In any case, I have started to wonder: Do those who oppose capitalism have a fault with the system itself, or with some of the results of those who abuse the system? For those who support socialism, greed is sited as a character flaw endorsed by capitalism. Yet, I have read nowhere in capitalistic literature that greed is the goal. Greed is found in all forms of government. Different government structures simply shifts who is greedy or who is allowed to be greedy. Productivity and profitability, augmenting the industry of each individual to provide for themselves, these are the hallmarks of capitalism, not greed.
With capitalism greed is developed in the individual. With socialism, government embraces greed. With communism greed is the object of the dictator. All systems allow for greed to exist.
So outside of greed, a character trait rooted in the natural man irrespective of government structure, what fault is there with capitalism?
In addition, Capitalism merely channels the greed of the individual for an outcome that benefits society, because as one man seeks through his greed to be more industrious and profitable, innovation takes place and new industries are created where others then have opportunity to prosper as well. Socialism stifles innovation and individual productivity with ideally the "same goal" in mind, that is prosperity for all of society instead of just individuals. But, as long as capitalism is protected in the free exercise thereof, under a capitalist system the only limit to personal prosperity is individual productivity. Furthermore those who just "can't" because they are handicapped beyond capacity for any labor can recieve the help they need through the charity of prosperous individuals. Likewise under comman-control economies under socialist/communist systems the handicapped are simply eradicated or never even given a chance to life through infanticide or abortion.
ReplyDeleteI am assuming, due to the lack of comments, that there is nothing wrong with capitalism.
ReplyDeleteI have heard it said that the only people who dislike systems which reward according to ability are those with no abilities and no appreciation of ability in others.
Oh Crayon Face. The first part of your comment reminds me of something. From Glenn Beck's TV Show. He had a phone, and was asking the white house to call him if anything he said was not true (The liberal-minded had asserted that Glenn Beck's show was full of lies). And the White House never called. Well it must be true, everything I've said! Right?
ReplyDeleteSigh. The fact that no one has commented means not that no one disagreed with the post. It could have meant a lot of things. Perhaps that the majority of this blogs audience is pro-capitalism, and wouldn't have any reason to argue. And perhaps the other anti-capitalist, like me, just found it to be so completely ridiculous that they didn't bother wasting their time to reply to it. But I just can't help myself now.
"I have heard it said that the only people who dislike systems which reward according to ability are those with no abilities and no appreciation of ability in others."
Ridiculous. I'd like to think I have abilities. I'd like to think I appreciate ability in others. I'm still in school, and so I guess I haven't been able to really prove my talents in the business world, but I'm on a full ride scholarship at my University, a member of University Honors there, and I maintain about a 3.8 gpa. I plan on being a neurologist, or a psychologist. You're basically asserting that those who dislike capitalism are those who wouldn't benefit from it. I will, however, almost assuredly benefit from it. I will most likely have plenty of wealth as I age. And I still hate capitalism. I'm not selfish, and I recognize that other's don't have it as lucky as I do. Other peoples parents can't afford to get their kids a good education, which leads to a better job, and more money. Many children aren't that blessed. I was. I'm willing to pay more taxes, to live under a socialistic government, because I want those kids to have the same chances I did.
I can't handle the overwhelmingly absurd rhetoric that these posts include. It drives me absolutely mad!
Hm, no one commented, so no one has a problem with capitalism. We win!
Pathetic.
So Reed, to get to the post that is so ridiculous, what is the great tragedy of information here? This was an invitation for you to explain what is wrong with Socialism not Crayon Face's commentary. Don't think I didn't see your dodge of the real subject at hand.
ReplyDeletereed- thanks for commenting. You responded to my goad and I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteI did want to address your statement of "You're basically asserting that those who dislike capitalism are those who wouldn't benefit from it. I will, however, almost assuredly benefit from it. I will most likely have plenty of wealth as I age. And I still hate capitalism. I'm not selfish, and I recognize that other's don't have it as lucky as I do. Other peoples parents can't afford to get their kids a good education, which leads to a better job, and more money. Many children aren't that blessed. I was. I'm willing to pay more taxes, to live under a socialistic government, because I want those kids to have the same chances I did."
Why don't you take that wealth you accumulate and help some kids? Why does the government have to do it for you?
A few years ago I saw on the news the story of an elderly woman who lived and worked in the south all her life. working only min. wage, but saving every penny she could. When she died she had over $1mill. in a trust that she set up for scholarships to give others the chance she never had. I wonder if that would have been the culmination of her life if we were a socialistic country.
Also in Costa Rica the government mandates college attendance and that education is government run. While the citizens are all very intelligent the average wages earned are about $350 a month, and those college educated people still live in huts.
This confirms one of my fears of a socialist country, that mediocrity will be acceptable and people will cease to fight to better their situation. I too want kids in poor homes to have an opportunity at college education, but I will use my hard earned money to give a child willing to work hard and excel that chance.
Thank you Ms. Face.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely correct in your assertion that capitalism and socialism are not two sides of a coin and I was quite pleased to see that you distinguished between socialism and communism.
ReplyDeleteThe current problem in our country is that it employs a system of socialism for the wealthy (see bank bailout) and capitalism for the poor. We could fix this by abolishing the immoral systems that insulate the upper-crust, but unfortunately lobbyists, modern politics, and modern technology make this impossible (you can't start a company in your garage that will compete with Intel).
The most important principle of capitalism is that people be allowed to fail or prosper on their own terms in a system that favors none.
Unfortunately, our flawed legislative, legal, and executive governments create an environment that allows those already at the top (often through birth or chance) to gain unfair advantage over newcomers to the field.
If you really think that pure capitalism is in the best interest of the general public or even just the deserving public (a bad idea) here's what needs to happen:
Inheritance - stifled
The Corporation - outlawed
Higher Education - free
Loans - readily available to anyone
All too often when I hear about the glories of capitalism, it's coming from people who've never encountered widespread poverty. Entire swathes of our nation are barely above the level of a third world nation, with crumbling infrastructure, terrible schools, rampant crime, and a culture of ignorance and anger. For the residents of these areas, escape isn't a feasible option, the best they can reasonably hope for is to enable their children to live better lives. This is better than nothing, but far from ideal.
I'm a socialist, but taking into account the realities of the human condition, I would be willing to settle for a well-implemented capitalist system. Unfortunately, I doubt that's possible anymore in our global, technological world. A modern corporation is the product of thousands of people, millions of dollars in equipment and real estate, and years to establish itself.
As far as capitalism is concerned, the era of the individual is over.
(This post will be in several parts due to length)
ReplyDeleteSigh. I've been outnumbered here and the amount of material to reply to is so vast that I fear I will never get around to it all. When I finish this comment I will probably get a reply from each of you, and, being a student, there is no possible way for me to find the sort of time it would require. So before I start, don't confuse the absence of response on my part as a victory on your part. After all, we're all already set in our opinions here, and it's rare for an internet debate to actually change someones mind. However, raising both sides of an issue is beneficial to any readers, and hopefully you three (or whatever) authors will honestly consider the points I make. Long rant somewhat shorter: this debate could go on for the rest of our lives. If there was a conclusion, then we wouldn't be discussing this right now, because we'd already know the answer. Humanity and history have yet to make any conclusive statements on this sort of issue, which is why there are varying forms of economic systems in the world. I will not be able to continue to reply. Just don't get too excited when I don't. Deal?
James wants me to explain what is wrong with capitalism.
I would hope you've already studied what people find wrong with capitalism. So rather than be so broad with my answer, I'll try and take GWH's post, and first comment specifically, and form my response from them. Fair enough?
"Do those who support capitalism have a fault with the system itself, or with some of the results of those who abuse the system?"
I'm assuming, GWH, that you mean to say "do those who oppose capitalism. . ." Otherwise, this question makes absolutely no sense in it's context. With that assumption, all I have to say in reply is that:
Well, the same can be said for any system. Capitalism, or socialism. Or any other system, or combination of systems; corporatism, mutualism, etc etc etc. Simple.
Greed present in all systems? Of course. The problem is that capitalism caters to greed. It makes it easy. It makes it favorable. Capitalism is founded on the idea of individual pursuit of wealth and profit. It's a rat race. Unfortunately, the individual pursuit of wealth and profit, which of itself is not harmful, becomes harmful, when you consider the factors that are necessarily a part of the equation to make money. "Individual pursuit of wealth and profit" becomes "greed" when the private sector starts employing tactics that have negative effects on others (be it businesses, other corporations, individuals and workers, animals, or the earth).
Socialism, while there is of course room for greed (you are correct in saying no system makes greed impossible) doesn't cater to greed.
Greed is bad, and greed HAS to be a part of capitalism. It's what propels the entire system. Not so with socialism, even if there is still room for it.
The Innovation Argument
ReplyDeleteNext, GWH argues that socialism suffocates innovation.
Capitalism does promote innovation. You're right there. But it does it at the expense of parts of the human race, the environment, etc.
Socialism, does not hurt innovation.
I know why you would think this, but one needs only to look at history to prove that it does not. Luckily, we have socialistic development systems in the world, and we can look at them to prove that socialism allows innovation.
1) Recall the our countries rivalry with the Soviet Union. They had a socialistic developmental system. Their space program, and their medical programs, were more advanced than the U.S. The Soviets ended up being the first ones in space, after all.
2) Radial Keratotomy, the first eye surgery to fix near-sightedness was discovered by Svyatoslav Fyodorov. Under the same socialistic system.
3) In 1971, during the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese developed a special extraction method to isolate artemisinin.
This list goes on and on and on. We have a billion examples of innovation coming from socialist countries. Explain it, if socialism harms innovation?
Socialist system employs doctors, scientists, chemists, engineers, and so forth to do the exact same innovation they would do in a capitalist system. I bet those doctors hold back, and don't try as hard under a socialist system -- right? ::Sarcasm:: Hm, I think I'm onto something here, but actually, never mind that, because I don't work for a company that's going to smash another company with this discovery. I'll just forget about it.
I hope that makes sense.
Now please, by all means, return the favor, and explain what is wrong with socialism. I might eventually get around to responding to it. I mean, don't count on it. But you could try.
In response to Crayon Face
ReplyDeleteWhy don't I give my money to the children? Why does the government have to do it for me?
The answer is pretty simple. My donation, no matter how large, will do little to benefit the entire country. Only the government, the body with the most power, has the means to really make a difference. If every citizen was willingly donating their money, without the government making them do, then it would be just fine. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I can't really expect them to do that. In a world of war, terrorism, theft, lies, murder, and horrible atrocities, how can I actually hope for US citizens to willingly do their part? It just won't happen. I can't make a difference on my own. Make sense?
So that's great for the elderly lady. That was mighty kind of her. Too bad everyone is not like that eh? Too bad her "$1mill" made almost no impact on the entire population. Really, it's too bad.
Sigh.
This is what I've got for now. I'll get around to the other posts in the next little while.
Happy Holidays gentlemen, and Merry Christmas, if I don't have more contact with you before the 25th =D
I will not attempt to comment back on that novel, but thank you for putting together something outside of "this post is ridiculous."
ReplyDeleteRE: The current problem in our country is that it employs a system of socialism for the wealthy (see bank bailout) and capitalism for the poor.
I have to agree with you in that there is an imbalance. However, I will disagree that the solution is to lean towards socialism as the answer. Here is the irony of your argument as I understand it Reed:
You say there is so much fault with the upper class, their greed, etc. You then also say that they are currently practicing a form of socialism in this country. So by your own account, your find fault with socialism - or you have contradicted yourself.
What is so wrong with an inheritance? What is so wrong with the corporation? Your claim sees to be that inheritance un-evens the playing field in a matter of speaking. But what playing field are you referring?
You are an Obama fan are you not Reed? If so, what about his story has given him the "edge" in achieving a high office in the greatest nation in the world? He was born under some very desperate and lowly circumstances yet he was able to achieve high levels. A level that Steve Forbes, Mitt Romney, Ross Perot, some of the richest men in America were unable to achieve. So, if you feel that money unlevels the playing field I would have to say I disagree with you. All are able to achieve what they legally can in this country. And a corporation is available to everyone of legal age. So there is nothing about a corporation that is prohibitive to even the lowliest of citizens. So I find no evil in these as you have presented them to be.
However, wanting to make loan money available to everyone is an ideal that has caused the economic crisis that we face today. Too much money floating around to people who cannot afford to pay it back. Additionally, there is plenty of commentary and counsel from the brethren that would say that such an open access to the binding chains of debt is a formula for failure and opens the door to financial slavery - a thing of evil. If you mean loans available to anyone in the sense that currently that is not the case, I feel your attitude is skewed. It is available to anyone who is willing to meet the criteria. Meaning, the only restriction to loans is the individuals own actions and abilities - not some law preventing them based on race, creed, or religion. So perhaps I don't follow you on that issue.
First of all your response to the first question was actually a question posted by someone else and not myself. Second, the so called "innovations" of the Soviets in many instances if not all were copies of innovations truly created by the United States. Atomic energy was discovered by the U.S. and harnessed into a weapon then stolen by the Soviets. Is it not realistic that their spies were also stealing space secrets? I've been in Russian hospitals, there is nothing to brag about, in fact they are horrendous. Even at their height in the U.S.S.R. the Soviet government could not compete with the U.S. in production, a fighter pilot who defected to the U.S. thought it was a government conspiracy by the Americans when he saw his first grocery store and all the food on the shelves. He couldn't wrap his head around the idea of such plentiful food and so many choices. Research your point, because it is not a valid one, Socialism stifles innovation because you cannot command control creativity. There is even proof in entertainment form with Top Gears special on the Russian car(s) -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GtDyZVg56k
And you keep stating that there's a difference between socialism and communism. The U.S.S.R. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Seems to me Socialism is just
Commie-lite. You know it's like the difference between chocolate milk with a little hersheys syrup vs. a lot, either way it's still chocolate milk.
I'll tell you what Obama's advantage was - He's black! That's why he was elected, I can't believe I even need to spell this out. And Reed - don't be a typical liberal = pessimistic. Change is the aggregate of individual actions. You donating your time to help someone or money or whatever helps that one person/persons. If each person does what they can to help another then who cares about the people who don't, the ones who do are reaping benefits and those who recieve the service or money or whatever recieve benefits as well. It is this giant misnomer that under Socialism societal inequity disappears, there was still a ruling class in the U.S.S.R. and that is 100 million no, one sesquitrajillion times worse than the inequity that exists in the U.S. today. I agree with you that opportunity is being stifled in the U.S. but it's being stifled by an entitlement attitude and a lack of ambition as well as the advantages/dis that you outlined. But the gov. role is only to keep the playing field even, not control the players themselves.
ReplyDeleteReed and I (Reed WINTERS), unfortunately, have the same name, which is a bit confusing. The bulk of your comment seems to be in reply to Reed, and not me, but just in case it was directed towards me, I just want to throw in a few notes:
ReplyDelete1) Obama is not my ideal president, no. I did, at one time, support many of the things Obama stood for. This was pre-election however, and since election Obama has compromised these beliefs dramatically. (Notably on his advocacy for single-payer, universal health care.) Even from the beginning, Obama was not ideal, but today, he is no better than any republican candidate in my eyes. Obama seems to be proving to the US that Democrats and Republicans are two parts of the same party. Short answer: No, I do not support Obama.
2) "Counsel and commentary" from the brother hardly applies to my beliefs, and does not apply at all to Reeds.
That's it.
I just can't seem to stop posting comments, even when I truly believe I'm finally done haha.
ReplyDeleteThis will be short:
GWH: Everything you say (Whatever it is you're trying to say; it's near impossible to tell) is, well, frankly bullshit. I know you don't approve of such language, but I think you can handle it if you're favorite movies are Rated R ;)
James: You seem fairly intelligent, and I have respect for you. I think it's unfortunate that you associate yourself with Good old GWH. Consider breaking that connection, at least in the blogosphere.
Sorry GWH, I just really can't take anything you say seriously. Perhaps, James, if you don't want to break the connection, you could possibly just translate everything GWH says into some sort of logical, understandable reasoning. That might be nice.
You say there is so much fault with the upper class, their greed, etc. You then also say that they are currently practicing a form of socialism in this country. So by your own account, your find fault with socialism - or you have contradicted yourself.
ReplyDeleteWrong, I found fault with offering some the benefits of socialism and denying them to others.
What is so wrong with an inheritance? What is so wrong with the corporation? Your claim sees to be that inheritance un-evens the playing field in a matter of speaking. But what playing field are you referring?
The one relevant to this debate, the economic playing-field.
However, wanting to make loan money available to everyone is an ideal that has caused the economic crisis that we face today.
That list was only a skeleton, obviously any implementation of my sentiments would have to be much more detailed, you're right that giving loans to people who can't afford to pay them back is dangerous and benefits no one. I only wanted to express the need for a mechanism enabling those who want to compete to do so. Sorry.
Really I should have skipped straight to the end.
I would be willing to settle for a well-implemented capitalist system. Unfortunately, I doubt that's possible anymore in our global, technological world.
Capitalism served our economy quite well, back when it was younger. Now, honest competition is largely impossible in far too many fields for a system built on honest competition to be effective.
Once, capitalism fostered development. Now, it stifles it.
Example: when general motors developed an electric car that worked well and was well liked by most who were lucky enough to obtain one, other major automotive makers and the oil companies stepped in and threatened GM with anti-competitive measures if they didn't discontinue the car. I'm not going to go into the whole story here.
For other examples look into the history of the seat belt, Microsoft's business model, the pharmaceutical industry, and the energy industry.
Our economy is an economy of corporations now, not people, and often a corporation has so much invested in the status quo that innovation posses a threat to their bottom line.
Celebrity endorsements, lobbying groups, browbeating, monopolistic ploys, corporate espionage, and paper shuffling have taken the place of actual competition.
I lied, it's M. Galt who likes the "R" movies, not GWH. Forgive me.
ReplyDelete(liberal = pessimistic) = Erroneous
ReplyDeleteParaphrasing Regan or possible just reganites: Government is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
that = pessimistic
Me : Government is the most important tool modern humanity has for improving it's own conditions. Any system as large as our government is bound to be riddled with corruption, waste, and scandal, but that doesn't change the fact that it's capable of real good when steered in the right direction and that it's the only organization capable of addressing many of the problems our world faces.
that = optimistic
RE: Government is the most important tool modern humanity has for improving it's own conditions.
ReplyDeleteHow so? It wasn't until this country was founded on principles of limited government that the people of the world found a place where they could improve their life through the opportunities and freedoms this country used to encourage.
Your approach to governance calls for a reliance on government. This is not an improvement in any sense of the concept. When each individual is able to achieve success and be independent, they will not only experiencing a higher version of humanity they will want that for others. Those that are dependent on government are dependent on government - stripped of ability to help others because they can't even help themselves.
Reed/Reeds,
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure which is which, but I would like to say that I like how you bring no valid point to the table and seek to discredit an argument by attacking the messenger. Nice one.
So government is the solution eh? Let's look through history at places where governments had more control than the United States over its' citizens....hmmmm thinking deep here...Let's start with Germany - Hitler - 6,000,000 Jews dead and responsible for tens if not hundreds of millions killed as a direct result of their aggressive actions, Stalin - 50,000,000 citizens dead through starvation due to socialistic principles of production, Mao Zedong 75,000,000 dead due to the same starvation factor as Stalin. I really don't get what history it is that your analyzing when you mike such erroenous statements as:
Me : Government is the most important tool modern humanity has for improving it's own conditions. Any system as large as our government is bound to be riddled with corruption, waste, and scandal, but that doesn't change the fact that it's capable of real good when steered in the right direction and that it's the only organization capable of addressing many of the problems our world faces
A government ideally is set up as a representation of the will of the people. I do not currently feel represented by the American government. This is the problem, many people today do not feel represented hence the low approval numbers of both the president and congress. And you really don't make any sense when you make statements that contradict themselves in the same paragraph. First you say government is the solution, then admit that there is a lot of corruption, but then suggest that the government should be steered somewhere...by who? A dictator? Would you be the benevolent person of choice, I mean because clearly you are so knowledgable. Grow up and face reality. Reality does exist, you don't have to view the world through your emotions. And by the way, James and I have never really had a "connection" although I'm assuming that your inference comes from your personal experience with man-man connections? What a joke.....
"Your approach to governance calls for a reliance on government."
ReplyDeleteI think you're oblivious to how much you rely on government.
The problem is, when government works you don't notice. You only give it your attention when it's inconveniencing you. You drive on public roads, you drive a car that has a catalytic converter so that you don't have to live in a cloud of nitrogen oxides, you use electricity, indoor plumbing, maybe you fly on airplanes utilizing the national air traffic control system, you can walk streets without joining an armed caravan, if your house starts on fire you have someone to call, animal control generally keeps you from being menaced by feral dogs, you can eat canned food without contracting botulsim, you can enjoy national parks that haven't been strip mined or blanketed with billboards and burger-joints, you attended public schools that are better than nothing even if they did fail the GreatWhiteHope, you can use public libraries, you can go to the pharmacy and be reasonably sure your medications aren't cut with industrial waste, you don't have to live with the horrors of smallpox or polio, you don't have to worry about becoming the victim of genocide, you don't have to worry about the Huns razing your village, and I could go on all day since everything in your life is affected by government directly or indirectly and most of the time, life is pretty good.
I don't think the government should provide the unemployed with jet-ski's, premium cable, or fine china, but would it really be that bad if every person in this country could always count on having food, shelter, and medical care, deserving or not? The cost of providing such things is infinitesimal when compared with costs of the extravagances enjoyed by an incredibly small, homogeneous section of our populace.
GreatWhiteHope: I understand that its difficult to tell the difference between "Reed" and "Reed Winters" (hint: one's longer than the other), but you should make some effort to distinguish between us. I used the word "steered" and you started talking about dictators. At no point in this discussion have I made mention of dictators, you should stick to the debate we're actually having.
I never mentioned any "connections" so you must have been talking to Winters, but on behalf of non-homophobes everywhere, strain your mind and try to think of things in terms that aren't directly tied to your genitalia and/or anus.
Wow. You are out of control, and infantile in your points, and do nothing to counter an argument but attack the person who countered yours. I'm out.
ReplyDeleteThe person who hears the word "connections" and jumps to sodomy is calling me infantile.
ReplyDeleteYou called my "points" infantile and then accused me of "[doing] nothing to counter an argument but attack the person who countered yours."
I avoided any personal comments until you attempted to denigrate someone by implying that they were a homosexual (a common grade school tactic).
I attempted to denigrate you by casting aspersions on your education. I'll apologize if you'll simply demonstrate that they were unfounded. I hope you do.
I guess I struck a nerve....does it hurt to have someone imply that you are homosexual? I mean, in liberal terms if there's nothing wrong with it why are you taking so much offense that I implied that you are a man who likes sexual relations with another man?
ReplyDeleteReed: Your example "when general motors developed an electric car that worked well and was well liked by most who were lucky enough to obtain one, other major automotive makers and the oil companies stepped in and threatened GM with anti-competitive measures if they didn't discontinue the car. I'm not going to go into the whole story here."
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that this is because those industries are so highly socialized (meaning the government regulates just about every part of their industry including owning a portion of them) that this is really an argument against socialism. Capitalism would have said, too bad so sad, compete or get out. In capitalism the market would have driven this product to market regardless of what the competitors did.
Microsoft and the pharmaceutical industry are no exception to this either. The government has so many regulations with Drugs that most of the useful stuff becomes so expensive to meet the needs of government controls and regulations. Microsoft is loosing market share because of capitalistic practices of lynux and apple. This is capitalism, not socialism. Socialism is your example of the auto industries - the thing you claim to support and hate at the same time.
Me thinks you be missing a definition of these here systems systems somewhere. Because so far the examples of how capitalism is bad or stiffles invention is the result of socialistic agendas and regulations.
By the way, I don't believe that no goverment is the solution. I do appreciate the road (when they are in good condition) and I do appreciate police and fire protection. There are many things that I appreciate from government, when government is doing it job. But when the government comes and tells me that I can't park my car in my own driveway because it isn't registered then government is going beyond the bounds of government (just happened a few months ago to a classic I am working on).
ReplyDeleteYou catalytic converters are a good government idea because of green house gases etc. But do you know that catalytic converters also lower performance and gas mileage? This so called regulation to help save the environment is neutralized by the fact that we expend more gas as a result. Case and point that some of what the government does, actually does not help that much, it only seems to help. Instead, the cost of the car has gone up with the additional part, and the amount of fuel consumption over the life of the vehicle has gone up.
Or electric cars that recieve their charge from the outlet in the garage which comes from power in a plant created by coal, nuclear, or hydro which comes from a dam which rapes and pillages the landscape and prevents fish from spawning upstream....
ReplyDelete"Capitalism would have said, too bad so sad, compete or get out."
ReplyDeleteCapitalism doesn't say anything. In that particular circumstance, I think government should have stepped in to insure that no foul play occurred, but that's hardly Laissez-faire.
You're right that all of my examples aren't examples of true capitalism and that was precisely why I used them. My entire point was that when the government fails to regulate properly or is not allowed to regulate, capitalism devolves into an anti-competitive brawl. Just like you can't have a basketball league without referees (even if the referees are fallible), you can't have a healthy capitalism without direct government involvement.
Clearly there are things government should and shouldn't do, but a Laissez-faire approach isn't practical in our modern world.
I never said that I hated capitalism, that was Winters. I said : "I'm a socialist, but taking into account the realities of the human condition, I would be willing to settle for a well-implemented capitalist system."
In the original post you asked: "...what fault is there with capitalism?"
Socialism and capitalism both have their faults. What I was suggesting was, just as socialism is an ideal that is impossible to obtain in actual practice, capitalism is an ideal that cannot exist without an overseeing authority to maintain the authenticity of the competition.
My point being, that we can never successfully implement a pure capitalism, and that I think some social programs to provide the citizenry with basic essentials (food, shelter, medical) would be moral, are entirely plausible, and would be greatly beneficial.
Cars and catalytic converters:
I am aware that catalytic converters have a negative impact on the efficiency of an engine. They weren't implemented to reduce CO2, the reason we started using them was to reduce nitrous oxides which were causing adverse health effects in heavily populated areas.
http://bayimg.com/image/hajbnaacc.jpg
We still have smog, but it generally doesn't turn the air orange anymore.
I am also aware that electric cars still need a source of energy and that the source is often environmentally unfriendly. The advantage is that combustion engines have an efficiency of about 18%-20% (meaning if you put in 100 Joules of chemical energy, you only get about 20 Joules of work out), while electric motors can have efficiencies as high or higher than 80%. Burning fossil fuels at a power plant is much more efficient because power plants have more advanced mechanisms for preventing energy loss and the environmental factors are more easy managed when they've been restricted to centralized sources. Even if we found some new unimagined energy source in the future, it would still probably be most practical to use electric cars and perform the energy extraction at a plant of some kind, since we already have a vast infrastructure for distributing electrical energy (that infrastructure currently needs some serious overhauling, but it's better than starting from scratch).
Reed: In regards to your statement, "My entire point was that when the government fails to regulate properly or is not allowed to regulate, capitalism devolves into an anti-competitive brawl." Capitalism doesn't rely on government regulation. That is the point... capitalism doesn't thrive when the government compels the business to behave a certain way.
ReplyDeleteWhere there is a regulation, there is a way around it. So all the regulation does is shift bad behavior, regulations add taxes to enforce and raises the cost of doing business for those that are honest. Dishonest people in business are going to be dishonest regardless of the regulation.
With respect to the catalytic converter argument. This is an example of environmental policy that simply shifts the problem. It may make the automobile itself cleaner, if it takes more gas to run due to the inefficiency, then it requires more gas to run, more gas, means more oil refining and drilling. Not to mention there is another piece of junk on a car, or another thing to go wrong on an car that needs to be replaced and thrown away. The manufacturing of that extra part causes CO2 in the air too. Point being, in a sense one could argue that one little such regulation actually makes things worse because of all the other factors that have to be balanced out as a result. This sort of thing happens all over the place with regulations. Whether financial, environmental, the government doesn't make things better, they shift the problem if not increase it.
"You are an Obama fan are you not Reed?"
ReplyDeleteI was an Obama supporter, until I heard today that he hopes to renew the Patriot Act.
"Where there is a regulation, there is a way around it. So all the regulation does is shift bad behavior, regulations add taxes to enforce and raises the cost of doing business for those that are honest. Dishonest people in business are going to be dishonest regardless of the regulation."
ReplyDeleteThis strikes me as an over-simplification. To clarify: Do you oppose all regulation of economic activity?
Reed - "you can't have a healthy capitalism without direct government involvement."
ReplyDeleteWhere did you say you go to school?
Ok, on the electric car thing, I'm doing you a favor by stating this, but the lifespan of the batteries is roughly 10 years. Know how much they are? Oh, about $8,000. What happens to the battery? If the core is salveagable it can be reconditioned otherwise it's going to the landfill. Thank you environmental yuppies who think you are all high and mighty, you just created a greater hazard than all those with their heads screwed on straight driving pickups because they need 'em.
ReplyDeleteAs far as regulation, it's the same argument with gun control. Regulation does nothing but prevent the honest man from the means to defend himself. Criminals don't obey laws, that's why they're criminals, so what makes you think adding regulation is going to have an impact on a criminal? I tell you what, arguing with liberals is like shooting fish in a barrel.... You guys just don't operate in the realm of reality.
"You can't have a healthy capitalism without direct government involvement."
ReplyDeleteThe man's right.
If you didn't have direct government involvement it would be anarchy. If you had anarchy you would be dead, or living in a primitive world, because any technological, industrial, innovative progress would be thwarted by the natural self-interest of humans.
"If you didn't have direct government involvement it would be anarchy."
ReplyDeleteClarification: No one here has advocated anarchy, we're discussing economic regulations. Not the rule of law in general.
My last input on this blog
ReplyDeleteD&C 82:
17 - And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just—
18 - And all this for the benefit of the church of the living God, that every man may improve upon his talent, that every man may gain other talents, yea, even an hundred fold, to be cast into the Lord’s storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church—
"Ok, on the electric car thing, I'm doing you a favor by stating this, but the lifespan of the batteries is roughly 10 years."
ReplyDeleteBattery technology has a long way to go, I have no doubt of that, but the central principles of an electric vehicle are more sound than those of a vehicle powered by internal combustion. The prices of such batteries would drop if they were being produced on the scale that automobiles are.
Heat engines are wildly inefficient and absurdly difficult to maintain due to their frequent and massive temperature fluctuations and abundant moving parts.
We've spent decades perfecting the internal combustion engine because fossil fuels are so readily available and so potent, but I think we need to start working on electric vehicles.
Back to the original discussion:
An absence of regulation doesn't eliminate the possibility of foul-play.
We're in our current economic mess largely as a result of the buying and selling of financial derivative products and other shady Wall st. practices that the government should have been regulating.
I'd like to know what you attribute this last bubble to, if not a lack of government oversight.
Reed: re: Do you oppose all regulation of economic activity?
ReplyDeleteNo, I am not opposed to all regulation. I have already said this. Your question related to my comment of "Where there is a regulation, there is a way around it." I didn't say this to mean there should be no regulation. However, I am saying that when a crime is committed, there should be a punishment. When the government steps in and sets up protocols or regulations that are conceivably in place to deter the crime from even happening, my feeling is that crimes will still happen. The only difference now is that those who didn't commit the crime to begin with have another law or regulation to keep if they want to stay law abiding. This regulation slows down their productivity because they are stuck filling out form or doing fifty tests to confirm their already honest practice. In this way the honest business person is the one being punished. This dishonest business person will still be dishonest, they will just find another way to do it. Therefore, the regulation's result ends up punishing the honest while simply shifting the crime to something else.
You are right in part about the cause of the economic problems being in part due to the wall street issues, and the banks selling notes they should have never originated. I am a loan officer and am very familiar with how that all works. However, you are missing a root cause and therefore you are also missing the root solution.
Wall street can be crooked no matter what. Crime still happens even though there are laws deterring those actions from taking place. That's what happens in a free world, and to go with a doctrinal principle, with God's gift of agency. God did not seek to take that agency our away knowing perfectly that we would screw up and violate his laws. So he placed punishments for those who violated the law-he did not seek to control their choices as a solution.
When it comes to the economy, any regulation meant to eliminate undesirable or illegal actions in business is an IMPOSSIBLE venture. Therefore, the more regulations that you place on the whole, instead of just on those who violate the laws, punishes and diminishes the productivity of the whole. Business should be in the business of producing and servicing, not in filling out forms and spending their capital on meeting government regulation. Business is not here for the government, just as the people are not here for the government, but the government are for businesses and us. There is a way for government and business to not be at odds with each other. What it seems like most socialists are assuming and desiring is a situation where the government and business are constantly at odds. That seems counter-productive and does not encourage much confidence in consumers.
"Wall street can be crooked no matter what... When it comes to the economy, any regulation meant to eliminate undesirable or illegal actions in business is an IMPOSSIBLE venture."
ReplyDeleteThese statements are the logical equivalent of telling a Parkinson's patient that because no final cure exist for their disease, any attempt to improve their quality of life is an exercise in futility.
I occasionally dream of utopia, but right now I"m only talking about making our economic scheme better, that's far from impossible.
"So he placed punishments for those who violated the law-he did not seek to control their choices as a solution."
When government enforces punishments for certain actions, we call those laws. Also known as regulation. There is no other method of control available to us.
I don't understand what you thought I was supporting, mind control?
"Therefore, the more regulations that you place on the whole, instead of just on those who violate the laws, punishes and diminishes the productivity of the whole."
So instead of having laws against theft, we should have laws that say stealing is illegal, but only for those who steal. We wouldn't want to place a burden on non-thieves.
I don't think you're really thinking about these things.
Reed, "I occasionally dream of utopia, but right now I"m only talking about making our economic scheme better, that's far from impossible."
ReplyDeleteHow can you listen to Milton Friedman and then say that your socialist proposals will make our "economic scheme better". Go back and re-watch that video again. Have you ever traveled anywhere outside of Orem? My guess is you've probably never been outside Utah, and by small chance maybe Canada or Mexico. Which is suprising coming from your apparently affluent background with the rich parents who spoiled you in everything else. It's a shame they never sponsered you for a trip to a 3rd world country ruled by a socialist government
10x more corrupt than any Capitalist country with poverty up the wazoo. I will say it again because it doesn't appear to be sinking in - Socialism does not work, it stifles opportunity.
"Have you ever traveled anywhere outside of Orem?"
ReplyDeleteI've lived and worked in LA, DC, Chicago, and Orlando. For the four months I spent in Chicago I was working primarily in South Chicago. It's practically a third world country.
Yeah that's what I thought, you've never dealt with anything outside this great land. I've been to Detroit and I will say that it rivals Mongolia in terms of infrastructure (3rd world), but the difference is Mongolia is changing for the better because they are recovering from the USSR towards democracy and people are working hard to capitalize on opportunity to improve their station in life. Detroit is a cesspool and continues to degrade because the way I see it unions and social programs have crippled the city and the people expect a handout. My guess is South Chicago is similar, I've been through Chicago but not the Southside.
ReplyDeleteI just stumbled on this blog and I need to respond to a few things.
ReplyDeleteReed (not Winters) said:
"We're in our current economic mess largely as a result of the buying and selling of financial derivative products and other shady Wall st. practices that the government should have been regulating.
I'd like to know what you attribute this last bubble to, if not a lack of government oversight."
I'll tell you what I attribute it to. Too much government oversight. First, there were artificially low interest rates. This was because the government wanted everyone to be home buyers. As people rushed to buy homes the prices of homes (artificially) rose. Second, the government passed the Community Reinvestment Act which was essentially a way of enacting Reed's (not Winters) idea of making loans available to everyone. It required insured banks to provide mortgage credit to home buyers who were at or below 80% of median income. Well, poor people can't always afford good loans so they were forced to start making much more risky loans.
Eventually some of these subprime mortgages started to go into default. This lowered the value of the mortgages to investors, which in turn meant that banks couldn't get rid of the loans, so they therefore had less money to loan. This in turn slowed down the whole economy and lead to the financial crisis. (I know I over simplified that process but I didn't want to write a novel.)
Certainly during all of this there was greed and many banks made stupid decisions. But at the root of all of it was government trying to force regulations to "help" people. In the end people were not helped, and that is what is wrong with government regulation.
Reed Winters quoted D&C 82:17-18 which essentially says that we are to consecrate all our goods to the church for the benefit of all members.
ReplyDeleteI fail to see how that's relevant to our discussion other than to show that we should fight any form of socialism at all because we've been commanded to give generously to the church and that is difficult to do when we are instead giving generously to the government.
Let me be clear: I am a firm believer in giving money to the church as well as to other charitable organizations. George Albert Smith was a believer in donating to the Salvation Army because he said, "They reach people we don't"
That being said, I do not believe in any form government hand out.
Ezra Taft Benson said: “No true Latter-day Saint can be a Communist or a Socialist because Communist principles run counter to the revealed word of God and to the Constitution of this land which was established by men whom the God of Heaven raised up unto that very purpose [D&C 101:80].”
And in case you don't care what a prophet says, here is a found father, Thomas Jefferson: “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.’”
Jeff- I like your well explained comments. Please come back often and join in the blog.
ReplyDeleteJeff, please read this:
ReplyDeletehttp://thefaithfuldissident.blogspot.com/2008/10/ezra-taft-benson-vs-democratic.html
Ezra was not a prophet at the time. Also, he's not referring to Social Democracy (what we usually call socialism now, usually). He's referring to communist and fascist style socialism.
Reed, just admit it, you just jumped into the realm of rationaliztion to the coocoo degree with your last statement.
ReplyDeleteYou say that Ezra Taft Benson was not a prophet at the time - we he was an apostle. And an apostle by definition is a prophet, seer, and revelator. There is no known censure by the church for what he said.
And to the idea that he was speaking to one kind of socialism over another is a seriously subjective statement on your part seeing as he never made the distinction himself. Furthermore, whatever brand of socialism you wish to call it, he spoke out on specific issues that are the relevant ones today. National Health Care was specifically named several times and was given spiritual and secular proof for his case. (see the Sunday December 20th 2009 post video for further PROOF of his direct words)
I find your dismissal of Ezra Taft Benson's words disheartening. He is an ordained apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. You seem to be more willing to align your ideologies with the failing philosophy of man than you do with an apostle. Does that not concern you?
Furthermore Reed, consider this additional quote from Ezra Taft Benson:
ReplyDeleteFrom Ezra Taft Benson:
“The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich. The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them; otherwise, the prophet is just giving his opinion—speaking as a man. The rich may feel they have no need to take counsel of a lowly prophet”
I am not advocating a stab to you that you are some rich boy as others have. But you do seem to consider yourself one of the "enlightened few who get it" and have already demonstrated that you feel the prophets are wrong in their opinion. So I give the quote as an additional prophetic warning. Ezra Taft Benson is prescribing a change in a course of action that spot on describes you. Perhaps it is not something you should so easily dismiss.
This post illustrates that the author doesn't understand what the word socialism means.
ReplyDeleteHow is the author wrong? Perhaps you would be willing to clarify where there is error?
ReplyDelete