Is Capitalism Moral?

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.

It's not true that people need to be greedy in order to be productive. That's been proven wrong by a number of people who have contributed to society mainly for the sake of contribution.

Since when is a negative proven by an example? You don't just have to show that people can be not greedy, you have to show that they won't be greedy. You would have to show that collectivism would work for all of society, speculation is irrelevant.

Capitalism is the viable alternative. And since we're already applying capitalism with success, despite it being interrupted by collectivist intervention, it seems to function.

And you can't just form a theory that assumes human altruism and robots. With those possibilities of assumption, capitalism could be nice sounding as well.
I could just assume all sorts of nice attributes for capitalism once we end it's stranglehold by the collectivists who wish to derail it.

I think capitalism is doing a grand job undermining itself without my help.

That's just the thing, if you are trying to use the US current economic model as your source for capitalism YOU FAIL. They have done lots to demonize capitalism in the US so they could put forth socialism.

There is no free market in the US and there hasn't been for over 70 years.

But ah who cares right? We all get the same shiny shoes and cool house with socialism and the best part about it is, we don't have to do squat for it! Yeah the government will just hand it to us because we all deserve the same thing regardless of how productive we are. Even if we are the scum of the earth we get to wear the same shoes and live in the same crappy made house.

BRING ON SOCIALISM! yay!

Remember that "the rich" won't pay for it.
There are so few "rich" that taxing them makes little difference.
Having "the rich pay their fair share" means taxing the middle class.

YouTube - Cartoon predicts the future 50 years ago. This is amazing insight!

Another brain washed fool,living in the land of the free.

If brainwashing comes from studying history then okay I'm brain washed. You think I make this stuff up? You think I learn it from watching fox news? Well I don't own a TV so think again.

The problem is the current atmosphere lacks understanding in economics. The so called "brain washed" have been studying the wrong economics and reading the wrong books on history.

Sad really, sad oh and to think I paid for this brain washing, wow did I get duped.

Since when is a negative proven by an example? You don't just have to show that people can be not greedy, you have to show that they won't be greedy. You would have to show that collectivism would work for all of society, speculation is irrelevant.

Capitalism is the viable alternative. And since we're already applying capitalism with success, despite it being interrupted by collectivist intervention, it seems to function.

And you can't just form a theory that assumes human altruism and robots. With those possibilities of assumption, capitalism could be nice sounding as well.
I could just assume all sorts of nice attributes for capitalism once we end it's stranglehold by the collectivists who wish to derail it.

Another brain washed fool,living in the land of the free.

Did you study the same economic theory that the bankers ? you know the ones, those ones that have just shafted us.I love it when the prime example of capitalists state suddenly becomes a socialists plan to upset the grand plan of capitalist America.Not the fault of capitalism? oh no could not be that ayyy...Its those damned pesky reds infiltrating your wonderful dream again.Rout them out brother.

Capitalism will not work in a economy that is mostly done by robots and automation technology. It will result in mass unemployment and mass reduction in consumption, and the development of AI, with at least human level intelligence, will change everything.

Comments like this should stop. They are insulting and unproductive.

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------



The economists I follow universally predicted the present disaster.

Capitalism will not work in a economy that is mostly done by robots and automation technology. It will result in mass unemployment and mass reduction in consumption, and the development of AI, with at least human level intelligence, will change everything.

This continuing non-argument seems to be revolving around the error in thinking capitalism and corporatism are the same things. To get this straight every person who earns a legitimate living by producing goods or needed services for other people who pay for same is a capitalist. The producer's capital is his/her time, talents, skills, money, tools and intelligence - and those he/she can secure from others. Hence a clerk in store is a capitalist while an oil man selling oil is likewise a capitalist. There are fewer things in life more moral than rendering service to out fellow travelers on this planet. Corporatism on the other hand which is also based in capitalism has gone too far into inanimate and inorganic (non-human) ideals. A corporation is not human. It has no heart, no soul, no brain and no conscience. Therefore serving a corporation is stepping outside of rendering service to fellow humanity and is instead serving illusion. Capitalism is founded in the very humane Common Law while corporatism creates and supports statutory law - which is now victimizing all of us humans. Few things could be more corrupt and immoral than improperly managed corporations.

I also object to these statements. Because who is going to monitor them? Who is going to maintenance them? Who is going to improve them? Who is going to buy the stuff they are making if no one is working?

It is a silly argument to say robots will result in mass unemployment when I just pointed out 3 job criteria and a contradiction of purpose.

Why we currently have job losses in the US is not due to immigrants or robots. It is due to having too many restrictions or policies placed on how businesses or companies operate. When you force them to purchase licenses and pay for it's impacts on environment then you force those companies to seek alternatives. They have two choices, either charge more for their goods or services or relocate to a place which doesn't have the restrictions. So many companies leave the US so they can produce goods or services at less expense and that causes loss of jobs.

General motors can't afford to make a good quality product because the company is forced to pay out high wages and provide so many benefits to it's employees that it would either have to slap enormous price tags on their cars or make the cars with low quality parts. You know what option GM chose? Low quality parts because no one wants to pay more for something they can get somewhere else for less. So when people buy the GM cars and they fall apart because of low quality parts they get pissed and refuse to buy their next car from GM.

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.

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.

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?

Total nonsense companies dont move because of government regulations they move to make more profits.As soon as they find a cheaper labour market they get up and go.They intend to exploit the labour market as much as they can.

General motors can't afford to make a good quality product because the company is forced to pay out high wages and provide so many benefits to it's employees

Why that? It would work great. We just distribute the work there is among who we have, if there is no work, well, then all needs are met.
Unemployment is a symptom of artificial government barriers. The ones I want to get rid of.

I also object to these statements. Because who is going to monitor them? Who is going to maintenance them? Who is going to improve them? Who is going to buy the stuff they are making if no one is working?

It is a silly argument to say robots will result in mass unemployment when I just pointed out 3 job criteria and a contradiction of purpose.

It's a silly argument, really? Well I guess the experts who are debating this issue are just silly. It's not only robotics that will cause this, but also automation technology combined with both robotics and AI.

Did you even read what I wrote? You just made the same argument I did...



So why isn't GM leaving the US if it could have lower production expenses in china?