Why Capitalism is Worth Defending

[Expat]

I'm not sure some job safety issues aren't a reasonable use of government.

Suppose I work in a place I believe is safe, but the employer knows it is not, and doesn't tell me. Unless I have specialized knowledge, I won't know it isn't safe. What is my recourse if I am harmed?

Government's role in this case may be the court system and punitive damages, but there needs to be some check on behavior that might not be provided by the free market.

My classic example of a free market "gap" is the use of rivers. If I'm upstream from you, it might make perfect economic sense for me to to use the river for my waste, disregarding that I'm spoiling the drinking water for thousands of people downstream. There must be some recourse for these kinds of gaps.

Now, if I knowingly and willingly take a job, and I understand the dangers, there should be no recourse.

I would, however, like to see certain regulatory practices taken over by private companies. For instance, the FDA. A private regulatory agency, or multiple agencies, could inspect food and give it a seal. If the food didn't have that seal, perhaps there would be a market consequence.

As to job safety- currently if the worker is injured the Worker's Comp carrier is going to have to pay benefits. During their investigation they generally will determine whey the injury occurred. If it is due to a problem with the premises or a work process, they will require the employer to fix it. If the employer refuses they will likely lose their insurance with that company and it will be tough to get another company to insure them. If injuries continue, rates will increase. Of course state government requires employers to carry WC insurance.

If we went back and dropped the mandatory nature of WC, we would return to the situation where employees would have to sue the employers. That is a slow and cumbersome prospect. It is also costly to all parties except the plaintiff attorneys.

Unfortunately I don't think we could ever get rid of all government (including courts) intrusion in to employment situations, as history has shown that employers are willing to treat people pretty badly including children to maximize their profits. It has also shown that a sufficient number of our fellow citizens would still be glad to buy their products for the cheaper price, knowing how the goods are produced.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Worker's Comp process can be just as arduous, especially if the employee is summarily fired after the injury.

The truth of the matter is that bad **** happens in the world. No amount of safety nets is going to catch everyone that falls, both literally and figuratively.

As long as we except that premise, then things become much more managable.

 

[orange]

It's not. Who gave you the impression that it was?

The fact that private ownership and the profit motive are still cornerstones of the system.

No... I think its more accurate to say that our economic system is governed by a hybrid beast of Fascism, Socialism, and Corporatism.

I thought corporatism and fascism amounted to the same thing? Anyway, I wonder if you've seen the Citigroup plutonomy report.

It's a mixed economy. Realistically, it will always be mixed. The less socialism, the better, however.

Well..
If fraud and violence destroy capitalism, then it seems capitalism cannot exist outside of a perfect anarchy where everyone behaves in a moral and rational manner. In other words outside of an econ classroom discussion. Has there ever been an example of a truly free market, and true capitalism? Anywhere? By this definition I strongly doubt it. Please, do correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally I think it's close enough. Not pure capitalism no but, profit motive, private ownership of means of production, I think it's close enough to call it that.

More, I think pursuing the ideal is a misguided strategy. We've seen the excesses of the Gilded Age, right, and that I'm seeing the nation heading back in that direction (example: governor of Maine recently pushed for rescinding laws limiting the amount of work hours to be done by people under sixteen years of age) scares the hell out of me.

 

[orange]

The biggest or only employer in town? Is there a boundary around the town preventing people from leaving to work elsewhere? If it's the biggest employer in town, the town most likely exists because it is there. If people came there to work at that employer, why can't they leave?

Economic conditions preventing people from picking up and moving unless they literally abandon what little they have and walk to another town, where they'll find themselves without fixed address, without shelter, without income, without means for prospective employers to contact them...what should they do then? I know people in this condition.

An example please, of a monopoly on essentials. Changing public opinion through propaganda is a function of freedom. There's a sucker born every minute. As long as it's not fraud, let the buyer beware. I've seen ads for products that claim to enlarge my manhood. I don't believe them. I'm sure some people do. A fool and his money soon part. None of the government's business unless it rises to the level of fraud.

Alright, good point about the sucker born every minute. As for monopolies...company stores qualify when the employee is paid in scrip and not currency. Almost nonexistent now, especially since scrip's been made illegal, but it's happened and to extent still does. Current example, medication prices increasing until they're out of reach of people depending on them. I remember reading a GREAT story about Pfizer (I think) acquiring a smaller company and increasing prices 500+ percent, but of course, I'm half-unconscious from sleep deprivation and can't find it.

Employees can "demand" whatever wage they want. That's fine as long as no one is obligated by law to give it to them. As to armored cars and machine guns, can you give me the last time that happened in this country in a labor dispute?

Now, if strikers are physically preventing people from getting into a business to work, that's a different matter and it's they who intitiated force and if armored cars and machine guns are needed to enforce freedom, so be it.

Ludlow Massacre. And nowadays employers can and do import their workforce from foreign nations, often under fraudulent conditions. Example: Cedar Point, the amusement park company. Imports workers from Asia and Europe under a program of cultural immersion and high earnings, ends up housing them in company barracks, paying them well under minimum wage because they're classed seasonal despite working year-round, feeding them from company stores, really only the scrip is missing from the picture of a late-1800s company town. I believe legitimate employees, Americans that would not work under illegal conditions, should be free to block this - and I don't believe violence is a legitimate answer but I suppose we'll just remain in disagreement on this.

It's a mixed economy. Realistically, it will always be mixed. The less socialism, the better, however.

Without some socialist elements we end up with abhorrent conditions - The Jungle was a nice example by the way - and if some must be present it sure as HELL should not look like this.

And I hear politicians talking about slashing medicare because we can't afford it? I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or go to Washington and start shooting those corrupt *******s!
The problem with the narrative isn't only in this thread.
Whole bunch of people lose their homes? We must not bail them out, that would be socialism, let them reap the consequences. Whole bunch of banks follows because they're holding worthless paper? We must give them a whole bunch of money! that's not socialism at all!

...and now I'm just ranting so I'll shut up.

 

[Fletch]

Without some socialist elements we end up with abhorrent conditions - The Jungle was a nice example by the way - and if some must be present it sure as HELL should not look like this.

And I hear politicians talking about slashing medicare because we can't afford it? I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or go to Washington and start shooting those corrupt *******s!
The problem with the narrative isn't only in this thread.
Whole bunch of people lose their homes? We must not bail them out, that would be socialism, let them reap the consequences. Whole bunch of banks follows because they're holding worthless paper? We must give them a whole bunch of money! that's not socialism at all!

You'll be hard-pressed to find a defender of capitalism also defending bailouts or the idea of a business "too big to fail". The folks over at Mises repeatedly posted articles throughout the entire mess, practically BEGGING the government to let GM, the banks, and the rest go belly-up. This of course goes back to the OP, and the point that we have to be very clear in our definition of capitalism, because government bailouts of ANYONE are not included in that definition.

 

[Fletch]

The fact that private ownership and the profit motive are still cornerstones of the system.

I thought corporatism and fascism amounted to the same thing? Anyway, I wonder if you've seen the Citigroup plutonomy report.

Well..
If fraud and violence destroy capitalism, then it seems capitalism cannot exist outside of a perfect anarchy where everyone behaves in a moral and rational manner. In other words outside of an econ classroom discussion. Has there ever been an example of a truly free market, and true capitalism? Anywhere? By this definition I strongly doubt it. Please, do correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally I think it's close enough. Not pure capitalism no but, profit motive, private ownership of means of production, I think it's close enough to call it that.

No, for the most part it is socialism on the German model. Government does not directly own the businesses, it simply plays favorites and picks winners through custom-fit regulation, sweetheart deals, contracting, and the like. As I said before, I prefer the term "neo-mercantilism".

One of the great beauties of actual capitalism is the fact that a company has to offer something that productive people voluntarily want to buy at a price they're willing to pay. Any company doing business with the government does not fall under this description, to the extent that it deals with the government as opposed to those in the private sector.

More, I think pursuing the ideal is a misguided strategy.

Allowing people to freely choose how they will spend their money and sell their services is not the horrible thing you make it out to be. The system we have keeps poor people poor by preventing entrepreneurship through barriers to entry. One only need look at the other threads in this forum to find example after example of entrepreneurial ideas being crushed by the power of the State, from little girls selling lemonade to people wishing to trade in raw milk. It's sad that this is the way you want it.

 

[orange]

No, for the most part it is socialism on the German model. Government does not directly own the businesses, it simply plays favorites and picks winners through custom-fit regulation, sweetheart deals, contracting, and the like. As I said before, I prefer the term "neo-mercantilism".

The difference between your stance and mine seems to be where to assign blame for the system going wrong.
When the CEO of Goldman Sachs moves into a government position which he uses to funnel obscene amounts of money to Goldman Sachs, I see that as corruption originating with GS rather than the government.

...entrepreneurial ideas being crushed by the power of the State, from little girls selling lemonade to people wishing to trade in raw milk. It's sad that this is the way you want it.

What...no, just no.

When that lemonade stand expands to take over all other lemonade stands and has its pet congressman outlaw iced tea, then I'll oppose it. When raw milk sellers make their profits from government bailouts, then we've got a problem.
Entities like Citigroup are what I'm unhappy about. Business in general, no problem, except insofar as the current system seems geared to encourage the formation of giants like it.

 

[Fletch]

The difference between your stance and mine seems to be where to assign blame for the system going wrong.
When the CEO of Goldman Sachs moves into a government position which he uses to funnel obscene amounts of money to Goldman Sachs, I see that as corruption originating with GS rather than the government.

The problem is not with GS. The problem is that there exists a government position which has the power to "funnel obscene amounts of money" to a given corporate interest. If the position or its power did not exist, there would be no problem. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

What...no, just no.

When that lemonade stand expands to take over all other lemonade stands and has its pet congressman outlaw iced tea, then I'll oppose it. When raw milk sellers make their profits from government bailouts, then we've got a problem.
Entities like Citigroup are what I'm unhappy about. Business in general, no problem, except insofar as the current system seems geared to encourage the formation of giants like it.

Are we talking about "the current system", or are we talking about capitalism? I'll readily agree that "the current system" fosters growth that is probably unsustainable/unachievable in a free market. If you're unhappy about Citigroup or any other member of the banking sector, the first thing you have to realize is that we do not have free market banking, haven't had it since 1913, and that EVERY abuse of modern banking is readily traceable to that fact. Government did this to us, and your solution seems to be more government. If you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING.

 

[orange]

The problem is not with GS. The problem is that there exists a government position which has the power to "funnel obscene amounts of money" to a given corporate interest. If the position or its power did not exist, there would be no problem. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

And I maintain the problem will persist as long as there is a government and there is a business. Potential for fraud exists even in such minutiae as deciding who'll provide a chair for the head honcho to rest his arse upon.
This doesn't mean I'm against reducing size of government, by the way. I just don't think it'll solve this issue.

I'll readily agree that "the current system" fosters growth that is probably unsustainable/unachievable in a free market. If you're unhappy about Citigroup or any other member of the banking sector, the first thing you have to realize is that we do not have free market banking, haven't had it since 1913, and that EVERY abuse of modern banking is readily traceable to that fact. Government did this to us, and your solution seems to be more government. If you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING.

Fine, let's use the General Motors bailout as an example instead.

Are we talking about "the current system", or are we talking about capitalism?

Yes!

This is really just the no true scotsman argument. Because the American system has progressed to this mess it's not real capitalism... where is real capitalism then? Was it ever here? Anywhere outside a classroom hypothetical? Might as well call the US system this, I think - private ownership of business, profit motive as the primary driving force, impure but close enough.

More government would create more opportunity for corruption so that's not my answer. Lots of things come to mind, really, but each would create its own complications...I don't have any silver bullet solutions.

So in the end all I'm really doing is complaining while my favorite nation slides into fascism.
So I think I'm going to quit here.

 

[Fletch]

This is really just the no true scotsman argument.

I disagree. I am using a clear and unobfuscated definition of capitalism, as put forth in more than a century of economic scholarship by the Austrian school.

It's more like talking about what human beings need to breathe. We both know that it's oxygen, but I'm talking about the element on the periodic table which has a very clear identification, while you're talking about the air in the atmosphere, which contains oxygen and has been colloquially referred to as such, but is also full of other stuff.

Because the American system has progressed to this mess it's not real capitalism... where is real capitalism then?

"Real" capitalism is most present in the freest markets. It's a gradation from "absolute freedom" to "absolute control by the State", and all markets are somewhere on that spectrum. I've already identified software and pornography as being very close to the "absolute freedom" end of the scale, though no market is completely so.

If you want to understand capitalism and what it would look like, you look at the industries where it already largely exists, and you study the hell out of them. I work in the software industry, and I can readily see how the benefits of capitalism outweigh the supposed benefits of regulation.

The Mises Institute has also identified other periods and sectors in which capitalism has been dominant, and there are quite a few very good books published on the subject. If you're interested in history, Thomas DiLorenzo's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/How-Capitalism-Saved-America-Pilgrims/dp/0761525262"]How Capitalism Saved America[/ame] is particularly good, as it looks at American history through the eyes of an Austrian economist.

Was it ever here? Anywhere outside a classroom hypothetical?

See above.

Might as well call the US system this, I think - private ownership of business, profit motive as the primary driving force, impure but close enough.

No, the US system is more like the atmosphere. It contains oxygen, and enough to sustain life, but it's 78% nitrogen. Which may be fine, until you need pure oxygen -- then it's woefully inadequate.

Just because you deem it sufficient doesn't mean it actually is. There are massive barriers to wealth-building that persistently keep poor people poor, preventing them from employing their ideas and innovations. These are people who need something closer to pure oxygen, but you're saying "hey, there's air all around you, quit complaining". Atmospheric air only seems sufficient -- if you hadn't noticed, our economy is looking like an old man with emphysema. It needs oxygen to recover, and the purer the better.

 

[Fletch]

Fine, let's use the General Motors bailout as an example instead.

The US automobile industry has been on the receiving end of government largesse, heavy regulation, and general interference in the market for decades. The GM bailout was the worst possible thing that anyone who wanted to defend capitalism could have done, because they stopped the other half of the capitalist engine from working: the correction of market forces.

Capitalism will make someone wealthy who manages their resources effectively, but it will also strip them of their wealth if they mismanage those resources. The markets were poised to do that to all of the companies you've brought up in this thread, and the government stopped the destruction. Every one of those companies would have -- should have -- gone the way of Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual. THAT is capitalism, not the bailouts. And this is what I mean when I say you're confusing the term.

 

[dross]

The fact that private ownership and the profit motive are still cornerstones of the system.

I thought corporatism and fascism amounted to the same thing? Anyway, I wonder if you've seen the Citigroup plutonomy report.

That's always been a lie of the left in an attempt to assign a totalitarian belief system to the freedom side of the equation as communism is to the slave side of the equation.

Well..
If fraud and violence destroy capitalism, then it seems capitalism cannot exist outside of a perfect anarchy where everyone behaves in a moral and rational manner. In other words outside of an econ classroom discussion. Has there ever been an example of a truly free market, and true capitalism? Anywhere? By this definition I strongly doubt it. Please, do correct me if I'm wrong.

Fraud and violence can destroy anything if they're allowed too much free reign. The fact that capitalism can be destroyed by fraud and violence isn't an argument against capitalism, it's an argument against force and violence. Or to put it another way, I can take your freedom by force and violence, but that doesn't mean freedom is bad.

"Pure" anything doesn't exist anywhere outside of a theoretical discussion. Every human endeavor is imperfect. The test of a system is how well it works in an imperfect world. Capitalism - and other forms of freedom - hold up very well in the test of the real world. The fact that anti-freedom efforts cause problems in capitalism isn't an indictment of capitalism, in fact, capitalism acquits itself quite well in its resistance of these efforts.

Personally I think it's close enough. Not pure capitalism no but, profit motive, private ownership of means of production, I think it's close enough to call it that.

More, I think pursuing the ideal is a misguided strategy. We've seen the excesses of the Gilded Age, right, and that I'm seeing the nation heading back in that direction (example: governor of Maine recently pushed for rescinding laws limiting the amount of work hours to be done by people under sixteen years of age) scares the hell out of me.

We tend to look at history and think we understand what caused this thing or that thing to happen. We've all been taught in our socialist oriented schools that it was capitalism given free reign - too much freedom - that led to some of the bad working conditions that existed as the world industrialized, basically from the late 19th century to the early 20th. There were many, many other factors involved. Also, the life of child workers and workers in general wasn't necessarily better prior to the that period, it was just more isolated in rural areas.

Limiting the number of work hours for 16 year olds might scare you, but it doesn't scare me. The culture and forces that led to child labor excesses are long gone in this country.

Economic conditions preventing people from picking up and moving unless they literally abandon what little they have and walk to another town, where they'll find themselves without fixed address, without shelter, without income, without means for prospective employers to contact them...what should they do then? I know people in this condition.

So if I start a business in a town and the business grows and I hire people to work there, so people move there in hopes of getting a job with my company and they do, why am I now responsible for their lives? We have a business deal. They can leave if they want, or do they have some obligation to me not to quit for a better job? Why do I have an obligation to continue to employ them when business pressures and technology change and I don't need them anymore? The customers drive my decisions. My employees are out there creating all those pressures on other businesses when they shop for the best price, why are they different than my customers?

Alright, good point about the sucker born every minute. As for monopolies...company stores qualify when the employee is paid in scrip and not currency. Almost nonexistent now, especially since scrip's been made illegal, but it's happened and to extent still does. Current example, medication prices increasing until they're out of reach of people depending on them. I remember reading a GREAT story about Pfizer (I think) acquiring a smaller company and increasing prices 500+ percent, but of course, I'm half-unconscious from sleep deprivation and can't find it.

Don't even get me started with the drug companies. They are some of the most unfairly maligned companies in our country. Show me the story and I'll argue with you about it.

Ludlow Massacre. And nowadays employers can and do import their workforce from foreign nations, often under fraudulent conditions. Example: Cedar Point, the amusement park company. Imports workers from Asia and Europe under a program of cultural immersion and high earnings, ends up housing them in company barracks, paying them well under minimum wage because they're classed seasonal despite working year-round, feeding them from company stores, really only the scrip is missing from the picture of a late-1800s company town. I believe legitimate employees, Americans that would not work under illegal conditions, should be free to block this - and I don't believe violence is a legitimate answer but I suppose we'll just remain in disagreement on this.

Okay, so your examples are an abuse by government that happened almost 100 years ago, and a fringe industry that may or may not be doing something wrong, based only on your word.

Without some socialist elements we end up with abhorrent conditions - The Jungle was a nice example by the way - and if some must be present it sure as HELL should not look like this

So you say, and again you use an example from 100 years ago when the conditions were entirely different.

And I hear politicians talking about slashing medicare because we can't afford it? I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or go to Washington and start shooting those corrupt *******s!
The problem with the narrative isn't only in this thread.
Whole bunch of people lose their homes? We must not bail them out, that would be socialism, let them reap the consequences. Whole bunch of banks follows because they're holding worthless paper? We must give them a whole bunch of money! that's not socialism at all!

We can't afford Medicare. It's as simple as that. Look at the numbers and tell me we can.

People losing their homes is a part of the way the system works. Again, the problem is easily traced to government. Without government interference in the first place, most of the people would have never owned homes.

As to bailing out private industry, again, that is an interference of government, not a weakness of capitalism.

 

[Riskeh]

Heya all. First time posting here, but I've been watching this thread and felt like jumping in.

I actually suspect orange and the rest of you are largely on the same page here. As near as I can tell, orange is saying - and hey, correct me if I'm wrong here - something close to the following:

"The engine of a capitalist system is that drive to earn greater and greater wealth. But one way to guarantee wealth for a particular business or company is to get the government involved and favoring yourself or your business. Sure, the government's involvement would be socialism, not capitalism - but it doesn't change the fact that if profit and wealth is the ultimate motive, then the individual or business driven by capitalism is going to be driven to socialist methods. Which makes socialism (in whatever amount) a near-inevitable practical outcome in an otherwise capitalistic system."

And I think most people here would agree with that, right? No one's pretending that the bank bailouts or GM bailouts aren't socialism. No one's pretending that particular businesses or individuals can't be winners under a socialist system. No one's pretending that, if a business is motivated by profit, that there can be a 'capitalist' motivation for socialist policies.

Likewise, I'm seeing most everyone here admit that a certain amount of socialism is practically inevitable - but we should minimize this amount. I'd agree with this entirely, particularly the minimizing part.

Anyway, I'm hoping setting some things straight here would move the conversation forward. Could we all agree that insofar as the motive for businesses and individuals is to earn profit (and that we could call this a capitalist motive), there's also a motive for businesses and individuals to push for socialist policies that benefit them? We could still say that this motive should be denied, that it's a bad motive, even while recognizing the motive is there. It seems like pointing out the obvious, but hey, sometimes pointing out the obvious helps.

 

[dross]

Heya all. First time posting here, but I've been watching this thread and felt like jumping in.

Welcome. As someone who roams the politics forum regularly, one piece of advice I can give you is to come with a thick skin. The best way to not get hurt feelings is to not let your feelings get hurt.

I actually suspect orange and the rest of you are largely on the same page here. As near as I can tell, orange is saying - and hey, correct me if I'm wrong here

Correction: You're wrong. Orange is coming from an entirely different place than I am, and if I may presume to speak for Fletch, a different place than Fletch.

- something close to the following:

"The engine of a capitalist system is that drive to earn greater and greater wealth. But one way to guarantee wealth for a particular business or company is to get the government involved and favoring yourself or your business.

I agree with this part.

Sure, the government's involvement would be socialism, not capitalism - but it doesn't change the fact that if profit and wealth is the ultimate motive, then the individual or business driven by capitalism is going to be driven to socialist methods. Which makes socialism (in whatever amount) a near-inevitable practical outcome in an otherwise capitalistic system."

I'm not sure I'd call ALL government involvement socialism, though it usually is couched in a socialist sensibility. Some of it is just pure power - just as a business wants to turn a profit, a politician wants to get reelected and gain more power. This leads to one taking care of the other. I'm not sure I'd call that particular exchange socialism, but it is certainly government interference.

I would say that government involvement whether it's called socialism or just power politics is inevitable. Just as murder and robbery are inevitable in even the most law abiding societies.

The difference in my view and Orange's view is that he sees that government involvement - when it's for a good reason in his view - as a good thing. So Orange would differ with me in that he sees some government involvement as good - when it's for someone's good as he sees it - and some as bad. He gives himself away when he blames the government involvement he doesn't like on capitalism - freedom - rather than on the oppressive nature of government.

And I think most people here would agree with that, right? No one's pretending that the bank bailouts or GM bailouts aren't socialism. No one's pretending that particular businesses or individuals can't be winners under a socialist system. No one's pretending that, if a business is motivated by profit, that there can be a 'capitalist' motivation for socialist policies.

You've made a classic mistake. You see greed and capitalism as the same thing. You've characterized a businessman as just a pirate who is living under the law. Capitalism is not piracy tamed by law, it's a system of freedom that can be abused by the occasional pirate. The pirate will always be there, with or without a capitalist system. In fact, the pirate flourishes in a socialist system, it's just that that system legitimizes him. In a capitalist system, the pirate is hunted down, not elevated to commisar.

Likewise, I'm seeing most everyone here admit that a certain amount of socialism is practically inevitable - but we should minimize this amount. I'd agree with this entirely, particularly the minimizing part.

Again, inevitable ONLY because all forms of corruption are inevitable in any system.

Anyway, I'm hoping setting some things straight here would move the conversation forward. Could we all agree that insofar as the motive for businesses and individuals is to earn profit (and that we could call this a capitalist motive), there's also a motive for businesses and individuals to push for socialist policies that benefit them?

Yes, some people will always be greedy enough to steal and if you can legitimize your theft through the government, that will be more attractive and therefore draw in more people. Again though, greed and capitalism are not the same thing.

We could still say that this motive should be denied, that it's a bad motive, even while recognizing the motive is there. It seems like pointing out the obvious, but hey, sometimes pointing out the obvious helps.

Which motive? The motive to make a profit is noble, the motive to steal is ignoble. They are not the same. I don't steal. No law prevents me from stealing, in fact, I do not follow laws when I don't believe they are right and I am willing to accept the consequences. Even if there were no laws against stealing, I wouldn't steal. The desire to make a profit does not lead to stealing among honorable people, just as the desire for sex does not lead to rape in gentle men. When the GOVERNMENT legitimizes stealing, however, they snare more people into immoral behavior than would have engaged in it otherwise.

 

[Riskeh]

Welcome. As someone who roams the politics forum regularly, one piece of advice I can give you is to come with a thick skin. The best way to not get hurt feelings is to not let your feelings get hurt.

Thanks. Frankly, you guys are more reasonable than most - that's the only reason I'm here. I wouldn't even bother if this place seemed like the typical internet cesspool.

Here's to hoping it stays on track.

Correction: You're wrong. Orange is coming from an entirely different place than I am, and if I may presume to speak for Fletch, a different place than Fletch.

Hey, maybe. But that's my take on it from watching for a while. I'm not saying you all are in perfect agreement, but on a particular point I see common ground.

The difference in my view and Orange's view is that he sees that government involvement - when it's for a good reason in his view - as a good thing. So Orange would differ with me in that he sees some government involvement as good - when it's for someone's good as he sees it - and some as bad. He gives himself away when he blames the government involvement he doesn't like on capitalism - freedom - rather than on the oppressive nature of government.

What I see orange as saying - and again, maybe I'm wrong - is that what drives a business to seek government involvement on its behalf is often what largely drives capitalism anyway. It cannot be that it's 'capitalism' is the driving force when a guy builds a better mousetrap to sell, or creates better advertising for his mousetrap, but when he tries to get a law passed that favors the purchase of his mousetrap he's being driven by something else.

You've made a classic mistake. You see greed and capitalism as the same thing. You've characterized a businessman as just a pirate who is living under the law. Capitalism is not piracy tamed by law, it's a system of freedom that can be abused by the occasional pirate. The pirate will always be there, with or without a capitalist system. In fact, the pirate flourishes in a socialist system, it's just that that system legitimizes him. In a capitalist system, the pirate is hunted down, not elevated to commisar.

No, I'm not confusing greed and capitalism. I'm pointing out that capitalism is a system which relies on certain motives (you say 'greed', I'll say 'desire for profit' - they're not necessarily the same), and the same basic motives which encourage innovation also encourage some other things.

Again, inevitable ONLY because all forms of corruption are inevitable in any system.

Sure, I'll grant that happily.

Yes, some people will always be greedy enough to steal and if you can legitimize your theft through the government, that will be more attractive and therefore draw in more people. Again though, greed and capitalism are not the same thing.

I don't think they are. But I do think that a desire for a profit can be in common between both the guy who's building a better mousetrap in the hopes it will earn him more money, and the guy who's lobbying for government favor in the hopes it will earn him more money.

Or are you telling me that that isn't the case? That 'desire for profit' is not in common between these two hypothetical guys?

Which motive? The motive to make a profit is noble, the motive to steal is ignoble. They are not the same. I don't steal. No law prevents me from stealing, in fact, I do not follow laws when I don't believe they are right and I am willing to accept the consequences. Even if there were no laws against stealing, I wouldn't steal. The desire to make a profit does not lead to stealing among honorable people, just as the desire for sex does not lead to rape in gentle men. When the GOVERNMENT legitimizes stealing, however, they snare more people into immoral behavior than would have engaged in it otherwise.

This is where I think a problem may be. What is this "nobility" and "honorable" stuff? How is this part of capitalism? Because to me, this sounds a lot like "capitalism, plus an ethical/moral system". Which may be defensible on its own, but it sounds like something different from flat out capitalism. If I support the right of a man to own his own business and make a profit, but don't think it's either noble or ignoble, am I supporting something other than capitalism? Because that seems like a damn weird claim.

 

[Fletch]

I don't think they are. But I do think that a desire for a profit can be in common between both the guy who's building a better mousetrap in the hopes it will earn him more money, and the guy who's lobbying for government favor in the hopes it will earn him more money.

Or are you telling me that that isn't the case? That 'desire for profit' is not in common between these two hypothetical guys?

It is not, except in the most superficial way. One seeks to serve his fellow man, the other seeks to oppress him. I don't believe they are even following the same thought process.

One says, "I will build the best product I can build, and offer it to as many people as I can at a price I hope they'll be willing to pay. I will attempt to continually refine my product so that my customers will be loyal and they will choose my product over that of the competition."

The other says, "I have built the best product I can build, but I am afraid that the competition will build something better. Therefore I will attempt to compete with violence, by forcing the competition to jump through hoops to satisfy my own design parameters and prevent them from improving on my idea. I will choose to hurt my customers by removing or limiting their choices because I cannot build a better product than the competition."

The first is a position of creativity and entrepreneurial spirit. The second is a position of fear and weakness. The first is focused on serving the customer. The second is focused on what the competition may do, at the expense of the customer. The first is success-oriented thinking. The second is failure-oriented thinking.

Take away government's power to pick winners in the competition, and the second businessman will soon be out of business, and rightfully so. Allow the government to have such power, and the result will be worse products for the consumer and reduced wealth all around.

 

[dross]

This is where I think a problem may be. What is this "nobility" and "honorable" stuff? How is this part of capitalism? Because to me, this sounds a lot like "capitalism, plus an ethical/moral system". Which may be defensible on its own, but it sounds like something different from flat out capitalism. If I support the right of a man to own his own business and make a profit, but don't think it's either noble or ignoble, am I supporting something other than capitalism? Because that seems like a damn weird claim.

It probably does seem weird to claim honor and nobility as drivers of capitalism, because you've likely never heard it put that way. Yet it is so.

First, I'd like to say that since I left the Army in 1993, most of my jobs have been in positions where I was either directly involved in or close enough to understand intimately the profit and losses of the places I worked. I was involved in many, many business decisions. As a group of people, my belief is that businessmen spend a significant percentage of their decision-making time attempting to adhere to a moral and ethical standard. I didn't see right and wrong being paid lip service, I saw it on the table as a serious issue, right there with making a profit.

But that's not even what I meant.

Look at it this way. Let's say that I need some food. My five year old must eat, so I go to the store. Here's what's behind that exchange:

Me: My five year old is hungry, I need some food.
Grocer: Why should I give you food? What have you done to deserve it?
Me: I served my fellow man. I provided value to society.
Grocer: How can you prove that?
Me: Here in this leather pouch I carry in my back pocket, I have these green certificates awarded to me by my fellow man in appreciation for the service I did for him.
Grocer: Fine. I'll give you the food, and you give me the certificates so that I may prove to others that I have served society, and therefore am worthy of obtaining the things I need.

Another factor in the above exchange is that both of us walk away from that exchange BETTER THAN WE WERE BEFORE. The grocer has plenty of food, but he needs other items. In effect, I traded him the value I bring to society for the value he brings to society and we both walk away richer than we were before. The grocer may now get what he needs and I get the food I'll feed to my daughter. That's as noble as it gets, my friend. It doesn't get any more pure, and noble and beautiful and wondrous as that. I can trade my ability to write and produce documents and information needed by others to one person, then transfer that value to another to get me something I need.

Now, everyone needs stuff. Some will try to obtain theirs by using force and taking it. I get my stuff by working hard to provide value to others. The pirate gets his stuff by taking from other by force and leaving NOTHING of value behind.

How is serving your fellow man and having him serve you and creating an exchange where both people walk away better than they were before not noble and honorable?

If that's not noble and honorable, then please, tell me what method of getting the things I need for myself and my family to live is more honorable? All the alternatives I can see require force, dishonesty, and make one person a winner and another a loser.

 

[Stschil]

The alpha strategy: The ultimate plan of financial self-defense for the small investor By John A Pugsley | Free eBooks Download - EBOOKEE!

This a free download if a dated book concerning preserving financial independence. However, the first part goes into great detail about free market principle and the way government and corporations bastardize them to suit their own greed and misguided principle's.

It's a very good read IMHO

 

[Fletch]

Another factor in the above exchange is that both of us walk away from that exchange BETTER THAN WE WERE BEFORE. The grocer has plenty of food, but he needs other items. In effect, I traded him the value I bring to society for the value he brings to society and we both walk away richer than we were before. The grocer may now get what he needs and I get the food I'll feed to my daughter. That's as noble as it gets, my friend. It doesn't get any more pure, and noble and beautiful and wondrous as that. I can trade my ability to write and produce documents and information needed by others to one person, then transfer that value to another to get me something I need.

Now, everyone needs stuff. Some will try to obtain theirs by using force and taking it. I get my stuff by working hard to provide value to others. The pirate gets his stuff by taking from other by force and leaving NOTHING of value behind.

How is serving your fellow man and having him serve you and creating an exchange where both people walk away better than they were before not noble and honorable?

If that's not noble and honorable, then please, tell me what method of getting the things I need for myself and my family to live is more honorable?

DAMN YOU!!! I thought I'd already repped your best post in this thread, then you make a better one!

 

[Stschil]

DAMN YOU!!! I thought I'd already repped your best post in this thread, then you make a better one!

On it!

Dross, very well written, sir!