22 Apr 14
Originally posted by JS357No other economic system erects a barrier any better than capitalism, and many encourage the evils.
The distinction between capitalism being evil, and capitalism being no barrier to evil, results in pretty much the same dilemma: how do we limit the evil while maximizing personal freedom to benefit from the use of one's capital? So I'm not sure the distinction is worth much debate.
22 Apr 14
Originally posted by normbenignJust where are all these other, alternative economic systems to which you appeal for your argument? I can think of Feudalism, which died in the early Middle Ages, and probably communism, which prevailed for a time and in various forms in China, the USSR, Eastern Europe, Cuba, a few other places.
No other economic system erects a barrier any better than capitalism, and many encourage the evils.
Britain, Scandinavia, West Germany, Holland, France, India - countries with varying levels of socialist practice for varying periods after WW2 were capitalist countries nonetheless, as is Venezuela for example today despite a socialist government.
So what are these other economic systems?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
22 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignI don't think there is a current example of a first world nation that is not an example of capitalism. Most or all are mixed economies, having some significant state influence on the economy mostly via regulations but with examples of direct investment and redistribution of wealth, administration of health care, etc. ostensibly for the public good.
No other economic system erects a barrier any better than capitalism, and many encourage the evils.
But capitalism does not have the public good as a guiding principle unless the public happens to be the kind of consumer whose spending has the public good as a guiding principle (which is generally not the case), or the corporation is exceptional, probably due to the influence of an idealistic founder.
Capitalism can say its interests are to maximize profits by meeting consumer demand, without a care in the world about the commitment of consumers to the public good.
At least the capitalist who serves interests that are destructive to the public good is generally not being hypocritical, whereas the politician who does this IS being hypocritical.
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by finneganThe diametric opposite of free market capitalism is communism, but communism is but one variant of Marxism or collectivism, but you knew that. Capitalism in a less than free environment, diluted by socialism or fascism, or controlled by Statist variants of those, is polluted and contaminated by the faults of those systems.
Just where are all these other, alternative economic systems to which you appeal for your argument? I can think of Feudalism, which died in the early Middle Ages, and probably communism, which prevailed for a time and in various forms in China, the USSR, Eastern Europe, Cuba, a few other places.
Britain, Scandinavia, West Germany, Holland, France, India ...[text shortened]... for example today despite a socialist government.
So what are these other economic systems?
The real opposites are freedom vs. various levels of State control of all economic factors. If man had discovered a system of forcing prosperity, we would know it by now.
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by JS357"But capitalism does not have the public good as a guiding principle....."
I don't think there is a current example of a first world nation that is not an example of capitalism. Most or all are mixed economies, having some significant state influence on the economy mostly via regulations but with examples of direct investment and redistribution of wealth, administration of health care, etc. ostensibly for the public good.
But cap ...[text shortened]... is generally not being hypocritical, whereas the politician who does this IS being hypocritical.
That presumes that some individual or group knows what the "public good" is. Capitalism allows every consumer to vote on what is good for the public, and the producer must please those consumers to make his profit.
What could be more democratic, and less autocratic? Those who presume to know the public good, are usually opposed by around 50% of voting people, and the margin would probably be higher in a truly free market.
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAll it takes is for two people to recognise each others right to property. They don't even need to trade and they don't need money, and one does not need to be rich, and it is not required that one works and one dosen't. In other words ATY is in full on BS mode.
Capitalism isn't defined by the desire for money in a free market. It's more specific than that. Capitalism is about making money BY INVESTING MONEY. In other words, capitalism is where rich people get paid for not working.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by WajomaThis depends on what is recognized as a legitimate way to acquire property. We can take the Europeans' arrival in the "New World" for discussion.
All it takes is for two people to recognise each others right to property. They don't even need to trade and they don't need money, and one does not need to be rich, and it is not required that one works and one dosen't. In other words ATY is in full on BS mode.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by normbenignYes. Capitalism in the pure sense takes to be the public good, whatever it sees being demanded by the public as measured by profitable sales. The public decides what is the public good, and it is seen by the demand. In fact it does not even need to be called the public good. It can just be called that which is demanded, without pretending to dignify it further.
"But capitalism does not have the public good as a guiding principle....."
That presumes that some individual or group knows what the "public good" is. Capitalism allows every consumer to vote on what is good for the public, and the producer must please those consumers to make his profit.
What could be more democratic, and less autocratic? Those wh ...[text shortened]... by around 50% of voting people, and the margin would probably be higher in a truly free market.
So we can abandon the pretense that capitalism is for the public good, if any one of us ever held that it is. We can't place capitalism on a moral pedestal, if that which it seeks is merely popular approval as measured by sales. It is "public good neutral."
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by normbenignFine so by your curious and hardly well established definitions of what capitalism might be in your fantasy, it has either never existed or never been free of "statism" in some form and as such it cannot possibly be given the credit for the achievements of humanity which are claimed for it in the original post for this thread. At minimum, there must be doubt about whether the bit of capitalism or the bit of "statism" - in whatever proportions - must share the credit.
The diametric opposite of free market capitalism is communism, but communism is but one variant of Marxism or collectivism, but you knew that. Capitalism in a less than free environment, diluted by socialism or fascism, or controlled by Statist variants of those, is polluted and contaminated by the faults of those systems.
The real opposites are freed ...[text shortened]... conomic factors. If man had discovered a system of forcing prosperity, we would know it by now.
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by WajomaWajoma, you have really advanced the theme of this thread:
All it takes is for two people to recognise each others right to property. They don't even need to trade and they don't need money, and one does not need to be rich, and it is not required that one works and one dosen't. In other words ATY is in full on BS mode.
Without the drive of [two people to recognise each others right to property], couldn't it be said that the internet wouldn't be as advanced as it is, because the financial reward wouldn't be what is without [two people to recognise each others right to property]?
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by finneganThere are enough examples of capitalism being minimally effected by statism to demonstrate its effectiveness in advancing the human condition.
Fine so by your curious and hardly well established definitions of what capitalism might be in your fantasy, it has either never existed or never been free of "statism" in some form and as such it cannot possibly be given the credit for the achievements of humanity which are claimed for it in the original post for this thread. At minimum, there must be doub ...[text shortened]... the bit of capitalism or the bit of "statism" - in whatever proportions - must share the credit.
There are also examples of pure Statist regimes which compare unfavorably to those mostly free capitalistic ones.
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by JS357There is no pretence that capitalism is for the public good. It doesn't aim for that, but nonetheless accomplishes it better than systems which do proclaim the public good as their primary motive.
Yes. Capitalism in the pure sense takes to be the public good, whatever it sees being demanded by the public as measured by profitable sales. The public decides what is the public good, and it is seen by the demand. In fact it does not even need to be called the public good. It can just be called that which is demanded, without pretending to dignify it further ...[text shortened]... hat which it seeks is merely popular approval as measured by sales. It is "public good neutral."
Capitalism allows people, individuals, to seek their own good in mutual agreement. Lots of individual good results in public good, without coercion.