[Economist]The mountain man and the surgeon

I think Capitalism does take into account basic human greed and jealousy. You can call it profit motive or ambition or whatever. Human beings want material goods that benefits them or their loved ones. They want private ownership and freedom. If you ask me - it's the perfect system for an imperfect species - throw in some public services and laws to ensure some level of equity and that's basically what we have here in America.

If we grant someone the freedom to create and own something and the right to barter - then we have Capitalism in it's most basic roots.

Communism is flawed. It does not factor in basic human greed. It assumes that people would work just as hard for some intagible "public good" as they would for themselves. It is also assumes a benevolent, all-powerful government that knows what the citizens want and what is best for them.

I'm not sure what Socialism is - but from the self-proclaimed Socialists I know in real life - it's closer to Communism than Capitalism.

 

Yeah but what would a pure socialist state look like? is private ownership permitted?

 

Sorry I should've defined my terms better. What I mean by "good job" is in terms of material benefits. As far as capitalism running its course I would disagree. The biggest advantage that I see with capitalism over central planning of an economy is that it allows people to make economic decisions on their own. So inherent problems with Capitalism can be fixed. This is why I get frustrated often with people against free trade and globalization arguing about how Walmart is killing people with low prices while exploiting cheap labor in the PRC. If people don't like Walmart then don't shop at Walmart. Compare that to a command economy where those basic decisions are taken out of the hands of individuals.

But how else are you going to harness those other than allowing people to make economic decisions in their own interests? The problem with considering something else besides Capitalism is the need to create a built in incentive system that motivates people to be ambition and productive. If that isn't acknowledged then there is no incentive to be more creative or productive since the material benefits that accrue to an individual are the same.

Again I'm not going to deny that many have come on the short end of the stick on Capitalism but overall compared to the attempts at a command economy its done much better at providing material well being. I think if more people understood also that we as consumers aren't helpless victims of global corporations but can make individual decisions to spend our capital more responsibly Capitalism and trade can remedy many of the problems that we see now. For instance shop at the local farmers market instead of the big grocery store or at the local hardware store instead of Home Depot.

 

I agree and wouldn't advocate a laissez-faire economy but I think that most of the problems that we see with global capitalism should be addressed at the consumer level than looking to governments to solve them.

I understand capitalism isn't the same as democracy but in the same way that we have a vote in a democracy we have a vote in capitalism by deciding how we spend our money. Rather than advocating all the time for more regulation if we just acted as conscientious consumers we could address many of the problems that plague us.

 

Thanks for the article. I found it pretty interesting, though i'm not sure i understand how it sparked such a pissing match. More of an observation of two kinds of poverty...i didn't read it as a slam on Mr Banks...in fact....it raised some good points on some of the obstacles and frustrations he faces....

 

Poor Banks. Those damn foreign doctors and gambling taxes!!

Good post Sishir. Command economies rob humanity of basic freedoms. You can't really take away capitalism without taking away freedom to own, barter, buy, sell, and create.

 

There is no pure capitalism, not in the US or any other place on earth. What we have is modified capitalism that is mixed with aspects of socialism. The degree of how much socialism is mixed in changes from country to country.

 

I totally agree with that. There is no pure capitalism. We live in a country where a guy like Mr. Banks can blow his government stipends in private gambling houses (and then complain about paying capital gains when he hits the jackpot on the nickel slot machine).

 

Man y'alls itching for a fight.

I read a story about a man with material poverty, but respect from his community and relative wealth compared to his peers. Another had spiritual poverty, relative wealth compared to some (though not compared to the lifestyle he sees through media), but a great deal of anger, and resentment and castigation from his community. Who's happier? How do we measure happiness?

I missed the thesis on capitalism vs communism.

 

Shouldn't government be actively involved in anti-trust matters and social policy matters (such as child labour, environmental concerns, etc) as well as ensuring certain commodities (for lack of a better word) are readily accessible? Education? Health care?

 

To the extent that a company has a monopoly yes that might require interference to maintain competition while at the same time there are basic levels of health and safety that need to be addressed. So this is a balancing act. That said though there are many areas where government regulation is uneccessary. For instance protectionist trade laws. If people are concerned about their local economy they should buy local.

 

I know this is directed at Langal so I apologize for butting in.

I don't deny that there is a social infrastructure and that the government does play a large role in the economy. As I stated before I would support a purely Libertarian government let alone an anarchist state.

What I would say is given a continuum of economic philosophy from Libertarian to Communists I'm closer to the Libertarian side and firmly believe that if people conscientiously use their buying power a lot of problems would be solved and these days I think consumer and business education is a better tactic than lobbying for more regulation.

 

I just find it ironic that Mr. Banks complains about paying taxes when he lives on (and gambles away if I might add) his government stipend checks.

No - I do not support corporate welfare. Govt subsidies to coporations is not capitalism. They skew the "pure market" (if such a thing exists).

What socialist infrastructure are you talking about? Anti-trust?