your opinion of capitalism

Vitriola — Thu, 11/12/2009 - 07:16

Because of something I recently read, I was wondering what y'all thought of capitalism. Is it what can save or destroy the world?

Everything Else

Groups:

because google is the best

Kwondre — Fri, 11/13/2009 - 08:59

because google is the best way to find the authoritative answer on a particular topic...

I would like to introduce the morality of Goldfish...

Goldfish are the basis of this moral system. All moral decisions must be made in relation to Goldfish. Any act that increases the supply and availability of Goldfish is good. Any act that doesn't is either bad or non-judged. This is the only moral system that allows users to make decisions based on Goldfish, and therefore is the only Goldfish moral system.

Please exercise your capacity for intellectual discretion. I know you got it! Qualifying something by saying that "it's the first item I searched in googles" doesn't mean its ok to put that opinion forward.

AND OMFG...i just went to the link you posted...

"The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism is dedicated to advancing individual rights and economic freedom through Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Browse our website for the Center's articles and essays, opportunities for activism and more."

THIS IS A F*KING AYN RAND SITE...THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM. AYN RAND TAKES CAPITALISM AND ATTACHES MORALS TO IT, BUT THEN IT TURNS INTO OBJECTIVISM, NOT CAPITALISM..OMG I JUST GOT TROLLED SO HARD JEEEEESUS.

FOR THE FIFTEENTH AND LAST TIME....the "real" "textbook", "original" definition of Capitalism is not found anywhere else on the internet or in a book unless that book is titled "Wealth of Nations"...and the author is Adamn Smith.

Easy does it!

Vitriola — Fri, 11/13/2009 - 09:26

First of all, I specifically said that the point is that there ARE people that consider capitalism a matter of morality. I did NOT say that it was or was not MY opinion. Who is doing the saying is irrelevant to the point as I was not saying that they are right or wrong about it.

Second, the notion of capitalism transcends the opinion of a single 18th century Scottish Scotsman. It should be noted that he was a moral philosopher, which brings us back to that without having to resort to Ayn Rand.

I used the net search for the single purpose of showing a consensus and to ensure that my own notions are separate. I was just looking around for common notions and saw that there are a lot of people that think that capitalism is a moral issue. They may be right they may not but it is not that clear cut, it seems. No need to have a cow.

quoting something without

Kwondre — Fri, 11/13/2009 - 10:17

quoting something without saying what your actual opinion is, is both worthless and confusing and doesn't lead to any advancement of a discussion.

If you're going to just quote random crap and hide behind the "its not necessarily my opinion" BS...why am I even bothering?

First of all, who says he was a moral philosopher? Google? Wikipedia? Most would argue that he was an Economist and nothing more.

Secondly, the notion of Marxism transcends Marx, but that doesn't mean there is any other definition of Marxism that is more accurate than the one Marx himself gave.

It is clear cut, but for whatever reason you enjoy searching for your glasses when they're on your head. I'm done

awww...

Vitriola — Fri, 11/13/2009 - 12:07

First, I said up front that I wanted to know the opinions of others. Please note the title of the thread.

Second, I am not quoting random crap and hiding. I said, "a quick search on "capitalism moral" shows a LOT of people that think
that it *is* a moral position. I will quote just the first one on the
list that the search returned:" I then quoted the first one that did, indeed, show that it was considered a moral issue. There was no hiding. I said why I bothered to look in the first place and showed why I thought it. You said, "Capitalism is not a moral theory". Many disagree but you gave no reason for saying that.

Then, the standard and inevitable outcome: personal attack. "for whatever reason you enjoy searching for your glasses when they're on your head." I have no idea why it must degenerate to this every time. /sigh

As to his being a moral philosopher, I understand that Smith studied moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow and Oxford University. He collaborated with David Hume during the Scottish Enlightenment. Smith obtained a professorship at Glasgow teaching moral philosophy, and during this time wrote and published The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Do you dispute any of that?

oops

Vitriola — Fri, 11/13/2009 - 09:27

"Scottish Scotsman"

I meant "Scotsman". I wish that I could edit. heh

paradoxically speaking

Vitriola — Fri, 11/13/2009 - 07:35

I have read several definitions of capitalism on the web. Here are examples of what I saw:

"An essential definition of Capitalism as the social system based on individual rights. An economic definition is a definition by non-essentials."

"Capitalism is a socio-economic system in which
private ownership means profit to the owner. The owner controls the
means of production, so the profit belongs to the private business
owner. In capitalism, the free market determines the production,
distribution and price of goods and services."

"Capitalism refers to an economic and social system
in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and
operated, and in which investments, distribution, income, production
and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation
of a market economy."

Words like "predominantly" indicate that they do not see it as the whole concept being utterly destroyed at the teeniest regulation. It has to do with "mostly". Even the concept of "free" market can only be seen as "mostly" because utterly free is anarchy and that is not what we are discussing.

So, I do not see your defintion of capitalism as the 'predominant' one and that makes it difficult to know what to say as I just use in their normal or dictionary sense... unless you can point me toward something online that I can read that would explain what you are saying, of course.

Also...what you are seeming

Kwondre — Fri, 11/13/2009 - 07:47

Also...what you are seeming to want to get to...is a lot of capitalism, with a little sprinkle of socialism but not toooo much.

That system is probably best defined as Utilitarianism - which is more of a moral theory than it is an economic theory, but it can be applied to monetary matters.

For more on Utilitarianism read John Stuart Mill - "On Liberty"...and "Utilitarianism"

Sounds like a case of

Kwondre — Fri, 11/13/2009 - 07:44

Sounds like a case of Wikkiality...

But as I mentioned earlier, the textbook for Capitalism is Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. It's bigger than the Bible.

Your first and third quotes are incorrect. There's no "predominantly" in Adam Smith, there's Capitalism and Not Capitalism. The second quote comes the closest.

Utterly free is not anarchy. Capitalists believe there is order in the markets, as guided by the "Invisible Hand" - also Adam Smith.

It's one thing to argue about whether Capitalism is good or bad, but now we're arguing about matters of fact. There's little room for argument or interpretation on the textbook definition of Capitalism. Regulated markets are not consistent with Capitalism in the pure sense.

I think it has less to do

Shihli — Thu, 11/12/2009 - 14:03

I think it has less to do with awareness that our systems need regulation, and more to do with the fact that everyone likens Socialism with Communism, and "Communism is evil".

There is a distinction here

Dufe — Thu, 11/12/2009 - 14:20

There is a distinction here that Shihli has hinted at. Socialism does not equal communism. Communism is the state ownership of resources and state control of both quantity produced and price. The idea being that the government was supposed to do a better job of controlling production by making these decisions in purely logical, impartial way that was perfrectly fair to everyone and made everyone "equal" in ownership; e.g. zero ownership, since everything belongs to the state - thus eliminating social stratification. Turns out leaders are subject to the emotion/greed/corruption stuff Kwondre refers to just like the rest of us.

Socialism is not really the same thing. Socialism is the concept that essential services should be provided by the government to everyone equally. This does not necessarily preclude the existence of private firms in the same market in concept, though it does make it nearly impossible for them to compete at the same level of service, they must offer additional, "premium" services. See the development of the Swiss healthcare system for a real-world example. This also does not generally involve interference with the markets of non-essentials in practice, though in theory it could. While this may share some traits with Communism, especially if private firm are regulated out of operating in those markets, it is not communism. Regulating private firms out of the market might be considered a communist practice, but isn't necessary for social programs to exist.

It is communism, NOT socialism, that is the true opposite of capitalism. Socialism would be considered to be somewhere in-between. And I think it should be made clear that this is not considered a binary or even trinary distinction. It's a far more "analog" sliding scale where all systems in existence today share some traits of all three concepts.

Nice post, Dufe!

Vitriola — Fri, 11/13/2009 - 07:40

"Turns out leaders are subject to the emotion/greed/corruption stuff Kwondre refers to just like the rest of us."

That is SO true! People are people and subject to the same aches and pains. Also, I like your reference to Switzerland. They have a LOT of things right. I find it interesting that so many Europeans say that more guns = more violence and yet, the Swiss have more guns than Texans and have about as low a crime rate as anywhere else in Europe. They were one of only two neutral nations in WW2 that did not get invaded. (Sweden managed it by collaborating.)

"It's a far more "analog" sliding scale where all systems in existence today share some traits of all three concepts."

That makes sense to me. Even if the concepts are digital, as Kown suggests, human understanding is analog and our dealing with most anything will reflect that.

Nice post!

I like a little splattering

Kwondre — Thu, 11/12/2009 - 13:35

I like a little splattering of everything...that's why in my very first post I said more important than capitalism or socialism or anything else, people need common sense.

"However, the ideas of capitalism and socialism must be able to exist or what are we talking about?"

- The IDEAS definitely exist. Doesn't mean they are practiced.

The "school" of thought that I prefer to lean on, really depends on what it is that I'm thinking about.

Question 1) Should I buy a Duracell battery or an Energizer battery?

This question can definitely be answered via Capitalist principles. The answer is [Value (Duracell) - Cost (Duracell)] - [Value (Energizer) - Cost (Energizer)] = X. Where if X is >0, I buy Duracell.

Question 2) Should we have universal healthcare for all?

This question can be answered via Capitalist princples AND Social principles. People assume that the Capitalist answer to this question is NO...not so fast.

Capitalist answer: [V (only private healthcare) - C (only private healthcare)] - [V (private and public healthcare options) - C (private and public)]. I'm not so sure that the answer is >0. And if the private sector cannot create value added benefits over what the government is able to offer, the Capitalist would say that the venture is not worth pursuing by the private sector.

Social answer: Health is critical to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore Health is a right. Therefore, the government responsible for defending and nurturing L,L and PofH is responsible for providing necessary healthcare.

I'm not sure which answer I prefer for this particular question. Although I think I feel LESS dirty approaching this question through the Social answer.

"Things function in degrees. That is why real life is analog and not digital though it does contain things that are digital"

I totally agree that life is about shades of gray. But that is why I say the question of do we need more capitalism or more socialism is answerable by saying "Neither" and "Both" at the same time!

"The IDEAS definitely exist.

Vitriola — Fri, 11/13/2009 - 07:50

"The IDEAS definitely exist. Doesn't mean they are practiced."

SO true, as anyone with strong religious beliefs (of *any* kind) will attest! :)

"Should I buy a Duracell battery or an Energizer battery?"

Actually, they both say that they are the longest lasting and I looked into that. They are longest for different applications. High burst vs. low current and they have different endurance. How they are to be used will indicate which is preferable.

"Should we have universal healthcare for all?"

Well, here is where I think that the question is not how I see a capitalist asking it. I think that they would say something more like this, "Should we have governent supplied universal healthcare for all?" Both sides see the need for health care. I remember, when water was being sold early on, that the city of Galveston decided that it was a good way to make money. So, they bottled up tap water and sold it for a HUGE markup. They charged more for that water than a gallon of gas. And yet, the lost money on the deal. I do not think that government does things efficiently. For that alone, I tend to think that private applications are better than government for things like that. For common use things like military, police, roads, etc. the government can do ok. I am not sure that the debate here is over health care per se but who provides it and how.

As to needing neither and both at the same time, you could very well be right! :)

Nice read.

Felsteel — Thu, 11/12/2009 - 08:39

Nice read.

Active forum topics

Recent blog posts

Poll

What do you think about no flying for an entire expansion?

YES) It makes me feel more immersed in the game lore.

15%

YES) It encourages more PvP! (Please explain how in comments)

YES) I miss riding my ground mounts.

MAYBE) If you make all of my flying mounts able to be ground too.

MAYBE) if ground mounts are sped up to 200% speed (or higher)

26%

NO) I don't have enough time when I'm on to be riding everywhere

NO) I have spent too much time getting various levels of flying to be wasting it.

11%

NO) It encourages more PVP! (please explain in the comments)

NO) I love flying.

19%

Total votes: 74