You made it well. Most people people that try hard enough do fairly well under capitalism relatively speaking. Even our working poor are much better off than most people in North Korea and Cuba for example. One huge problem I have with people that support communism and even some socialist policies is that it seems like they are scared of the world and want to idiot-proof things so that there is nothing to worry about. While the world is a scary place at times, there is nothing we can do about much of it. We are all going to die and experience some horrible things before that. There is no need to enslave whole countries because of individual insecurities. You just have to do the best you can, enjoy well-earned rewards, and hope you don’t get by a meteor on your way to work one day.
You’re putting the cart before the horse. Capitalism didn’t invent modern civil rights. Capitalism and the free market were one of the results of the creation of modern civil rights.
Capitalism is the best economic system we know so far. It tends to work in most cases and it works better than any other system we’ve tried. But Capitalism isn’t perfect - it has its flaws, it doesn’t cure all ills as some of its more fevered fans would claim it does, and there are some special circumstances where other economic systems will work better.
And Communism never claimed that everybody is equal or would get equal treatment. It recognizes that some people will contribute more than others and some people will receive more than others. The basic tenet that divides Communism from Capitalism is that the amount that an individual receives is supposed to be independant of the amount they contribute. Which is nice in theory but almost impossible to make workable in practice. The only way Communism can work is when it’s practiced within a group where all of the individual members of the group place more value of the welfare of the group than they do on their own individual welfare and situations like that are rare at a society level.
Which is a nice summation of why I’m not a conservative.
Well, that was relevant.
Evil Capitalists[sup]TM[/sup] would have gladly welcomed a cheap, slave workforce. Yet it was the Evil Northern Capitalists who demanded that the South give up slavery. The reason for that is because they were affluent enough to be able to get up on their moral high horses. Capitalism doesn’t create civil rights to be certain, but it does create an environment that enables people to worry about such things.
By 1860, both capitalism and civil rights were well established ideas. But if you go back in history, you can see which one came first. People stared talking about having various rights like voting, freedom of speech and religion, security from arbitrary authority, and property rights. Then, as property rights developed, people started thinking about how they could best use their property and capitalism and the free market grew. Admittedly, capitalism did reinforce civil rights and each time one took a step forward the other took two steps. But ultimately, civil rights came first - you have to feel secure in your ownership of your property before you’re willing to invest it.
Care to explain this? It makes no sense to me. Maybe it’s true if you judge the quality of your life in relative terms (i.e. my life is lousy because other people live better than me), but in absolute terms? Capitalism is the only thing that has produced any significant increase in people’s quality of life - ever. Capitalism and the competition it entails continuously makes production more efficient, and goods more affordable.
The poor in the middle ages lived pretty much like the poor in ancient Greece - yet the poor today live better than the middle class, and some respects even the rich, of 1900. And things will only get better from here.
Capitalism and freedom are one and the same. You can’t have one without the other. Capitalism is what results when you allow people to posess private property, and freely trade that private property with one another. All other economic systems are forced to restrict that freedom in some way.
The only difference between capitalism and anarchy, which you claim to prefer, is that in anarchy there is no one stopping others from using physical force against you. Imagine that - instead of simply charging you interest, the credit card company could just mug you in the street and take your wallet.
So, you think people should just loan you money for free?
If you don’t like being charged interest, don’t borrow money. Simple.
And I don’t know what you think ‘printing money’ entails. Do you think the government just hands the rich bucketfuls of cash? No - the government prints money in order to meet the demand for cash, and thus control inflation.
There is a difference between money and wealth. The government can print money, but that doesn’t create any wealth. The only people who create wealth are people who do work.
If you work for a company, you give them some of the wealth you create, and they give you some of their wealth in return. If you work for yourself, you keep all of the wealth you create.
In Capitalism, you compete with everyone around you. There are only limited resources. If you want a high standard of living, you have to make more money than others to buy those resources. There will invariably be some people with lots of money and some with a lot less. With a limited amount of resources, the poor get shafted.
Capitalism doesn’t distribute wealth equally or at times fairly.
I’ve heard that in Islam, you are forbidden to charge interest for loaning money. Is that true? Would it be so bad?
Bzzzzt. Incorrect.
It can be argued strongly that particular microeconomic laws of the market—things like scarcity, supply and demand, equilibrium, opportunity cost, etc.—exist naturally and follow some sort of laws independent of human decisions. But these things are not necessarily the same as capitalism, and are certainly not the same as capitalism as it currently exists.
Taxes are not a requirement for a capitalist system. The more burdensome taxes become in a capitalist economy, the closer it gets to a socialist or communist system. Pure, theoretical or laissez-fare capitalism allows the owner of wealth to determine the use of it; socialism reduces this element of personal choice; communism, again in its theoretical form, eliminates it.
Pulling entirely from memory, I can’t think of many communes that were successful for long. Most fail for the same reason communism has failed worldwide (failed, that is, to provide abundant services and products or a quality life for many). Can you cite a number of successful, lasting communes? Israel kibbutzes, perhaps?
Neither does communism, except on paper. But the bigger problem, as I see it, is the definition of what is fair or equal. If I want a big SUV, that’s because I am just trying to properly handle my basic needs. If my neighbor wants one, it’s because he’s a greedy, selfish bastid who doesn’t care about the environment.
Pardon my semantic dispute, but I think you’re conflating economic markets with Capitalism. The former is an empirical phenomenon – a law of nature – as you suggest. The latter is a system of legal rights and cultural values that does not “exist naturally.”
ETA: I see that I’m one minute late. Oops.
Yes, it would. Without interest, no one would lend anybody money(aside from goodwill loans to friends). Think about what this would mean.
You couldn’t get a car loan.
You couldn’t buy a house – no mortgage.
Starting a business would be extremely difficult, because no one would give you a loan.
Banks wouldn’t exist, so you would have to keep all your money at home, or pay somebody to guard it for you.
Businesses(especially capital-intensive businesses like manufacturing and primary industry) would be hard-pressed to expand without being to borrow money to finance new operations.
Anybody who needed to get a student loan to attend university would be out of luck. They’d have to enter the workforce instead and try to save enough money to go.
That’s like saying “I’m going to become a macrobiotic vegan or a Brazilian barbecue lover”. They’re pretty much polar opposites.
Disagree, but I’m closer to agreeing with you than many critics of capitalism, I suspect. Capitalism is the market economy, which in turn is the money system. Where there is currency, there is capitalism. In anthro terms, it’s specific reciprocity.
Specific reciprocity isn’t the only kind of economic system.
Agree. In fact, the marxists’ criticisms of capitalism are basically right on target; they just don’t have an alternative plan that’s in any way an improvement. (Centralizing decision-making authority and depending on that authority to redistribute resources fairly is an older ec system than capitalism, and even more prone to abuses of power).
IANAIB, but from what I’ve learned on Wikipedia, the way Islamic banking works can best be described as ‘the same but different’ from the conventional system.
The way it works is that rather than the bank just giving you the money, you tell the bank what you plan to buy with it and they go and buy it for you. They then sell it to you, and you can pay them back in installments.
Well, it’s a little more complicated than that, and there are a lot more situations then that, of course, like venture capital, and it’s all compounded with lots of words in a language I don’t speak, but I think that’s the gist of it.
What was the last resource you competed for? There is plenty of everything essential to go around. When was the last time you went to the food store, and had to go home hungry because you couldn’t ‘compete’ with some rich guy who wanted all the tomatoes?
There is still competition for very expensive stuff - if you want a Ferrari, you have to compete with all the rich people who want one too. But for basic living essentials? No way. Capitalism’s constant drive for efficiency has produced a society in which everything essential for living is produced cheaply, and in large numbers. Next time you’re in your grocery store, take a mental snapshot - and compare that with pictures of bread lines in the Soviet Union.
Like I said, you’re making a relative judgment - “The poor get shafted because they can’t live as well as the rich.” The latter part is obviously true - but in absolute terms, the poor can still live good lives. Capitalism is responsible for the fact that today’s poor people live better than poor people ever have - and that tomorrow’s poor people will live still better than today’s.
Are the poor ‘shafted’ in today’s society? Sure, they can’t buy (new) iPods, Rolex watches, and other luxury items - but they have access to housing, heat, cheap food, and cheap transportation. Never mind computers, TVs, the internet, and so forth. Capitalism is what has made that possible. The fact that other people can pay for more expensive items (faster computers, bigger houses, cooler cars) doesn’t have any material effect on the lives of poor people.
And, on a separate note, how does communism solve this supposed problem of competition? There are still limited resources under communism, and still competition. If there isn’t enough food to feed the population, you compete with your neighbors to see who lives, and who starves to death. You’re not competing with money, but it’s competition nonetheless.
I can imagine charitable lending institutions springing up out of concern for the general welfare. In fact, such organizations exist today. See here for one example: http://www.kiva.org/
Granted, these are small loans for limited circumstances, but I can imagine that in a society where interest was illegal such institutions would exist for many kinds of loans. I can even imagine government programs that give interest free loans for such things as home purchases.
I’m not advocating banning interest, just pointing out that there could be alternative ways of doing things.
Really? Did capitalism exist before the invention of money and banks? How would capitalism work in a purely barter system? Capitalism is very much dependent on unnatural invented economic and governmental systems. I’m not slamming it. I think some form of it is probably necessary in an industrialized world, but I think it’s incorrect to imply that it’s as natural as gravity.
It sems to me that your comments on the costs of running a small business contradict your critique of capitalism, and your repeated statments of concern for the little guy.
I understand you seem to be saying two different things:
-
that capitalism is rigged in favour of the rich, and the little guy is always going to get screwed;
-
that it’s hard to run a business because of all of the expenses and that you shouldn’t have to have to pay all those taxes, etc.
Those two things strike me as contradictory, once you take a look at what all those additional expenses are for.
Take the GST and income taxes, which together make up the bulk of the federal government’s revenue. What do the feds do with that money? do they give it to the rich? Actually, no. About 40 % of the expenditures of the federal government are what are called “transfer payments” - payments either directly to individuals for things like old age pensions, social security, income supplements, and employment insurance, or to the provinces for social programs like welfare and medicare. See this Wiki article on Canada’s federal income and expenditures for more detail. So those taxes that you’re objecting to paying is going to insure that people who are having economic problems aren’t destitute, have access to good medical care, and so on. Seems an odd example of the system making the rich richer?
Then there’s the muncipal taxes. They pay for things like roads, police services, fire protection, and again, social programs like youth programs. Again, not aimed at the rich, but rather at things that everyone in the municipality needs and depends upon.
Then you mention matching salary contributions that the employer pays on behalf of employees - you know, the little guys that you’re upset are getting crushed by the system? Those matching payments are for things like the Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance - two federal programs designed to ensure that even people without a lot of money will have a pension when they retire, and that if they lose their job, they’ll have a source of income while they look for that next job, and make sure that they and their families will have food on the table, a roof to sleep under and so on during the job search. Losing one’s job won’t be a crisis. So those matching contributions that you’re upset about paying are designed to help the little guys you’re worried about.
You also mention workers’ compensation payments. The purpose of those is to ensure that if one of your employees is hurt on the job, they have guaranteed income replacement while they get better, guaranteed medical treatment, guaranteed rehab, etc. If an employee is actually killed on the job, their dependants also get benefits. That no-fault system replaced the tort system, by which an injured employee would have to sue the employer for damages - which would take time, plus the cost of hiring a lawyer, without any immediate payments. The workers’ comp system is yet another safety net for the little guy that you’re worrying about. Workers’ comp is also a benefit to the employer - if one of your employees is injured on the job, they don’t sue you, they apply to the WCB for benefits. Granted, not every employer has an employee injured on the job, but from the employer’s perspective, it’s like an insurance policy against the costs of lawsuits.
Then there’s the business licence, alcohol licence, and food handling licence. All of those licence fees are part of an overall regulatory scheme to ensure safe handling of food and liquor which you purvey to the public, the inspections of your kitchen and facilities to ensure that they meet health codes, and so on. If you’re running a business that caters food to the public, with all the health risks attendant on bad practices, you have to pay for the regulatory systems that protect all of your customers (and also protect you, when you go into someone else’s restaurant).
Lawyers’ fees? Yes, they’re high - but you’re paying for a service. At a guess, I’d say most of the lawyers’ fees are related to the lease on the restaruant, which is one of the big expenses for most restaurants. Nothing says you have to hire a lawyer. You could draft the lease agreement yourself. Or you could just sign the lease agreement that the landlord’s lawyer has drawn up, and cross your fingers and hope there’s nothing too unbalanced there. Or you could hire your own lawyer, skilled in the complex matter of business leases, who will act solely with your interests in mind. Your choice - but the professional lawyer is entitled to be paid for professional services, just like the professional engineer is entitled to be paid. 
Wages for your employees? You’re objecting that they’re too high? But I thought you were concerned about the little guy getting screwed by their employers. Guess that doesn’t apply when you’re the employer …
That’s all well and good - and as you noted, there’s nothing in capitalism that prevents such organizations from existing.
But can’t run an economy on charity. Let’s face it, people look out for their own interests, and theirs alone. The only reason people give to charity is because it makes them feel good.
The advantage of charging interest is that it provides an incentive to lend money, and assume the risk involved therein. If lenders couldn’t charge interest on the money they loan, they would soon be bankrupt, because they have no income to make up for the money they will inevitably lose on people who default on their loans.
Without interest, even charitable lenders wouldn’t loan any money to people they don’t have absolute trust in. That is not conducive to innovation and economic growth.
I think some people have trouble distinguishing between the free market, and capitalism.
The free market is pretty close to ‘natural’ - it has been around for as long as civilization itself, and works just fine in a pure barter system. Money is simply a way to make barter more convenient. It has been around for almost as long as civilization itself.
Capitalism is what emerged when governments passed laws to enforce the rules of the free market, and allow individual freedom. Modern capitalism owes a lot to technological progress as well.
I challenge anyone to describe a society in which individual freedom exists, but the free market (and therefore capitalism) do not.