Member |
I see capitalism as a good thing, where business ownership is private and its success is based on how well they do in a free market. Many times, actually, an oligarchic company, whose workers are "serfs," won't do as well as one that respects its workers because the workers will do their best for the latter company. The workers in the first company won't care. | |||
|
Member |
There are many evils of capitalism (such as the obscenely overpaid CEOs whose only skill is that of self service). Sadly, the only modern alternative, communism, simply managed to create a whole new set of evils and was even less effective at creating a good living for its adherents. It will be interesting to see how China, when its GDP overtakes the UK, Germany Japan and the USA (possibly in that order) decides to run itself. Nominally a communist country it is now embracing capitalism with such verve that it has now overtaken every other country as the "workshop of the world". There are interesting days ahead. Richard English | |||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
So, what does the term, "Commonwealth" mean in the UK these days? | ||
|
| Member |
It measn those countries that used to be part of the British Empire, then those which used to be part of the British Commonwealth. Now it means those which are part of the Commonwealth (the "British" title having been dropped. They share our Queen as their "official" head of state but she has less involvement with their affairs than she does with ours - and even that involvement is now mainly ceremonial. Richard English | |||
|
Member |
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. | |||
|
| Member |
Oh, Arnie, I read through all the above posts about 3 times, trying to see whom you were quoting. Now I get it!  There are many evils of capitalism (such as the obscenely overpaid CEOs whose only skill is that of self service). Richard, surely not all businesses behave like this, though I agree that most of the big ones do. I also agree that there are interesting times ahead with China! I have always been confused about the 4 states that are commonwealths: Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Virginia. According to this site, the commonwealth status doesn't mean much. Apparently the difference is that their government is based on the consent of the people, instead of being legitimized through their earlier Royal Colony status that was derived from the King of England. Does anyone know anything else about the commonwealth status? | |||
|
Member |
Your implication is that (although communism was worse,) capitalism was ineffective in creating a good living. As a factual matter, I disagree. But of course, that's outside the scope of this board. I question the logic. For example, Prince Charles lived a lavish lifestyle that he would have lacked, but for accident of birth. His home is much better than mine. Do you feel that is an "evil of monarchy"? Some people have extraordinarily good luck. Some win the lottery; some have the good fortune to be overpaid. They are to be envied, but hardly resented. Would your life be improved if their good luck were removed?This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz, | |||
|
| Member |
Although Prince Charles (and the entire British Monarchy) live good lifestyles, they earn massive amounts for the country and pay massive taxes as well. The entire Royal Family is a very successful business that generates far more income than it costs the country. The CEOs I speak of (and there are plenty of examples) are those who, whilst allowing their companies to lose money or even go broke (Enron, Austin Rover) still swan off with millions in their personal bank accounts. That is evil by my standards. And would my life be improved if they didn't receive their obscene rewards? Maybe not mine personally, but certainly those of the investors, employees and pensioners of such failed organisations who have found that their lifetimes of work have produced nothing but a retirement of poverty, while the CEOs who have driven their companies into liquidation retire to Miami to live a life of luxury. Richard English | |||
|
| Member |
Richard, you've pulled a slight of hand. No one disputes that people are hurt when a major company fail. The failure may be due to fraud or other evil actions (as in your Enron example), bad management, bad luck, any of a number of things. But the one thing it's not due to is the amount of cash drained by the CEO's salary. In proportion to the revenue of a large corporation, that salary (or more precisely, the portion of it you think to be "obscenely excessive") is trivial. Moreover, in most cases of extremely high CEO compensation, a heavy portion of the compensation is in the form of stock options -- which are of no value unless the company, and its stock, do well. In such a case, you won't hve a hugely compensated CEO in a failing company. (There are exceptions, such as the CEO of an organization the New York Stock Exchange, which does not issue stock and so cannot give stock options. But that in no way alters the general rule.)
No doubt. But surely you'd agree that most anyone else in that position would earn massive amounts for the country? Charles receives his lifestyle not for his skill in performing his job, but for the accident of birth that landed him in that job. Good for him!This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz, | |||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
This has gone on a tangent, with nobody telling me what their definition of capitalism is! I'll be away for a few days, so take your time and think it over! Better yet, join Kalleh, Shufitz, Caterwauller, Sunflower and me this Saturday in Indianapolis and we can discuss this - and who knows what else!  | ||
|
| Member |
That it is, in proportion, trivial doesn't make excessive compensation less obscene. One murder is trivial compared with the millions killed by Stalin - but it's still obscene. I do not begrudge top-performing CEOs their remuneration but I do begrudge the obscene sums paid to (not earned by) certain CEOs, of which Enron's was but one example. And whereas their remuneration might not be the major factor in the financial equation, why should they be paid such massive amounts (and not always in stock options) when their companies are losing money and often going bust? Most of the US airlines are in business only because of the money paid by the US Government (which means the likes of you and Kalleh as taxpayers) to keep them flying. But just take a look at the cash that their CEOs are getting. They'll be OK no matter what! And that, to my mind, is the "unacceptable face of capitalism".
And this is quite true - but it's true for so many. Even in the USA, supposedly an egalitarian country, the top jobs, almost without exception, are occupied by people who have been lucky enough to be born to wealthy and influential families. Would George Bush now be President had he been born the daughter of an unemployed negro in Missouri? Accident of birth happens and it it not the fault of those who are born lucky to take advantage of their luck. What is wrong is for them to take advantage of it to the extreme detriment of others - and that's what I am complaining about. I do not object to Prince Charles; he does a difficult job very well - and remember, he had no choice in it; it is the obligation of a Royal descendent to inherit the title and the work. His Grandfather, when he was told he would have to take the crown following his brother's abdication, was quite distraught since Kingship was not a job he was expecting and a job which was quite unsuitable to him, a very private, quiet and reserved man. But he took the job on and did it to the bext of his ability, even though the stress led to his early death. Richard English | |||
|
| Member |
Better yet, join Kalleh, Shufitz, Caterwauller, Sunflower and me this Saturday in Indianapolis and we can discuss this - and who knows what else! Ahhh, Asa, this isn't a Mensa meeting...I am planning to have more fun than talking about "capitalism." It may be a good thing that Richard and Shu won't be together this weekend!  | |||
|
| Member |
Another anti-US comment? sheesh! But it's simply not so. Expanding your own example, lets consider the US presidents during my lifetime. (Yes, you can find examples, and I counterexamples, in other fields, but this is the playing field you chose.) Eight of the eleven were born far from "wealthy and influential (I'll grant you the other three). Here are bios:
| |||
|
Member |
While you two gentlemen retire to your corners and the seconds fan you with towels I'll just drop in a word observation. The phrase should be "sleight of hand", the word "sleight" being archaic and meaning 1. skill or dexterity, 2. a trick or strategem, 3. cunning or trickery. It now really only survives in this phrase. "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|
| Member |
Shu, dear man... First, I would never assume that President of the US was one of the "top jobs" when discussing Capitalism. Capitalism is an economic model, not a political model. There-fore, any discussion of persons achieving "top job" status should be directed toward positions in the business and/or corporate world. Second, even if one allows your argument, it is hardly persuasive. You cite only eight out of 43 Presidents. There have been 18 presidents in the 20th/21st Century, so your sample is less than 50% of modern presidents. And it should be noted that one of them, James Earl Carter, may have been the son of a peanut farmer but the fact is that his father was a successful and wealthy man, highly influential in his county and state. One need only listen to President Carter's reading of his biography to realize that by comparison his childhood was spent in a privileged but socially responsible family. This reduces your sample to seven, hardly a statistically significant sampling. Corporate America is indeed run by the scions of wealthy and influential families. Recognizing this as fact is hardly an anti-US comment. What might be more interesting is determining if the same advantage of birth is found amongst the leaders of corporations in other capitalist nations. | |||
|
| Member |
You know, Jo, I don't know if Corporate America is "indeed run by scions of wealthy and influential families" or not. I just don't have the backgrounds of all the CEOs from all Fortune 500 companies handy right now. However, I do know about a significant number of them...self-made men (usually men, unfortuately) who were immigrants or from modest backgrounds, but were hard-workers, brilliant, had ambition, and always had grand and glorious ideas...as well as a lot of luck. They ended up doing very well, and then, yes, their families took over their businesses. I don't, for one moment, begrudge a family member who has been given the keys to his father's or his grandfather's business. There are plenty of those types of people from the Chicago area even. Walt Disney, for example, comes to mind. He went to school with my father-in-law, from humble beginnings. Another example is the head of the Pritzker family. He, too, was from humble beginnings. The list is long, indeed, just in the Chicago area. Yes, children and grandchildren of these families are then privileged. But what do we want? The original businessman to give all his money to the poor when he dies? Many of these Chicago area families give great amounts of money to charity. And, as long as I am on a tirade, it is on to Bob! It seems that "slight" was a common spelling variant of "sleight" through the 18th century, according to the OED. I can only assume that Shu got bogged down in his 18th century OED when he was writing this post. This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh, | |||
|
| Member |
It certainly happens in the UK - probably more than the USA. If you didn't go to the right school your chances of success are slim. I used the USA as an example because it is supposedly more egalitarian than the UK. And whereas I agree that there were a few US presidents who were not born of wealthy parents, my question was about the chances of presidential office for a poor, black woman. Just about zero, I reckon. And that's an accident of birth just as much as GWB's actual accident of birth. Had he not been the son of a multi-millionaire ex-president would he now be where he is? And as I said, I have no real issue with those who take advantange of their accident of birth; my issue is with those who cheat, steal and deceive because of their fortunate positions - however they may be gained. Richard English | |||
|
| Member |
jo, dear woman, "US Presidents" is indeed not the perfect group to test, but it is the group from which Richard selected. So I sampled the 11 presidents (not 8) who served during my lifetime. Wouldn't earlier presidents reflect old history rather than the modern potential for a non-wealthy child to advance to high position? (There are eight earlier ones who served after 1900, but their average birth date is very far back: 1863.) It had been claimed that the top jobs go "almost without exception" to scions of the "wealthy and influential." Three of the those 11 presidents (Kennedy, Bush and Bush) came from such families, but eight did not. (Not necessarily impoverished families, of course. The Carter and some otter families were respectably and comfortably middle class, but harldy "wealthy and influential".) I'm willing to listen to contrary data, of course. | |||
|
| Member |
Richard, I join you heartily in your objection to those who "cheat, steal and deceive". | |||
|
| Member |
Kalleh, I should point out that I didn't say there was anything wrong with families passing along their success and good fortune. It is worth noting that generally passing along the family fortune is a capitalist thang. I make no value judgment. | |||
|
| Member |
as a further follow up for both Kalleh and Shu, again I would point out that I make no value judgment on the passing on of family wealth and position. I don't think it is a bad thing. But I also don't think that overconsumption is a good thing. My favorite business model is Ben and Jerry's. I suspect that if they hadn't sold the business one or both of them might well have passed the torch to one or more of their children. | |||
|
| Member |
Ah, Capitalism. I don't have the cynicism to research and document the origin for you, but I've always been fond of the aphorism that says "In Communism it's Man against Man, but in Capitalism it's the other way 'round." | |||
|
| Member |
I don't know who came up with the quote that jo cites but I like Winston Churchill's: "..."The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries..." Richard English | |||
|
| Member |
what quote did I cite? | |||
|
| Member |
Asa here on Sunflower's computer: I dunno... Might be fun to watch - from a safe distance! | |||
|
| Member |
naM against naM? Asa - hiding behind Sunflower  Does capitalism imply exploitation, or is it human nature that does that to an otherwise positive economic concept? | |||
|
| Member |
Well, Asa and Sunflower seem to be having fun!
Yes, I know, Jo. It's just that I was thinking (and I always expect people to read my mind; just ask Shu!) that's how the "privileged class" point of view gets started. The brilliant, lucky, etc., grandfather started a business from nothing, but he makes a fortune. Then he hands it down to his kids who go to the best schools and get top-rate jobs. My point was, how else should it work? Surely we couldn't ask that grandfather to throw his money away. Yet, it does start the ball rolling for a privileged class of people. | |||
|
| Member |
What an interesting thread, I hardly know where to start. We seem to think in terms of either Capitalism or Communism but I'm not convinced that either is ideal. Firstly, I would agree that communism is a discredited political system that may sound fine but simply doesn't work in practice. I'll come back to China a little later. Capitalism makes me think primarily of America because it seems such an American idea that everyone can own a thriving business and become rich. I'm not sure that capitalism works either in national or global terms. Capitalism is corrupted by human greed and the system seems to invite a lack of social conscience. CEO's who give themselves huge and unwarranted pay rises, while allowing their employees 2% of a feeble wage is obscene. While the money they take may be trivial in terms of the overall turnover of the company, it is nevertheless obscene and is symbolic of the corrupt nature of the system. Capitalism seems to be biased in favour of the high achievers and the divide between rich and poor inevitably becomes greater. We are all products of the events in our lives and my experience is that the people at the top simply aren't worth the extra money they are paid. The hardest job I've ever had paid me less than £10,000 p.a whereas the easiest job I've had paid over £30,000 p.a. I now teach, which is arguably the most valuable job I've ever done and I'm paid somewhere in the middle. In capitalism it seems that people aren't paid according to their worth to society and I think that is a fundamental flaw. Many capitalist countries preach social responsibility and obligations to the worlds poor yet I'm not convinced that there is any real desire for change amongst people at the very top of the system. We donate money to the third world and say that something needs to be changed but the reality is that in a capitalist system there is only so much we are willing to do. At some point we will say that we can't afford to do any more because it will harm our own financial interests. That seems to mean that there comes a point that we would rather see people die of hunger than give up some of our material wealth. President Bush is using the same argument when he refuses to sign up to any agreement on climate change. Capitalism exploits people, which is why many companies can make huge profits by manufacturing their products in countries where they can get away with paying a pittance. So what of China? I bet you thought I'd never get back to it Perhaps in time it will develop a new form of communism that is highly effective, one that manages to utilise the best of both systems. Personally I doubt it. To me, the problem with capitalism is much the same as traditional communism, in that it tends to look after the few at the expense of the many. I believe that there must be a better system but I doubt that the human race are selfless enough to make it work. I've probably already been controversial enough so I won't expand on what I believe that system is. If anything I've said upsets anyone, I apologise. If you simply disagree, that is your right. | |||
|
| Member |
Thank you Doad. I wanted to reply to this, but with time and energy being short, and it feeling such an overwhelming subject, I had difficulty knowing where to begin. You, however, have eloquently stated almsot exactly my thoughts on the matter, so you've saved me a job! *blows kiss* Re. the lack of social conscience point: I've heard many times from dyed-in-the-wool capitalists that poorer people are there by their own doing/not working hard enough etc. And yet the fact that escapes them is that a)someone has to clean the toilets, and b)not every business can succeed. There simply aren't enough customers to go round! Plus, there are only so many times you can pick yourself up and try again before the debts get crippling. It is quite frankly insulting when the rich insist the poor don't work hard enough - as Doad says, some of the hardest jobs are amongst the lowest paid, and this adds to the stress of them: at least when you're in a stressful high-paying job you can get away from it all by going on holiday or whatever relaxes you - you feel you're getting some reward for your efforts. There's nothing more demoralising than being in a stressful, low-paid job and seldom being able to enjoy yourself outside of it because your salary only really stretches to basic living expenses. I too don't have a problem with the descendents of self-made people: what I do have a problem with is when they think they somehow deserve their privileges, that their ancestors' hard work somehow makes them better people, and that because certain aspects of life are easy for them, it must be this easy for everyone else, so why do poorer people complain? If I made a lot of money I'd certainly want my kids to have the best - who wouldn't? - but I'd make damn sure they never took their fortune (in both senses of the word) for granted. | |||
|
Member |
I must again recommend the book A Framework for Understanding Poverty by Ruby K. Payne. She proposes that there are 2 kinds of poverty. One is situational (falling on hard times), and one is generational (having been raised in poverty, by parents who were raised in poverty, etc). Payne's studies were done in the USA, so it might not all translate to other cultures, but what she says is so on target with what I've observed. People who live in generational poverty generally have a different value system, a different set of rules and skills than what those of us raised in the middle or upper classes have. This isn't a good/bad judgement. It's just that they have different expectations and different skills. People who have been raised in this culture don't know the hidden rules of other classes. We all think that the way we were raised is "normal" and we don't stop to think about other people having different values and skill sets. For instance, how many of us on this board would know how to post bail for someone who'd been arrested? How many of us know where the most friendly soup kitchens are? However, we DO know how to open a checking account, how to balance that account, where to go for the freshest produce. People in the wealthier classes know which fork to use if there are many at your place, and they know how much to tip (or whether or not to tip) people who help them out. People who find themselves suddenly in poverty when they've been raised differently have a different set of problems. They know what they need to do or get to get out of poverty, but they've been (often through no fault of their own) unable to do those things successfully. So, back to what Cat and Doad said . . . it is often not a case of not working HARD enough, but of not having the savvy and skills to know what else to do. It's a self-feeding system. People who are working long hours in lower-paying jobs tend to spend less time at home, and their kids tend to do worse in school, and then they can't succeed in our society in a lucrative way (other than crime) so they have to spend long hours in a low-paying job and spend less time at home . . . and that is how generational poverty comes along. So what is my point? I think my point is (although it's the middle of the night and I've never been good at sticking to the point) that you can't judge a person's character by their income. You can't assume that people in poverty are all losers or lazy, and you also can't assume they're all hard-working, undervalued heroes, either. Just as you can't assume that all wealthy people are selfish, egotistical jerks. There have been many great wealthy people who have done amazing things for society with their hard-earned money. Even the most selfish, self-seeking capitalists can make a big difference for the good in society with their philanthropy (consider what Andrew Carnegie did for public libraries in the US). For me, it all comes back to being careful not to jump to conclusions about any person just because of a few facts. Some people are rich and some people are poor. Sometimes people can break out of the circumstances of their birth and work their way up or down accordingly. This doesn't even say anything about their personhood, necessarily. Sometimes it says something about their fortitude or their character, and usually it says something about their judgement or their choices . . . but I still think that the greater danger is to talk in grand terms by saying that Capitalism is always right or that it is always wrong. Sometimes it works well for the society at large, and sometimes it doesn't. I don't think there CAN be one economic policy that will always fit the bill (pun intended.) There are just too many factors involved. ******* "Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions. ~Dalai Lama | |||
|
| Member |
 I'm very deeply moved. Frankly I never expected anyone to agree with me at all so your endorsement has really made my day. Thank you. Furthermore, I agree 100% with what you say. A stressful job must be alot easier if you can afford to fly off to exotic locations a few times a year but I can say from personal experience that the alternative is soul destroying. School holidays are times to be dreaded because you need to find ways of keeping the children amused without it costing any money. There's the pain of hearing the kids tell you of all the things other kids have but they can't because you simply can't afford it. The anguish of hearing of other kids holidays to Disney World while we can't get out of Britain and when you do go away you have to stay with relatives.You are also correct that we all make a valuable contribution to society but in capitalism this is often overlooked. Is a CEO of a company worth more than a nurse or even a teacher? I doubt it, yet they are paid substantially more. Is a professional footballer worth more than the man who empties my bin each week? I know which one I'd miss first! A guy I went to school with loved planes. They dominated his life. He now flies for British Airways and earns over £100,000 p.a but I fail to see why because he'd happily do it for £12,000 p.a. He admits that his job is easy because the plane flies itself and even if there was an emergency there is nothing he could do. His plane has five back-up computers on board to fly the plane for him and if they all fail it's impossible to fly the plane anyway. I've often heard the argument that if we don't pay our top executives these obscene salaries they will simply go and do a less stressful job instead. What complete and utter rubbish. Take the two jobs I mentioned earlier that paid me £10,000 p.a and £30,000 p.a. If I were offered the same salary for both jobs, I'd still rather do the latter and so would my friend in the aeroplane. Perhaps Marxism had the right idea but we're all too greedy and selfish to make it work. I would love to live in a truly altruistic world but I think that humans aren't capable of altruism on a large enough scale. My apologies once again because I think I went into full rant mode there. I admit that I am deeply cynical of most things but I don't intend to offend anyone with my rather unusual views. As I indicated earlier, I am very much the product of the events in my life. I am happy for you to disagree with me as long as you also allow me the right to my point of view. | |||
|
| Member |
*stepping up on soapbox* My father had the best advice, and I will quote him, yet again. "Find something you love to do, and then find someone who will pay you to do it." I think that my life would be less stressful if I made more money . . . but then again, maybe it wouldn't. I am quite fortunate to have found a job that has all my basic requirements: I love what I do, I am making a positive difference in the world, I make enough to pay the mortgage on a modest (quite modest) home, we have enough food (more than enough, sometimes), and I get hugs from little kids on a regular basis. I get to sing, tell stories, play with puppets, read books to kids . . . what does it really matter if I can't go to Disney World or England on demand? Will my son suffer? He might feel a little left out, but overall I think he's turning out better, in the long run. He's learning to value what is really important: time with his friends and family, the joys of nature (he found 2 glacial-age fossils during our canoe trek today), and he's even learned compassion in adversity (when I've had surgery). Part of understanding the value of what we do as individuals is being able to honestly pass those values on to our kids, don't you think? *gingerly stepping down from soapbox* ******* "Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions. ~Dalai Lama | |||
|
| Member |
This is quite an interesting discussion that most of us probably agree with. I think you are right, CW, that there just can't be one system of economic policy. There surely isn't just one system even in the U.S.; for example, our utility companies (except for phones) have no competitors; farm and other subsidies exist; etc. Shu and Asa were talking about this thread when we met in Indianapolis yesterday, and Asa asked Shu how Kibbutzim work. They are collective settlements in Israel. Shu has lived on one before...Shu????
This is the only thing I don't agree with, though I may be naive. However, I have never heard anyone say this about the working poor. Everything I have ever heard is that they work so hard, and it's too bad they don't get paid more. Where I have heard criticism is about the poor who don't have jobs for one reason or another. People often think they just aren't looking hard enough, when the fact may be they don't have the tools to even look for a job. Recently in Chicago they have decided to make it much easier (and without a lawyer) to expunge the records of people who have had non-violent crimes. They have found that when these people apply to jobs, their criminal background check will come up positive, and they won't get the job. It may be for something very minor, and the person is trying to get his life back on track. I think these kinds of moves are very laudable. | |||
|
| Member |
I think I may have unintentionally misled you CW when I spoke of holidays etc. I too don't think that material things are as important as loving relationships (friends, family and partner) and doing something you believe in. My point was about a specific situation: namely if you're in a job you hate (and not everyone is fortunate enough to love what they do - I haven't found that yet, though I'm still looking), it's bad enough if you're well-paid, but at least in that situation you can console yourself with holidays or whatever you enjoy most. Even spiritual retreats and the like cost money. It's not the answer of course (far better to find something you enjoy if you can), but a person in the above situation is still far better off than someone who is also in a job they hate, but whose job barely pays enough to cover basic living essentials. I too have been in that situation and it's utterly soul-destroying - especially if you live in the city, where everything costs (in the countryside it's slightly easier, as walks among beautiful scenery and sleeping under the stars don't cost anything). But that was my very specific point - I wouldn't want you to think I (or Doad, for that matter) was being materialistic. If I had the choice of doing a job I loved for £12k or one I hated for £24k, I'd go for the former, every time. But a job you hate for a pittance I wouldn't wish on anyone. | |||
|
| Member |
It's Asa on Sunflower's computer again. Cat got me to thinking about the two very wealthy people I've known, one of whom was a multi-millionaire; the other a billionaire. The millionaire inherited money from his father, who had been beer (Oh, NO, not THAT subject again!) magnate Henry Winehard's coachman. Winehard gave land to his employees upon his death, and several made something of themselves thereby, as did their children. This was the "American Dream" in real life! A more humble and generous man would be hard to find than my millionaire friend! The billionaire was a Hungarian refugee during WWII who was highly educated when he arrived in the US, and applied his knowledge and business acumen to the favorable climate he found in this country. After becoming a US citizen, and amassing a fortune, he became the US Ambassador to Hungary for a while. He had philanthropic foundations named after him, yet he was a ruthless businessman. Perhaps the "socialistic" philanthropic tax breaks the wealthy enjoy temper the potential excesses of capitalism and "spread the wealth" in some form. The millionaire often bought me lunch as fancy restaurants; the billionaire bought me lunch just one time - at Orange Julius! The bottom line: Good men can be capitalists, and ruthless men can be capitalists, but unbridled capitalism would have made a tyrant of one of my examples, whereas it would not have done so to the other. That's why I asked what the term meant in the first place. Do you feel joy upon hearing it, or is there a knot in the gut, a fear that if enough of the rich buy enough of the politicians... | |||
|
| Member |
What is capitalism? I purposely haven’t checked a dictionary definition, yet, but I’ll give it a try. First of all, capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. True, it is tainted by politics, as is most everything. Second, I equate capitalism with the free enterprise system. I think of entrepreneurship “let the buyer beware,” and cutthroat competition. That is, people are free to buy and sell whatever they choose, provided, of course, they can afford it. (The ubiquitous use of credit cards makes everything “affordable” these days.) Goods that are produced are subject to supply and demand. If enough people want something and are willing to pay for it, someone will produce it. The amount produced will depend on the demand. The price must cover the costs of production and enough extra to support the producer. The price often rises to test if people are willing to pay more and to satisfy (or partly satisfy) the producer’s need or greed for more profit. In theory the system should work for the common benefit. Those who produce shoddy or overpriced goods will soon be eliminated by the system. Other producers who will provide higher-quality goods at reasonable prices will replace them. It generally doesn’t work this way in practice, however. Wealthy producers often try to drive weaker competitors out of business by fair means or foul. Their wealth gives them a greater power to disseminate their propaganda. They often wield political power and lobby to get laws passed that are favorable to them and unfavorable to their competitors. They may lobby for tax relief, for relaxed standards, or to get restrictive tariffs passed. They may argue that they are advocating these for the benefit of the people, citing health, safety, standard of living, or anything else that may help to sell their ideas. But mainly they want to maximize their profit. There’s little, if any, concern about social problems. It’s hard to talk about capitalism without talking about politics since politics pervades every aspect of capitalism. As producers become wealthier they become more powerful. As they become more powerful, they have greater political leverage to influence laws favorable to their economic interests. When Rockefeller was asked, “How much money is enough?” he reportedly answered, “Just a little bit more.” The story may be apocryphal, but it does illustrate the innate greed that most of us have. As wealthy, powerful producers drive their competition out of business and wield considerable political power, democracy inches toward oligarchy. The voice of the people becomes supplanted by the voice of corporations. Because capitalism is so interwoven with politics it's hard to compare it with a different economic system under a different political system. Many people have tried to compare democracy with communism. This is flawed from the beginning, since democracy is a political system and communism is an economic system. A more fair comparison would be democratic capitalism with democratic communism. Anybody want to try that? One of the problems with pure capitalism is that it is concerned only with economics (and greed); social concerns are ignored. Fortunately, capitalism in the U.S.A. is often “tainted” by social conscience (dare I say “socialism?”). Individual capitalists in the US do have social consciences, at least some of them. But in many cases corporate social conscience is lacking or anemic. The problems of capitalism are not exclusive to corporations. They are shared by all of us. People in general are selfish and greedy. They can be very mean. They can also be kind, generous, and altruistic. Tinman | |||
|
| Member |
Thank you Cat for clarifying the point we were both making. I agree totally with what you've said. This is getting to be a habit. I may even get to avoid the beating with your rolling pin or shoes that was mentioned some time ago | |||
|
| Member |
There's still time... | |||
|
| Member |
That has always been my philosophy. Reasoned debate, even when your debating oponent has sharply different views and values to your own, is a mark of civilised intercourse. If I disagree with someone's point of view I may challenge that point of view and, indeed, we might never agree. But it's the views I challenge, not the person. Debate that degenerates into vulgar personal abuse is debate that I shall rapidly abandon. Richard English | |||
|
Copyright © 2002-12