Modern Capitalism

Capitalism's virtue is its efficiency, not its social justice. If its more efficient to take advantage of your neighbor than thats what you're gonna do.

That's why we have regulations.

 

I personally think that thadeus couldn't be further off-base. I think he should look no further than education to see how badly a government system designed to provide the best social solution has worked. Freedom, by definition, isn't fair. But regardless of inequities, because of increased opportunities, it makes all parts of society better.

 

No way.

How do you think China and India are growing so fast? They adopted capitalism.

I'm wondering what planet Thadeus is on.

 

Capitalism has rough edges - it is the economic system that most closely conforms to human nature, and as a result it will inevitably leave many disillusioned with its apparant 'inhumanity.' But to say that capitalism "has been detrimental to the pursuit of ideal social and ethical outcomes" is simply absurd.

What social and ethical outcomes exactly are you looking for? Health care? Capitalism has brought greater health than was possibly imagined 200 years ago. Life expectancies have almost tripled in the last 200 years alone. Freedom? Capitalism is the only economic system consistent with true individual freedom, and a capitalist society is a good indicator of how democratic that society will be. Poverty? Capitalism over the last 200 years has lifted literally billions out of poverty - it is the only economic system that has been able to bring anyone out of poverty in man's history. There is a wealth of evidence that living standards were effectively stagnant throughout humanity's history - from 30,000 B.C. to 1800 - until the industrial revolution lifted much of the world out of poverty.

Capitalism is not a magic wand. It does not cure every societal problem, and government has a role to play in situations in which capitalism fails. But to say that capitalism is the evil is ridiculous.

 

Indeed, in some ways China and India are now more capitalistic than the U.S. But I believe his comment is on the near end-results of mature capitalism in the U.S.

 

I haven't read the original thread, but here are my 2 cents on this.

Capitalism is really too general and ill-defined a term to for most discussions today. For example, capitalism without government regulation can’t work, and yet many people talk about capitalism as though it is the opposite of government regulation somehow. It isn't. Monopolies may be the most obvious example of the need for government regulation but there is a whole list of fair trade issues that need to be regulated by governments to ensure that capitalism works at all.

A number of the problems in China that you’re referring to are problems of regulation. There would appear to be not enough government regulation to ensure that foreign companies are getting what they’ve paid for, and that other standards are being kept.

Overall, capitalism is a component of a healthy society. It is not an end all and be all. Governments need to make decision considering what is best for their citizens, not what is good for capitalism. That is far too narrow a perspective. Capitalism is a component of that equation, but it’s not the whole equation.

 

Well...let's see, Capitalism has been out for the last...200 years?

The 200 years where we consumed nearly everything a planet took millions of years to make.

Not that I'm fully protesting it behind my comfy leather chair and decent computer, but seriously, once you think about it, capitalism is the dumbest system ever in terms of a long-term survival strategy.

 

Capitalism has proven to be the most effective system in human history.

Name an alternative system that has done better?


I rest my case.

 

Unfettered capitalism is remorseless. The advantages gained by power snowball, resulting in a feudal division of rich and poor. Decisions are made to maximize benefits to the powerful with no consideration given to the greater good. A two party political system at least gives the masses some sway to counter economic power, though in fact we know economic power will try to subvert both parties.

In a single party system like China there is no natural counter to economic power. The oligarchs simply have to insinuate themselves into the party hierarchy and they can do anything they want. Here's an article about how Chinese developers circumvent property rights to make billions in the rush to development.

http://www.portfolio.com/news-marke...portfolio/2007/12/17/Property-Rights-in-China

Truth be told we haven't had true capitalism in the US since Teddy Roosevelt reigned in the robber barons, the Great Depression and certainly not since the New Deal. And it's a damn good thing. It's hard enough to keep a lid on the corporatacracy now with a dwindling free press, secretive PACs and the lobby system of drafting law.

 

I think capatilism is great, but if you look at the countries with the best standard of living they are usually the socialist countries like canada, nordic countries, other countries in europe.

 

Name me a capitalist country, period.

(hint: they won't have a progressive income tax)

 

They are hardly socialist - all those countries have free market economies.

 

hint: you have no idea what capitalism is.

 

Gee, basso, bigtexx and trader_jorge seem to think they are socialist countries. Are you saying that they don’t know what they’re talking about?

Seriously, though, you really need to define what you mean by socialism and capitalism these days. Northern European countries, and Canada, have very strong democratic socialist parties which have frequently formed governments in these countries. All of these parties, and even Tony Blair’s Labour Party in GB, are members of the Socialist International, so are they socialist parties or not?
http://www.socialistinternational.org/main.html

 

Yes, I'm saying they don't know what they're talking about.

Those countries have free market economies with heavy state regulation / involvement and a strong social welfare state.

 

Touche' I've tended to skew my definition away from the classical one that only defines the ownership of capital goods as private versus collective and skewed towards a 'laissez-faire 'system. But the simple definition of an economic and governmental system don't function in the real world by themselves. They are co-dependent

My personal functional definition leans more towards plutocracy where the power is in the hands of the wealthy and commerce is not regulated for the greater good i.e. sweatshops and child labor, robber barons taking of land by governmental imminent domain, the allowance of pollutants and unsafe products etc. So, my point was with The Interstate Commerce Act, The Social Security Act, The FDA, The EPA, OSHA, The FCC, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, The Progressive Income Tax etc. etc., the American people, in fact exert a considerable collective control over the capital, goods and labor of the is country. And that all western "capitalistic" societies are but varying hybrids of capitalism and socialism.

 

I think you are confusing a free market and capitalism. You are right, capitalism implies private ownership of the factors of production. Essentially, any society that has private ownership of the factors of production is capitalist. A capitalist society does not have to be a free market, however, in which economic activity goes unregulated. Today we still are capitalist, but we have a regulated market.

 

Agreed.


Then I'll say reformist judeo-christian, capitalistic, regulated free markets with constituional monarchies, socialized health care and free, compulsory education in the Jesuit traditional form, produce the highest standard of living.

 

Many people would call that socialism, but it doesn’t particularly matter to me as long as we’ve defined the term here so that we’re both talking about the same thing. Back to your original post, then.

I would say that capitalism, the way we are defining it here, is neither good nor evil. It is merely an efficient way to run many, but not all, parts of an economy. Even though it exists in small scale situations apart from governments, it cannot exist without government regulation on any kind of large scale. Necessarily, then, it has to be seen as a tool to be judiciously employed by governments to help manage their economies, and remember that this is only one part of what a government does. Large scale unregulated capitalism is against human nature, in fact, because there would always be people who would use physical power, manipulation, and corruption of various sorts to gain unfair advantages and thereby destroy the healthy competitive environment. So, if unregulated, capitalism will do damage to a society, and it will even eventually break down and destroy itself as corruption, monopolies and unfair trade practices of one sort or another destroy the competitive environment.

Here are a couple of examples of the relationship between capitalism and governments. Capitalism has been an important factor in encouraging medical research but no one would be doing any of this research if there were no patent laws and government funded legal systems to enforce those laws. With respect to education and social programs, there is little direct profit potential related to setting up and running these systems so capitalism is not a good tool to use. But there is a huge profit potential for a government over the long haul. A healthy and educated populace is more productive, more engaged in mainstream society, less prone to certain kinds of criminal activity. etc.

I think the relationship between capitalism and freedom is tenuous, though. There is a lot of capitalism in China right now and yet it is still ruled by a totalitarian government. Improperly regulated capitalism also produces strong class boundaries that limit the freedom of the masses to move up the social ladder. Consider the case of the freed slaves who became sharecroppers in a system that trapped them in poverty with very little chance of escape. So again I would have to say that capitalism itself does not produce freedom, although I would say that it is generally a component of a system that produces more freedom.