0
   

Is Capitalism Moral?

 
 
Yogi DMT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 12:12 pm
@hue-man,
Yes i think in the fundamentals, capitalism is very much a system that gives opportunity, chances, and potential prosperity for everyone. But with the restrictions as i mentioned in the above posts, it seems to give unfair advantages despite its natural tendency. Not to be discriminating against anyone but in a capital society or at least the american capital system, a person born into a rich white family has a better chance of succeeding than a poor minority family. And also, to clarify, what i meant by inheritance is not only the inheritance of positive things such as money but also the inheritance of negative things such as the community and educational system your born into.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 01:16 pm
@Yogi DMT,
Yogi DMT;62290 wrote:
Yes i think in the fundamentals, capitalism is very much a system that gives opportunity, chances, and potential prosperity for everyone. But with the restrictions as i mentioned in the above posts, it seems to give unfair advantages despite its natural tendency. Not to be discriminating against anyone but in a capital society or at least the american capital system, a person born into a rich white family has a better chance of succeeding than a poor minority family. And also, to clarify, what i meant by inheritance is not only the inheritance of positive things such as money but also the inheritance of negative things such as the community and educational system your born into.


The unfair advantages are due to capitalism not being allowed to truly work. We might as well be blaming water for giving you diseases that are in the water or hit someone over the head with a large stick and blame him falling down on his inability to keep his balance. Those failures of capitalism can't be blamed on the theory of capitalism.
If you are saying that "true" capitalism can't happen in reality, I might give you right. But from there is is easy to work towards it, as opposed to collectivism that can't happen in reality and doesn't work in theory.

As for the inequality of opportunity that exists within capitalism, a lot of that has different origins. A person born into a rich white family has a better chance of succeeding than one born into a poor minority family. But the reason for that is not the skin color or wealth. Let us explore that on the example of wealth and leave skin color out for now, as it usually makes the debate complicated. (In another thread my post had to be deleted because it sounded racist despite me advocating total colorblindness as opposed to the government treating races differently.)
So rich parents have rich kids. But unless you are assuming that parenting skills, responsibility, intelligence, discipline and those things don't correlate with the ability to gain wealth you can't blame all of it on society. In short: Irresponsible people are both bad at making money and raising children that will be good at making money. Blaming only society that the children of bad parents are bad themselves would be highly dishonest. We can only give them opportunities, we can't force them to live out their potential.
0 Replies
 
dalesvp
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 05:15 pm
@William,
For anything to be 'moral' depends on one's ideals.

Capitalism is simply working with capital as a tool. It is a neutral tool. Capitalism does not create anything. People create everything. What appears to be a nasty source of communism (capitalism) is actually "corporatism". Corporations are artificial beings without souls, conscience or concern for anything except themselves - just like the ego. Corporatism is the root of communism (selfishness masquerading as altruism). Corporations were originally designed to be a tool for capitalism. A business can raise capital (public participation) in the ownership and direction of the corporation (theoretically). But those of raw ambition and little conscience have seized the reins of these corporations and have made them into tools of personal gratification instead of service. God gives. People and/or organizations that give by way of providing service and products (at reasonable prices) are in conformity with "God gives". Those that manipulate tools for self aggrandizement (selfishly) and without regard for "rhythmically balanced interchange" are what you refer too. Let us be careful in our labeling (assignment of meanings).

Labeling: People (egos) like to label (judge, assign value). This makes it easier to engage in inhuman activities. The Nazis did not round up and kill individuals. They rounded up and killed "Jews". The dictators of Russia didn't kill individuals. They rounded up and killed "Jews", "Poles", "terrorists" and "dissidents".

Russell puts it this way: "The way to be a creative individual [awakened] is to know that each person is an inseparable extension of the One Individual [God]. Never lose sight of that for a moment. Do not pray morning, noon and night at timed intervals. Let your prayers be continuous, from moment to moment. To know God is to be God." The Message of the Divine Iliad, page 106-107

When we know each individual is an extension of God, just as we ourselves are, we will stop labeling and killing them/ourselves.

Ever been to a store - ANY store - capitalism in action. Some years ago I spent some time vending at a Flea Market. Not to just sell odds and ends but to make money. One needs as much capital as one can get to make it work - same for any business. Fascinating experience! (Every person would benefit by such an adventure.) Same for my current business of producing or buying books and reselling them. Takes capital. There are tens of millions of "little" people using capitalism all over the world to earn a living. Most of these people are fair and honest in their endeavors. These countless unwashed feed, clothe and hire the vast bulk of humanity.

We can use your term Free Enterprise. That'll work too. Buying and selling. Takes capital to buy even if that capital is only a few dollars for a sack of potatoes that then get resold a pound at a time off a push cart in a flea market by some under-capitalized poor yet enterprising person.

These large monolithic international corporations use some principles of capitalism as a basis of operation. But it is not capitalism that is at fault. Monopoly, greed and vicious hording of resources mixed in with legal and political manipulations go way beyond anything remotely descriptive of capitalism. Capitalism is a tool to render service or produce products. That's it. The abhorrent aspects are brought in by egoic fear and uncontrolled desire for power and control. These negative motivations and manners of misusing capitalism have nothing to do with capitalism per se. These negative motivations and actions are overt abuses of a beautiful and powerful system of giving and regiving which is in accord with the Law of One, Law of Love and Law of Life.

A quote from Edgar Cayce on business ideals and principles.

10. (Q) What can [257] do to sell the Supt. of N.Y. Central Bldg., Mr. Everett, whose office is in Room 426?

(A) This may be handled in the same GENERAL way and manner. As to the difference in capacities, and as to the effectiveness, and ALSO as to the care or the service that is given for the period or term of these considerations being made respecting the product itself. These are the best features. These are the things to be stressed, and gives the proper atmosphere for that ideal of a service rendered - and a service given calls for a service on the part of all concerned in such cooperative measures and manners as to make for a better feeling of relationships of every nature between all concerned in same. Where full valuation is given for the service, where full service is rendered in aiding those so serving to serve others, then the proper relationships are established that are INVALUABLE assets to those that establish such ideals. While many may say, under the stress of times, the stress of financial situations everywhere, that the dollar and the cent are the ideal, there are still in the hearts of men and women everywhere that that bespeaks more of that natural influence that must come more and more abroad in every character of business relationship, that a universal service on the part of all concerned must be reverted to, or conducted upon such a basis as the ideal of the relationships, would there ever be established that as may make for that confidence which has been shaken - and in many places shattered - by non-conformity, other than "What may I make today for my little pile?"

11. (Q) What will make our organization more attractive?

(A) "Would be well that the organization realize, as it sets forth in its efforts to attract others, or attract various individuals, groups or classes, that like ALONE begets like - and will there be an attractive organization, that attracts individuals in their various walks of life, then that character of service, that character of quality, that character of the relationships are to be established that make attractive - and not ALONE attractive in cents, or pounds, or dollars, but ALL in a well balanced way and manner. These make for those attractive features, attractive conditions, attractive circumstances and surroundings; not EVER figuring that this will be gotten by today, for - as has been given - the body should so act in every association, in every conversation, with individual associates, those that would be attracted, that he may be willing to bow not only TO, but make again the acquaintance of that as has been handed out to thy brother; for we must meet ourselves in our dealings with our associates, or friends, or neighbors, or enemies even - for, as has been said as of old, which is the universal law, "If ye will be my people, I will be your God!" Will ye be my friends and my associates, I will be your friend and YOUR associate, and we together may accomplish that for EACH that may NOT be accomplished without that service, that association, that comes from a unified effort to provide those necessary conditions that will make for better surroundings and conditions, and betterments in every relationship. Do not associate self, then, with any character of proposition that does not offer as a basis of relationship or association that CHARACTER of an ideal as may be builded in such relations that are to be and are being established between the producers and the consumers or distributors, in WHATEVER line that may be considered! In this way and manner may there be builded that which is as builded upon the rock, and though there may come the storms of dissension, while others are faltering because they have founded their relationships upon the sands that allow at times advantage to be taken of this one, that one or the other, those builded upon the rock - that are higher than ANY individual - will STAND while others are falling. Though they may have the appearance of being much stronger today in their circumstance, or even in their relationships to distributing organizations - but builded properly these will withstand ALL storms of disruption, disorder. Would ye be friendly, show thyself to be a friend. Would ye have business, show thyself to be capable of handling same in all its phases, all its relationships. These, to some, may be called idealistic rather than good business - but the time has arisen in the life, in the conditions, in the affairs of the world, in business - whether at home or abroad, whether in the home or in the walks of everyday life - when we must stand close to that that will not turn again and smite us!" Cayce (257-?)
0 Replies
 
William
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 06:27 pm
@hue-man,
Whether or not Capitalism is moral, is not the issue as much as it is capitalism that creates immoral people. Unlimited capital fairly and equitably dispersed is a good thing. When that capital is in limited supply in a growing population, controlled by those who have grossly more than a lion's share of said capital does it not only become immoral, it also is responsible for the majority of iniquity that occurs in the world. When you have a system whose motto is "Charge what the market will bare", rather than what is fair, morality goes out the window. When you have a system that entices people to spend their capital on commodities they don't need, just to make a profit, that system and the people that profit from it, become blind to the waste it creates and the resources that are squanderd to create those un-needed, designed for the dump commodities. When you have a system that in order to succeed, one needs to exercise guile, deceit, manipulation and deception to compete, where is there a place for any type of moral code of conduct. I could go on, an on, and on. But that will suffice for now. I am really trying not to be a long winded as I am prone to be. Ha. Smile
William
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 06:37 pm
@William,
William;62326 wrote:
When that capital is in limited supply in a growing population, controlled by those who have grossly more than a lion's share of said capital does it not only become immoral, it also is responsible for the majority of iniquity that occurs in the world.


It's really not. I explain that, read my few last posts, please.
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-politics/4345-capitalism-moral-9.html#post62295
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-politics/4345-capitalism-moral-8.html#post62288
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-politics/4345-capitalism-moral-8.html#post62281
William
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 07:18 pm
@EmperorNero,


In all due respect EmperorNero, in this particular instance, please address my entire post. I have read your posts and they do not address the issues I have brought up.
Thank you,
William
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 08:06 pm
@William,
William;62331 wrote:
In all due respect EmperorNero, in this particular instance, please address my entire post. I have read your posts and they do not address the issues I have brought up.
Thank you,
William


Grrrrrr... me not like effort.
Ok, here you go.

William;62326 wrote:
Whether or not Capitalism is moral, is not the issue as much as it is capitalism that creates immoral people.


Ok. I don't think it does. I don't think any system does.

William;62326 wrote:
Unlimited capital fairly and equitably dispersed is a good thing.


If there is unlimited supply, there is no need for much of a system of distribution at all. Fairness is possible in a capitalist system. Equality will also happen, but if there is equality of opportunity there is nothing wrong with some not living up to their potential and others being rewarded for their effort.

William;62326 wrote:
When that capital is in limited supply in a growing population,


Growing population is better. More people to come up with ideas. More productivity. More progress.
Don't believe the overpopulation hype. People who think the earth can't carry them lack imagination.
And I say that as a fricking misanthrope. Personality Profile of EmperorNero

William;62326 wrote:
controlled by those who have grossly more than a lion's share of said capital does it not only become immoral, it also is responsible for the majority of iniquity that occurs in the world.


Not at all. That happens because capitalism is corrupted by a collectivist controlling government giving special benefits to some, usually the rich who have the means to lobby for it.
In real capitalism (which means there are no artificial barriers or special benefits) wealth will naturally disperse evenly. Wealth will flow to the poorest who can get the job done, as they demand the lowest wages.
Competition will incite effort in everybody and progress and hence everybody gains.

William;62326 wrote:
When you have a system whose motto is "Charge what the market will bare", rather than what is fair, morality goes out the window.


Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean exploitation of nature, there should be a government to restrict that. And I don't think exploitation of nature would stop if we switched to some collectivist system.
And how to get people to be fair. They would have to be forced or indoctrinated into it.

William;62326 wrote:
When you have a system that entices people to spend their capital on commodities they don't need, just to make a profit, that system and the people that profit from it, become blind to the waste it creates and the resources that are squanderd to create those un-needed, designed for the dump commodities.


What is your solution to that? Restrict people from buying things that we declare they don't need?

A capitalist system also encourages companies to find resource-saving methods of production, as that will save them money. Scarce resources become expensive. Hence effort for finding methods of winning energy, using less resources or recycling them will pay out for selfish reasons.

William;62326 wrote:
When you have a system that in order to succeed, one needs to exercise guile, deceit, manipulation and deception to compete,


capitalism is not a system where one needs to deceit. Quite the contrary.
The government will protect individual property, rights and freedoms. And of course the government should prevent fraud. If it does not have the power to grant special benefits these rules will also apply to the rich companies.

William;62326 wrote:
where is there a place for any type of moral code of conduct.


Unless you plan to change humans genetically, that can't be on this earth.

William;62326 wrote:
I could go on, an on, and on. But that will suffice for now. I am really trying not to be a long winded as I am prone to be. Ha.


Actually I'm interested to hear that. But be sure to explain alternatives to capitalism.
0 Replies
 
William
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 09:05 pm
@hue-man,
EmperorNero
Thanks for your time and effort. Give me a little time and I will respond in like. I will have my reply tomorrow along with my profile which is INTJ as per Myer/Briggs-
Portrait of an INTJ
William
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 05:17 am
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
Well if you don't consider anything I said to be justification for why I consider capitalism to be intrinsically immoral then you haven't been paying attention. I'm not talking about aggression in the free market. I'm talking about inequality and unfairness in the free market. That statement demonstrates that you don't get my point at all. You don't have to agree with me, but at least try to understand me.


The original statement that started this line of discussion was this:

Quote:
The capitalist system is dependent upon economic inequality. Capitalism cannot survive without an economic class system that keeps certain people at a lower level than others. Therefore, capitalism can never be synonymous with equality, fairness, and impartiality.


I immediately questioned this, asking for some argument to back it up, as I do not accept that capitalism necessarily relies on economic classes.

Your response was this:

Quote:
I don't have to dig too deep to rebut the above statement. I'm sure you know that capitalism is dependent upon an economic class structure. I'm sure you know that in order to keep an economic class system in place, some people need to be kept at a lower level than others. This critique is a very old one.


Now since I questioned your original statement, I obviously don't know what you are saying I do know, so I asked again for an explanation of your opinion that capitalism necessarily relies on economic classes.

To this you responded with another reworded statement with the same meaning:

Quote:
Capitalism is dependent upon economic inequality and a class system because the capitalist or bourgeois class needs the working or proletariat class to labor for them and consume their products. The capitalist gets more money out of the worker's labor than the worker gets for his or her labor (i.e. inequality and the class system).


When I said that capitalism doesn't entail any of that (note that you made the original claim, and my gainsaying is a legitimate manner in asking you to explain your assumption), you let the line of discussion die.

Then later you stated:

Quote:
That's exactly my point. If one man's freedom equals another man's inequity or suffering, even if indirect, how can we consider that to be a universal good?


Now, I have provided four quotes, all of which points to your central argument against the morality of capitalism, basically the old Marxist line that capitalism is dependent upon the suppression of one group of individuals into a subservient working class.

I am no longer asking you to explain why you think capitalism is immoral, that has been perfectly clear from the beginning. What I am asking now, and have been asking since my first post on this thread, is why does capitalism necessarily require one class of individuals, a proletariat, to be in a lower class of individuals?





---------- Post added at 07:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 AM ----------

xris wrote:
I am amazed that you cant see that your comments are a reflection of your own statements.I tried creating a reaction in you by agreeing out of place to stir some kind of thoughts to your reply but alas it failed.This type of comment is not appropriate, why do you think the way you do?


I offer this under protest. Hue-man has made the only claim towards the moral standing of capitalism. It is my place to refute his arguments, rather than providing proof of the counterargument.

I accept that capitalism can be moral because I accept the unquestionable morality of self-ownership. A person with the opportunity to live governed by his own will cannot complain about his treatment. To do so would be nonsensical.

I believe that the ownership of one's labor is an extension of one's ownership of self. If one is denied the fruits of his labor, he is denied his self, as the portion of his being that was devoted to producing what is taken from him is taken as well, and the man is made a slave.

Finally, I think economic study and largely just common sense shows that capital goods can be the product of labor and deferred satisfaction.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 07:01 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power;62403 wrote:
I am no longer asking you to explain why you think capitalism is immoral, that has been perfectly clear from the beginning. What I am asking now, and have been asking since my first post on this thread, is why does capitalism necessarily require one class of individuals, a proletariat, to be in a lower class of individuals?


If he has a theory that requires this assumption he would have to show that this is the case. He can't just say: All cats are black, look at this one.
The capitalist system is not dependent upon economic inequality. Nobody needs to be kept anywhere, social mobility is a benefit and attribute of capitalism.
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 11:35 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero wrote:
I must admit that I don't really understand the concept of a resource based economy. When I search for it I usually come up with venus project type stuff. Would you mind explaining? (Or just linking to a post where you do.)

I'm not entirely closed to your ideas. It's basically a brand of anarchism, in the end I'm just another brand. Well, here are my objections.
1. Why do we need communities for less government control? Can we have that in larger states? Can most government objectives be on state level and there still be a federal government that has limited objections, as the US was intended?
2. Smaller communities are less effective than a centralized state. How to produce expensive scientific solutions in a community?
3. Your ideas are impossible because they would require the powerful to give up their influence.
4. Such a system would be vulnerable to the most unscrupulous snatching power.
5. Why get rid of a monetary system?


Here's some links. A resource based economic system is this minus the monetary system. And I do endorse most of the proposals made by Jacque Fresco and the Venus project, minus the anarchism thing. I think that there should still be a law system that protects the rights of individuals against the aggression of other individuals. Even though most crimes would be obsolete in a society where goods and services are distributed equally.

Natural resource economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post scarcity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Human behavior is not what it is because of environment and experience. We are a beast that was entirely formed by the requirement to be the best at survival within scarcity. We don't steal bread because we are hungry and would stop because there is enough bread. Humans are bread-stealing-machines, that is our entire purpose. The belief that human behavior would change for the better when abolishing scarcity is leninism, and it has been shown over and over that that's just not what happens.
So you're defining my purpose in life by the most primitive elements of human nature? What about tribalism, of which racism, nationalism, and xenophobia are a product of? Is it my purpose to be a bigot as well? The above statement is telling of the closet social Darwinism of the political right.

Human behavior is not what it is because of environment and experience?!! What about all of the evidence in the sciences of psychology and sociology that prove the contrary? It is a fact that human behavior is determined by environment more than genes.

We don't steal bread because we're hungry?!! You know why I've never stolen bread; because I was never hungry enough to feel the need to do it. You know why a starving child would likely steal fruit from a market; because the child was hungry.

Quote:
Well, I hold the belief that a capitalist system is the best way to do so. Saying that products are distributed by greed within capitalism leaves out that that product was created due to the prospect of reward. There wouldn't be a product without greed.
This cynical view of human behavior, that you need to be greedy in order to be productive, is very sad. It's no wonder that some people just can't imagine anything else. You think that it's the collectivists that are trying to brainwash you, but you already brainwashed by this society.
Quote:

Everyone does have access to opportunity in a real capitalist system. They don't because of governments putting up artificial barriers. (Right-wingers like me are for less government control.)
People don't have equal access because of the government?!! Are you kidding me?!! Look into the history of the industrial revolution, the working conditions, the wages, and the unequal access to capital at that time. These conditions were only improved due to liberal government policies that helped to balance out the playing field a little more.

Quote:
If! And it is not. A capitalist system is in no way based on unfair conditions, that is a corruption of the capitalist system. (In my paranoid mind it is being corrupted by collectivists for the purpose of abolishing it.) The very basis of a capitalist system is that it is not based on unfair conditions. If you are going to make the case that this is impossible to achieve that is a fair point.
The capitalist gets more value out of the labor of the worker than the worker gets paid. Do you consider that to be a fair condition?

Quote:
It does not. It works with those human attributes and uses it for the better. It is compatible with human nature. As opposed to collectivism that requires to force or indoctrinate humans to be what they are not.
Capitalism using the same principles as corruption and immorality does not mean it induces corruption and immorality.
Collectivism does not force people to be what they are not. Your presuming that collectivism entails force or the loss of freedom, and that's wrong. In regards to indoctrination, you may want to think about that a little more. I argue that people are "indoctrinated" by their society from the time they are children to the time they become adults. Every society has values, no matter how misplaced they may be, that they teach to the individuals in the society. One generation teaches the next and so it goes. The values of our current socio-economic system are wealth, property, and power. I believe that our socio-economic values should be based on self-fulfillment, creativity, education, and social awareness.

Also, define freedom for me, if you will?

---------- Post added at 01:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 PM ----------

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
The original statement that started this line of discussion was this:



I immediately questioned this, asking for some argument to back it up, as I do not accept that capitalism necessarily relies on economic classes.

Your response was this:



Now since I questioned your original statement, I obviously don't know what you are saying I do know, so I asked again for an explanation of your opinion that capitalism necessarily relies on economic classes.

To this you responded with another reworded statement with the same meaning:



When I said that capitalism doesn't entail any of that (note that you made the original claim, and my gainsaying is a legitimate manner in asking you to explain your assumption), you let the line of discussion die.

Then later you stated:



Now, I have provided four quotes, all of which points to your central argument against the morality of capitalism, basically the old Marxist line that capitalism is dependent upon the suppression of one group of individuals into a subservient working class.

I am no longer asking you to explain why you think capitalism is immoral, that has been perfectly clear from the beginning. What I am asking now, and have been asking since my first post on this thread, is why does capitalism necessarily require one class of individuals, a proletariat, to be in a lower class of individuals?



You keep saying that capitalism doesn't entail any of that. I've explained to you why capitalism does entail a class system and economic inequality (in the third quote that you gave). Now please explain to me why capitalism doesn't entail any of that? I am perfectly willing to listen.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 12:01 pm
@EmperorNero,
This is really laborious, its Chinese water torture.Those who advocate capitalism are requested to show examples.The good ol US of A is advocated as a prime example,ill accept that communist china was a hicc up in the mind of certain poster.
Lets examine this prime example and see how the whole of society gains from this vintage example.I see the rich in control of politics, the news papers, the health system ,corporate business dictate certain economic directions governments take by lobbying and by the banking system.When you are not survivor you struggle and by historic significance there are minorities that fail more than most.Considering it one of the richest countries in the Democratic world it has some of the poorest in the western world.It restricts free trade, conspires to influence by economics democratic neighbours or those it considers as an enemy.I was condemned for suggesting Norway as a socialist state because it had valued assets, now after three centuries of access to the vast natural resources of America can we say all the citizens of the US have been rewarded by this capital of capitalism.
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 01:30 pm
@hue-man,


Ha! Economics is exceedingly easy when everyone can have everything they want!

Quote:
You keep saying that capitalism doesn't entail any of that. I've explained to you why capitalism does entail a class system and economic inequality (in the third quote that you gave). Now please explain to me why capitalism doesn't entail any of that? I am perfectly willing to listen.


Because profit from capital can be explained by the forbearance of satisfaction.

All value extends from the psychological perception of satisfaction. A shoe is not valuable simply because it exists or was built or even solely (no pun intended) because it is comfortable. It has value because it is scarce and because one thinks it would satisfy some desire or make one's existence more enjoyable.

We can also say that time is a factor when considering value. Ceteris paribus, any reward now is more valuable than any value in the future, if only because of the risk of securing the satisfaction at some future date. Returning to the shoe example, if we are presently barefoot, we would prefer shoes now to shoes later. However, while we may be willing to pay $50 for shoes today, we may be willing to wait if we can purchase shoes for $40 tomorrow. This is the concept of time preference.

Now, we examine just what capital is. Two types of goods are easily identifiable on both ends of the spectrum: natural resources and consumer goods. Natural resources are those goods that need some labor to make them consumable, and consumer goods are those goods that provide immediate satisfaction and have reached their final state. There are certain natural resources that can be converted to their final state with little production; I can go to a raspberry bush and pick some berries and eat them on the spot. For most goods, though, is a rather long path, especially as technology and the division of labor becomes more advanced. The time investment put into a car is enormous. Time goes into constructing the factory, the machinery, and the car itself. Capital can be looked at as all the goods that are produced and maintained that serve as the middle ground in the production process.

Capital goods are the intermediary goods, and those that produce them do so by forgoing current consumption goods to produce latter consumption goods. Likewise, the laborer who applies his skills to capital goods has skipped over the intermediary process and has obtained immediate satisfaction.

Because of the time preference that we stated before, it is entirely reasonable for someone who has produced these intermediary goods to do so only with the expectation of greater future satisfaction. Again, likewise, it is entirely reasonable for the laborer who applies his skill to capital to accept his immediate reward at a discount.

Every product requires an amount of time, and that amount of time carries with it value. If the laborer was to engage in the entire process of bringing some natural resource to its final form, then of course he should be entitled to the full selling price. But if he bears no worry for the time involved in bringing the product to market, it seems silly to write such a cost off and still reward him as if he had.

EmperorNero, consider this your response in the other thread as well.
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 02:08 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
Ha! Economics is exceedingly easy when everyone can have everything they want!


Post-scarcity and resource based economics present solutions to many problems within our current socio-economic system. When did all people having access to the necessities of life become a bad thing?

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
Because profit from capital can be explained by the forbearance of satisfaction.

All value extends from the psychological perception of satisfaction. A shoe is not valuable simply because it exists or was built or even solely (no pun intended) because it is comfortable. It has value because it is scarce and because one thinks it would satisfy some desire or make one's existence more enjoyable.

We can also say that time is a factor when considering value. Ceteris paribus, any reward now is more valuable than any value in the future, if only because of the risk of securing the satisfaction at some future date. Returning to the shoe example, if we are presently barefoot, we would prefer shoes now to shoes later. However, while we may be willing to pay $50 for shoes today, we may be willing to wait if we can purchase shoes for $40 tomorrow. This is the concept of time preference.

Now, we examine just what capital is. Two types of goods are easily identifiable on both ends of the spectrum: natural resources and consumer goods. Natural resources are those goods that need some labor to make them consumable, and consumer goods are those goods that provide immediate satisfaction and have reached their final state. There are certain natural resources that can be converted to their final state with little production; I can go to a raspberry bush and pick some berries and eat them on the spot. For most goods, though, is a rather long path, especially as technology and the division of labor becomes more advanced. The time investment put into a car is enormous. Time goes into constructing the factory, the machinery, and the car itself. Capital can be looked at as all the goods that are produced and maintained that serve as the middle ground in the production process.

Capital goods are the intermediary goods, and those that produce them do so by forgoing current consumption goods to produce latter consumption goods. Likewise, the laborer who applies his skills to capital goods has skipped over the intermediary process and has obtained immediate satisfaction.

Because of the time preference that we stated before, it is entirely reasonable for someone who has produced these intermediary goods to do so only with the expectation of greater future satisfaction. Again, likewise, it is entirely reasonable for the laborer who applies his skill to capital to accept his immediate reward at a discount.

Every product requires an amount of time, and that amount of time carries with it value. If the laborer was to engage in the entire process of bringing some natural resource to its final form, then of course he should be entitled to the full selling price. But if he bears no worry for the time involved in bringing the product to market, it seems silly to write such a cost off and still reward him as if he had.

EmperorNero, consider this your response in the other thread as well.


So what you're saying is that the employer should get paid more than the laborer? You're saying that it's fair because the capitalist has done more to bring the goods to the market than the laborer? So you're not saying that capitalism's not dependent on a class system and economic inequality. You're saying that the class system and the economic inequality is morally justified. That seems like a fair argument, but doesn't the capitalist need the laborer to manufacture the good just as much as the laborer needs the employer for work? Doesn't that make the laborer just as important as the employer?

I'm willing to accept that capitalism may not be intrinsically corrupt or immoral, but I think that my grievance with any economic system that is underpinned by monetary means is its tendency to induce corruption, greed, and general immorality of some of the people within the system. What about the unemployment, discrimination, and crime that is either caused or aggravated by the system?
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 03:40 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power;62458 wrote:
EmperorNero, consider this your response in the other thread as well.


Thanks. I get it now.
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 06:48 am
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
Post-scarcity and resource based economics present solutions to many problems within our current socio-economic system. When did all people having access to the necessities of life become a bad thing?


I don't know how resource-based economics solves anything. I don't even know how resource-based economics has been used as a moral economic philosophy.

There is nothing wrong with all people have access to the necessities of life, but the entire "post-scarcity" notion, even for simple necessities (at least what I consider necessities), is silly, and solves every single economic problem.

Scarcity is essential to the formulation of economic and moral philosophy and must be understood to understand capitalism.

Quote:
So what you're saying is that the employer should get paid more than the laborer? You're saying that it's fair because the capitalist has done more to bring the goods to the market than the laborer? So you're not saying that capitalism's not dependent on a class system and economic inequality. You're saying that the class system and the economic inequality is morally justified. That seems like a fair argument, but doesn't the capitalist need the laborer to manufacture the good just as much as the laborer needs the employer for work? Doesn't that make the laborer just as important as the employer?


I am saying that economic inequality is natural and extends both from natural abilities and natural preferences. I do not think that there is necessarily a class system involved as I don't know exactly where a division can be drawn. I also do not say that the capitalist has done more, either. Rather because he has waited to satisfy his wants, he can expect a greater return on his investment.

Note that I am totally supportive of collective worker action and collective worker ownership. However, collective worker action directed at economic change, principally to increase wages, simply acts to increase prices and does not increase real wages. Collective worker action should be politically directed to change the law (I think that the best manner it can be changed would be in eliminating state law) in order to grant labor the same powers of negotiation as the owners of capital.

Quote:
I'm willing to accept that capitalism may not be intrinsically corrupt or immoral, but I think that my grievance with any economic system that is underpinned by monetary means is its tendency to induce corruption, greed, and general immorality of some of the people within the system. What about the unemployment, discrimination, and crime that is either caused or aggravated by the system?


This could be a productive line of conversation, but first, when you say "underpinned by monetary means" do you simply mean an economy that operates largely on currency, or do you mean a property and exchange-based economy broadly?
William
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 09:08 am
@William,
William wrote:
EmperorNero
Thanks for your time and effort. Give me a little time and I will respond in like. I will have my reply tomorrow along with my profile which is INTJ as per Myer/Briggs-
Portrait of an INTJ
William


EmperorNero, the dark print is my orginal post, the blue is your response, the following is my counter.
William


Whether or not Capitalism is immoral, is not the issue as much as it is capitalism that creates immoral people.
Ok. I don't think it does. I don't think any system does.
Please read Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables". It's not so much capitalism as it is about inequity and the lot of the poor which I feel are one and the same.

Unlimited capital fairly and equitably dispersed is a good thing.
If there is unlimited supply, there is no need for much of a system of distribution at all. Fairness is possible in a capitalist system. Equality will also happen, but if there is equality of opportunity there is nothing wrong with some not living up to their potential and others being rewarded for their effort.
Your going to have to explain that first sentence. Perhaps I should have said an unlimited supply yet globally managed contingent on existing and available resources and the balance of those resources. With a well managed, unlimited economic system we will then be able to do what we need to do rather than what we can afford to do.

When that capital is in limited supply in a growing population........
Growing population is better. More people to come up with ideas. More productivity. More progress. Don't believe the overpopulation hype. People who think the earth can't carry them lack imagination. And I say that as a fricking misanthrope.
Please forgive me but your rationale here makes no sense at all. I will agree population is not the problem if we could just do what we need to do and the only way to do that is by not being stifled by an insufficient funds. But a growing population at present, the way the system works, is asking for trouble. The world is not as naive and blind as it once was. And for the very first time in our history it is communicating. Oh, and by the way, for you to understand where I am coming from you must think "globally", not selfishly.

......controlled by those who have grossly more than a lion's share of said capital does it not only become immoral, it also is responsible for the majority of iniquity that occurs in the world
Not at all. That happens because capitalism is corrupted by a collectivist controlling government giving special benefits to some, usually the rich who have the means to lobby for it. In real capitalism (which means there are no artificial barriers or special benefits) wealth will naturally disperse evenly. Wealth will flow to the poorest who can get the job done, as they demand the lowest wages. Competition will incite effort in everybody and progress and hence everybody gains. Not at all?
Damn. You have got to be kidding. Please, this is just simple common sense. When you have a value system that is based on rarity that encourages the amassing of wealth which in turn allows the amassing of resources in a limited environment, you are inviting disaster. Knowledge is to be shared by man, not used to enslave him by controlling that which he needs to survive and live on this planet. You get out and toil in the hot sun for 8 hours a day for minimum wage and see how you like it. Millions of inhabitants on this planet have never had the education to obtain the knowledge one needs to be ambitious, what of them? Should they be labeled a human waste and treated as such. "The poor demanding the lowest wage"? What a crock. Please forgive me, but that statement is obscene. You would think from your statement the poor "choose" to be poor. They are poor because they don't have that which the status quo demands and are force to survive on the meager crumbs that are tossed their way. Your last statement referring to competition "inciting effort", your wrong; it incites wars. As Einstein said, if we don't start communicating and cooperating with each other, the war we fight after the next one will be with stones. EmperoNero it is the inequity inherent in the present system that is responsible for all the iniquity, such as corruption, in the world as the haves effort to control the have nots in order to maintain that inequity. Our current capitalistic economic program breeds corruption. There is not such thing a "fair capitalism" not matter how much you try to rationalize it as long as we place value on that which is rare.

When you have a system whose motto is "Charge what the market will bare", rather than what is fair, morality goes out the window.
Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean exploitation of nature, there should be a government to restrict that. And I don't think exploitation of nature would stop if we switched to some collectivist system.And how to get people to be fair. They would have to be forced or indoctrinated into it.
Sorry, I should have used the word "bear" rather than "bare". The sentence speaks for itself. But it sounds like you have never heard the phrase before? Odd since you are here espousing your opinions on capitalism. "Charging what the market will bear", IS CAPITALISM, my friend. It is exploitation personified. How do you think billionaires become billionaires? Right now as we figuratively speak, there are entrepreneural capitalists exploiting third world countries using "slave labor" to make obscene profits in the good old USA. As to your last statement, I will address it though it is a bit naive. "....force people to be fair". Right! Yeah, that will do it? Like you are going to force the United States Government to be fair when the minimum wage is below the poverty level. Once we stop buying all the crap we don't need, we might get their attention. The next time you put on your NIKE shoes you paid a hundred bucks for, but only cost 7 dollars to make on average depending on where the "sweat shop" is located, perhaps you will understand better the exploitation inherent in "free market" capitalism. Anything goes.


When you have a system that entices people to spend their capital on commodities they don't need, just to make a profit, that system and the people that profit from it, become blind to the waste it creates and the resources that are squanders to create those un-needed, designed for the dump commodities.

What is your solution to that? Restrict people from buying things that we declare they don't need?A capitalist system also encourages companies to find resource-saving methods of production, as that will save them money. Scarce resources become expensive. Hence effort for finding methods of winning energy, using less resources or recycling them will pay out for selfish reasons.
Now as to your first sentence, you have nailed the problem. Here is where it is sad. You have to understand, buy far the vast majority of people in the world are ignorant or impoverished or naive or illiterate and prime for exploitation and easy to manipulate. Most have no clue as to what capitalism is all about and how they are being exploited nor do they have a clue as to what a "natural resource" is. If there is an evil in this world the exploitation and enslavement of these people is it. In my opinion the greatest sin in the world is when one feathers their own nest at the "expense" of another. Knowledge should be used for the benefit of all mankind, and not used to control those of lesser means which is exactly what you and I are talking about here. Capitalism is corrupt. It has to be in order for it to survive. As for as saving resources, you need to see this little clip. The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard

When you have a system that in order to succeed, one needs to exercise guile, deceit, manipulation and deception to compete......
capitalism is not a system where one needs to deceit. Quite the contrary.
The government will protect individual property, rights and freedoms. And of course the government should prevent fraud. If it does not have the power to grant special benefits these rules will also apply to the rich companies.
My friend, who in the hell do you think controls the government. It's money. When you say government surely you jest. Ideally, you are correct. There should be a consortium composed of those who have excelled in all endeavors that collectively can determine what is fair and what is not fair in the distribution of our resources. You sure as hell are not going to get that from a room full of attorneys. That makes me laugh.

.... where is there a place for any type of moral code of conduct.
Unless you plan to change humans genetically, that can't be on this earth.
Just because it has never existed doesn't mean it can't. This heirarchy between the "haves" and the "have nots" has been going on since we have been making footprints on this planet as it relates to the haves "controlling" the have nots. Let's face it, it ain't gonna happen, my man. No way Jose. Of course who gives a &$#* about world peace or global harmony, right? What's in it for me? Those of means have always treated those of lessor means as human expendable waste. You don't have to change them genetically, you just have to treat them with respect, fairness and consideration all human beings deserve regardless of their lot in life. We have the knowledge, technology, resources and manpower to create an equitable existence for all who live on this planet. Greed is our major obstacle. Always has been. You think it's bad now, wait until our resources we are currently so dependent on begin to run low, it is horrifying to imagine what will become of those deemed "the lesser" among us. We legalize killing once to maintain our greed, we will do it again.

EmperorNero, judging from you response's I assume you are indeed intelligent, but very young and naive. I could be wrong about the young part, and if I am please accept my apology. You are espousing textbook "status quo" indoctrinated intelligence that has been programmed into you and most others who have academically excelled. It would be nice to have a course in "wisdom". Fat chance. Wisdom is an anathema to the status quo and the insanity that drives it. Of course you call it reality as most espouse that "... is just the way it is" or "...that's life", or one of the many more apathetic cliches that identify our confusion and frustration. We talk about this reality and expend a lot of time and effort trying to justify it and make it work rather than aspiring to fix it. Capitalism and the greed that drives it is one of those problems.

William
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 09:26 am
@hue-man,
I in turn will need a while to respond.
William
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 10:49 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero wrote:
I in turn will need a while to respond.


If you wish. I am sure you have heard the term "set in their ways", I invented it. Ha. I am not a debater. I don't like to argue. I have spent my entire life arriving at the conclusions I have and that is just what they are: conclusions. I love to share what I have learned, not argue about them. I understand Greed and where it comes from and how it is manifested into the reality we have created and capitalism is but one of those manifestations. Greed in any format is not going to work no matter how one tries to rationalize it or whitewash it. Good luck though, I admire your fortitude. Please do not interpret my post to be condescending. It is only a confidence I have in the belief of the conclusions I have reached. I do not try to change anyone's mind, only point out where there thought processes might be a little erroneous, and I try to do that as gracefully as I can. Unfortunately, at times my temper shows through and I hate that. I am getting better though. :a-ok:
Later, my friend
William
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 11:28 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;62451 wrote:
So you're defining my purpose in life by the most primitive elements of human nature?

(...)

This cynical view of human behavior, that you need to be greedy in order to be productive, is very sad.


It's not what we want to be true, but it's correct. Even if those negatives are not intrinsic to human nature, changing the mediate causes will not change human behavior.

---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 PM ----------

William;62687 wrote:
If you wish. I am sure you have heard the term "set in their ways", I invented it. Ha. I am not a debater. I don't like to argue. I have spent my entire life arriving at the conclusions I have and that is just what they are: conclusions. I love to share what I have learned, not argue about them. I understand Greed and where it comes from and how it is manifested into the reality we have created and capitalism is but one of those manifestations. Greed in any format is not going to work no matter how one tries to rationalize it or whitewash it. Good luck though, I admire your fortitude. Please do not interpret my post to be condescending. It is only a confidence I have in the belief of the conclusions I have reached. I do not try to change anyone's mind, only point out where there thought processes might be a little erroneous, and I try to do that as gracefully as I can. Unfortunately, at times my temper shows through and I hate that. I am getting better though. :a-ok:
Later, my friend
William


You're right, there is probably nothing to gain from this. If you want an answer to a specific question, tell me, as I do not like to leave the debate. But your endorsement of the emotional position of another poster tells me that we will never come to any agreement.
I hope you do some reading and come to some better conclusions.

Start here: http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-politics/4345-capitalism-moral-10.html#post62458
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 11:33:22