AHunter3 has convinced me that simply redistributing the wealth isn’t enough, however it seems to me a necessary first step. After that, I suppose what would be required is a redesign of governmental assists to the market. And they would have to be global ones. Global welfare, global healthcare, etc. Off the top of my head I can only suggest that these programs would have to be elegant in their simplicity.
Seems to me you aren’t interested in comparisons because there really aren’t ANY other economic systems that have proved better than Capitalism. So, you want to judge it by some ‘absolute standards’…but afaik you haven’t defined those standards to anyones satisfaction yet. You say capitalism isn’t good enough…but what does that really mean? Good enough for you? For society? Based on what exactly? Who is deciding here whats ‘good enough’ or what isn’t?
And you have yet to say what the alternative is. Its all well and good to find Capitalism wanting (in your opinion), but its kind of meaning less to say its not good enough without definining what WOULD be good enough.
To paraphrase Churchill: (Capitalism) is the worst economy system devised by man…except for all the others.
I disagree that inquiries into alternatives to capitalism in a thread allegedly about the flaws of capitalism comprise a “spinoff”. Feel free to take it to the mods, if you feel you must.
This is laudable, but does it really form an absolute standard? In any case, please specify if “having” means that each individual can select among a variety of foods, clothes, shelters or medical treatments, or if a minimal standard is set and delivered by the state. Assuming that capitalism and communism are polar opposites, it would be fair to say that capitalism offers the “choice” model (with the risk that some will go without) while communism offers the “standard” model (in which everyone is limited to a bare but acceptable minimum). The nations that have come the closest to providing adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care to all their citizens without stomping all over personal freedoms are, arguably, ones with a capitalist economic core but a high-tax, large-social-safety-net system of government. There are a few counter-examples, like (allegedly) Cuba, but they’re outnumbered by left-leaning democracies like the Scandinavian nations, who are not likely to regulate capitalism out of existence anytime soon.
At the very least, the corrupt brutal regimes that now run most of the world’s nations will have to entirely reformed. The only way I see that happening (short of invading them one by one) is with gradual improvements in the education and living standards of individuals, who will recognize that attempts to impose order on their societies through religion or Marxism will be self-defeating. Their best approach, for all its flaws? Capitalism.
I would have to agree that saying “You should not criticize capitalism as a system on any grounds where you don’t have any better alternative to offer” is a fundamentally ridiculous position to hold.
My girlfriend and I go on a spate of housekeeping-reorganizing when masses of random things creates an irritating clutter. The first thing in the sequence is generally my girlfriend’s irritation at the clutter (I have a higher clutter-tolerance than she does). If I were to tell her she had no business complaining about the magazines being on the coffee table and the user’s manual & warranty for the air conditioners being on top of the wine cabinet and so forth until / unless she had specific suggestions of where better they could be located, I’d get whopped in the head with a roll of magazines. And rightly so.
The first step in changing something is identifying what you don’t like about what you’ve got.
I’m glad that we’re finally getting on the same page.
If you’ll go back and read my posts, I explicity say that capitalism has huge benefits. IIRC, I said something like “it is silly to not acknowledge” them. However, this doesn’t address the fact that, yes, some of the “rich” are conspiring (via political power) to game the system. Since, as I believe it was you who said, rich and poor are relative terms, surely it’s obvious that “best interest”, at least for some, is simply being relatively richer than everyone else, whether or not the system as a whole is creating more or less absolute wealth. The only way that this is “indicatively bad” (I’m not quite sure what that means, hence the quotes) is that capitalism, as a system, is amoral. Human nature being what it is (IMO), this commonly leads to abuses – what I was saying when I said that efficiency could be equated with ruthlessness.
Yes, if there is no “ethical framework” in place (as Bryan Ekers, I think it was, has called it) that limits “the rich”. Once again, note that I’m not saying that capitalism inherently exhibits this characteristic; it cannot, for it has no place for ethical concerns.
It seems that perhaps we really do finally understand one another, and furthermore agree. I don’t hate capitalism; in fact, I’m in awe and marvel at its operation. But it has flaws in practice, due to its inherent amorality. Imposing an ethical framework to relieve this defect is, to my understanding, often referred to as socialism. Which is why I refer to myself as “leaning socialist”; I just don’t know how better to phrase it.
I just remembered another way to change capitalism, based on the idea of general reciprocity advanced earlier in this thread. The idea is simply a non-monetary system. Basically, nothing is quantified. Everyone does what they want to do because they want to do it. So the people who make food would make food because they like making food, and the people who build houses would build houses because they like building houses, and doctors would doctor because they like doctoring, etc.
Once it’s up and running, this system works just fine, according to my dad, who is a CPA. I go to the car dealer, who likes helping people find the car that’s right for them, and I get my car. Oops, I crashed it. I take it to the mechanic, who fixes it because he likes fixing cars. The only problem is getting there from here.
Are you serious? :dubious: What kind of Star Trek utopia is this? No money? Everyone does what they like doing? This could all work if we had replicators. There are so many things wrong with this that I don’t even know where to begin. Without money…put simply, well let’s just say that transactions would grind to a halt. We might as well go back to feudalism. Any job not involved in agriculture (and by that I mean the actual physical activity of growing stuff out in the field) or in manufacturing (and by that I mean the actual physical activity of making stuff), will disappear (well, I guess garbage men, doctors, nurses, dentists, and lawyers will still be needed).