The problem of Capitalism

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by stan1990, Mar 13, 2019.

?

Do you agree that the main problem of Capitalism is of moral nature?

Poll closed Apr 12, 2019.
  1. Yes

    33.3%
  2. No

    50.0%
  3. Maybe

    16.7%
  1. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you aware that there is a rather ugly pattern emerging with this wealth disparity thing? The most Progressive cities are showing the greatest disparity. And not just in America - it's emerging all over the Western world.

    I can see this issue causing massive image problems in the next few years. Possibly this, more than anything, will finally reveal the true motives of Progressives, and see them expelled from the Left.
     
  2. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually it's the other way around. Only capitalism allows the luxury of 'paid survival' (meaning you don't have to get your hands dirty yourself, you can buy everything you need), and even full blown leisure.

    Collectivism does not provide ANY free lunches, nor allow for a purchase economy. If you want to eat, you must work. And you must work every day, in anything that needs doing.
     
  3. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are distorting definitions (as always).

    The Left values equality of opportunity, AND just access to vital resources.

    The massive wealth of company CEO's in Silicon Valley did not result from "the true motives of Progressives", it resulted from the spectacular market reach of IT. Bill Gates had no idea he would become the world's richest person (back then), and certainly did not set out with that in mind.

    Meanwhile, the 'rust-belt' cities will realise their old sources of income have gone forever, despite Trump's misleading promises.
     
  4. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In that statement, you erroneously conflate 'Man' and 'His mind' , with 'a man' (an individual). Ie you conflate/confuse the meaning of the Mind of Man with the mind of an individual.

    That's what happens when you follow Rand without thinking for yourself.

    Hence you failed to address JS Mill's statement:

    "Landlords grow richer in their sleep, without working, risking, or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title."

    That's the point.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2019
  5. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ah, you missed the point but will get there.

    Morals exist, not what was said. Morals are only upheld by the group. Yes the moral basis claimed by all, the good, the bad or the plain insane are held by all. The basis of your morals are ingrained in the group and only exist to the ability of the group to uphold it, through violence or the threat of violence. It does not exist in the basis of what is good and evil. The other people who do not share your moral imperative hold their own. You might call them wicked or evil, but the fact is they just don’t believe like you and are simply trying to uphold their beliefs in morality over that of opposing views.

    The point is that you want to claim rights of any description yet you don’t seem to understand, your most basic right, the right to exist in the here and now, is only afforded to you but the will of the group to uphold and protect that right. When you talk about Moral right, you talk about, is the right held by the theological group while you have nationalistic, or just community group.

    You don’t seem to understand any right is upheld by force or the threat of force. No intrinsic ideal that the world works in neither this, nor that manner. No intrinsic belief in right or wrong and no intrinsic belief of good people and bad people. You believe you have a moral imperative so therefore you act in that manner. You believe those who oppose you morals are evil so you act in such manner. You complain when your moral stance is questioned as to validity and without thought or fathom you disregard the rights and freedoms of others to hold opposing beliefs because you label it as morality.

    Go and stand in the wilderness of Africa without weapon or fellow, do you really think the hungry Lion will not eat you because you have some basic right, Moral right or just flat out logical right to exist??? Tell me how well that goes if your stupid enough to try it.

    ALL constructs of your group to act within the ideals they wish to hold. Thus, the world goes to war and the victor can (and does) claim justification due to moral rights… does that mean YOU have the rights??? No. It just means that at this point in time, you have the will and the power of the group you belong to uphold and enforce your so called rights.

    HOWEVER, nothing to do with capitalism. Everything to do with justification of impressing the beliefs of one people onto the beliefs of others. Complaining that your rights are infringed by an economic mechanism that is corrupted by the very beliefs you use to corrupt, just plain ignorant as to how the world works.[/QUOTE]
     
  6. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I suppose you could say such, but again over simplifies the situation. It does however highlight the issues of why communism cannot and does not survive.

    But again, totally irrelevant. IT was tongue in cheek that, but you did ok.



    That is the point, "Rights exist for all, or for none" is wrong. Rights do exist for everybody in a group. However those rights are not necessary the same. You might be in a group that allows you to own land but that does not mean everybody else is. Others might be in a group that allows rent and others don’t have any land rights.

    Again, your rights are only upheld by the power to enforce them, nothing more. The tyranny to enforce your powers on others IS the only way to make your rights basic, intrinsic or just flat our moral. Ergo rights are a human construct which is encompassed by the group.

    The natural world respects life, it does not give rights.

    This is not about right or wrong. It is not about belief in God or anything as such. People use their theological beliefs to support moral imperatives but the truth is they are using their relief in one of the oldest of worlds constructs Religion.

    Before you complain about attacking God, I am not. I am pointing out, while you belief in a deity is what it is, your belief in how to worship the deity (religion) IS in question. Basically they all have the same ideals and measures but they are constructs of HUMAN belief not GODs.

    Thus, your moral beliefs based upon your theological beliefs are that of the group. Such is Wars are fought, who then is good and evil??? Your enemy or you??? Again all totally irrelevant to capitalism…
     
  7. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hence Huntington's "Clash of Civilisations".

    But every group does have a moral system, describing the rules for interaction between (instinctively self-interested and hence potentially violent) individuals in the group -,whether it's "an eye for an eye", amputation of limbs for criminal transgressions, or some other moral system.

    Thanks for highlighting the fact that the individual is subordinate to the group, unless an individual decides to become an outlaw.
    ...….as when the US (an individual nation) illegally invaded Iraq in 2003, by dint of possession of superior arms (and the threat of greater violence), which enabled the US to flout the rules of the UN (the entire group of nations).

    Anyone for an international rules based system?
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2019
  8. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  9. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not American, and I'm not referring to American cities specifically .. this is a worldwide emerging pattern. The same is happening in my country .. where the most Progressive city (by a huge margin, incidentally) has the greatest wealth disparity. And no Silicon Valley here.

    Progressives have much to answer for, given they're the very people who claim to care most about inequality. Their lies are write larger and larger.
     
  10. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Your complaints that you have rights of any description…

    No Capitalism is not the definition of ownership of anything, that is your stance. Just telling me it is does not make my statement false. BUT you don’t have to own the land to have capital goods; you simply have to use the capital. Every heard of renting??? The new way of avoiding the government imposed taxes you also want to complain about.

    I think you have to start another thread for that. And all that new thread would show is you incapable of comprehending the realities of the world you live in… Nothing more.

    Ah so you really do feel life owes you. Sorry to say that communities do not owe respect of the rights of others it actually grants them, due to the fact if somebody does not uphold or enforce your right, you simply don’t have a right. THAT is reality, and that is how communities function. The community doesn’t owe you anything.

    No that is YOU deciding there is a value for each location based upon trying to justify why you should be able to claim rights of ownership or lack of.

    Yeah we do, After all, the advantage of natural and public created locations can be derived by whomever uses it. The person who owns, the person who rents or the person who steals. NONE of which is reliant on ownership.

    doesn’t make it a right of any individual. You still seem stuck in the ideal that you have rights. You don’t seem to understand your rights of liberty, only exist in a group who will uphold and enforce such.

    Encarta Dictionary
    No, not self-evident at all.

    It does not need to be product of labour, it is pure and simply a commodity. Land is produced from natural process and determined by your particular group (I assume US) to be owned…
    Ah, your condescension has been noted. Thus we can move on in like manner.

    Nah, just your delusion.

    Bahaha, Sorry cannot help myself at times. BUT they are not rights… Thus your judicial demand of fact is obviously false…

    I am not, why do you demand you have a right to object to the usage of the tree???

    Garbage, you continue to claim you have made facts when you say it is so. Unfortunately what crap comes out your mouth is not fact, it is just your opinion…

    SO the landowners put no effort into owning the land??? They didn’t purchase it??? They don’t pay taxes for owning??? They just sit there and reap the reawards for owning it??? I think it was you who made the completely stupid statement the Japan’s wealth came from taxing the landowners wasn’t it???

    But of course when you expect the world to provide you with everything that is the stance you want to take.

    Oh so the production could come from other source??? Apparently the land holder provides the land to produce while the producer is also benefiting by selling their production but you are not. That is your complaint isn’t it??? Not that it is righteous or anything else, just YOU don’t get anything from it.

    YET you do, the clear welfare you get is self-evident.

    Why??? Because you need it too???

    Yes, Your claims of rights of anything and demand for compensation for loss of rights is simply due to the power of the people, NOT some natural and universal acceptance of YOUR rights.

    Government (no matter the type) only exists at the will of the people. No matter what aspect you think capitalism has in that matter, Government is not part of it. Before you go complaining about dictatorships and communism, the facts are the same. The simple problem with system other that the ones you believe is the righteous one, to change government costs lives… enough people change you get revolution. NOT the individual like you want to attune but the group…

    Cannot be bothered chasing the points, let us just point out the entire time through this post you rely on the point of having rights to liberty… among other things…

    Again, you claim of fact is just that, YOUR CLAIM.

    Why would I want to do that??? I am not American. Why do you think the world revolves around YOUR life???

    No, I decline to demand my idealism over reality. I don’t hold to the black and white beliefs (like you) that I have a justification to kill others simply because they don’t believe what I do.

    I have also come to the understanding that my opinions are shaped by the knowledge and information I have at present that do not include ALL information. I don’t hide my head in the sand so I don’t hear inconvenient truths that test my beliefs.

    So I would believe that point, is rather self-reflective and projection.

    That it funny, because it assumes landownership is granted not earned. Now I am sure in US history there have been times when land was granted but to say it cost nothing is simply ignorance of the realities.

    Capitalism provides ALL within the same opportunity. Just because you are too foolish to exploit that opportunity does not mean you are right in degrading others who are not. It is just pathetic to complain about your rights to take everything away from others because you are too ignorant to capitalise (lol)
     
  11. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That seems to hit the nail on the head.

    So we concur about rights and morals. Since the point of claiming rightousness in capitalism is the delusion of the particular protagonist, I gather we concur on that point as well...
     
  12. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't agree with this. (BTW I'm not entirely happy with my post 1332, so I will try to correct it here).

    I would say, from empirical evidence, the natural world neither respects nor gives rights.

    The individuals within a group of the same species of animals may sometimes 'co-operate' with each other, sometimes not - usually depending on availability of resources.

    But to your point that:
    I presume you mean the "threat of violence" from the group (following transgression of a law by the individual); whereas I would say the basis of morality is agreement/acceptance of 'morals' aka rule of law, developed over time by the group.

    That is, it is the individual - who transgresses the agreed laws - who is behaving violently. My example of the US' illegal invasion of Iraq confirms this point. [Millions all around the world protested against this Bush/Blair criminality).

    Back to capitalism: the 'invisible hand' aspect - which is the aggregate of profit seeking individuals - needs intervention on behalf of the public sector. Obviously….
     
  13. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Rethink. North vs South Korea; Zimbabwe vs South Africa (Before Mandela got hold of it.) Cuba vs Hawaii. Wherever socialism is, life whithers; wherever capitalism is, life flourishes.

    Yaron Brook: Socialism vs Capitalism

     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2019
  14. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I say again: the Left values equality of opportunity, AND just access to vital resources.

    Provided these two conditions apply (which means universal access to above-poverty employment), then inequality per se is a secondary issue.

    You seem to be looking at 1st world 'rust-belt' poverty - which mostly affects the working class, and then blaming "progressives" for the resulting inequality.

    The fault is systemic, and arises from lack of effective WTO oversight, to facilitate prosperous development in all nations (and I note Trump's unilateral withdrawal from international organisations, preferring to resort to trade wars).
     
  15. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why capitalism is moral—-it protects the rights of the individual from the hysterical delusions of the mob, i.e., the racists, the environmentalists, the anarchists, the socialists, the progressives, the populists, the feminists, the Luddites, the anti-vaxxers, the religious, the nationalists, and on, and on, and on.

    The purpose of life is not to serve Man, (We are not cannibals); it’s to live.

    Ayn Rand: “The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.” —http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html

    In others, the reason capitalism is moral is that it’s rational, not mystically absurd. As in, it’s based on reason, not faith. (As an example of what happens to reason when faith takes over watch below.)

     
  16. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Capitalism is a-moral, obviously.

    Rights are notional, and determined over time by the group (by agreement or custom).

    The fleeting, enraged* mob is often ignorant, yes, but established custom remains the source of 'rights'.
    * but the rage is sometimes no doubt justified.

    The purpose of life? How about: to experience transcendence?

    Serving others, while not the purpose of life, may yet be joyful.

    We can safely skip Rand.

    Man's nature (ie of the species 'homo sapiens') is complex.
    At any given point in time, the rational or the irrational will be in the ascendancy, in any individual.

    Justice, like rights, is notional (see above)

    Capitalism is rational ? (We know it's got nothing to do with morality).

    Why would you regard a system that is subject to cycles as rational, when the resources available for development are constant?

    Btw, some of the finest creations of Man were produced - motivated by faith - in a pre capitalist era.

    9/11 was blow back for a century and more of Western rampaging through the M.E.

    (Read Bin Laden's own complaints about the West's unwelcome intrusion into his country and culture)

    Anyone for rationality in the form of an international rules-based system?

    Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe. HG Wells.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2019
  17. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2019
  18. Idahojunebug77

    Idahojunebug77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Millions of people agree with you, cities are more convenient. Like you, they decline the free use of public land and choose to pay for space in the cities. You have shown the ownership of the land is irrelevant to the building of shelters and businesses. The cities would exist with or without landowners, but you have no moral right to displace others from their space , and to demand compensation from others for that space is an immoral act of greed when there is free use of public land available.
     
    crank likes this.
  19. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    4 Tough questions for Capitalism

    1) How do you repair the sins of past generations?
    Answer: You can’t, not without violating the rights of the individual

    2) How do you solve economic inequality?
    Answer: You can’t, not without violating the rights of the individual.

    3) How do you save the life of a baby whose parents can’t afford it’s life saving medical care?
    Answer: Good will, not armed robbery.

    4) How to you stop economic pressure groups from corrupting government?
    Answer: Capitalism, not statism.

     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2019
  20. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those are state/politics. I'm addressing the economic models ONLY.

    And in reality, socialism is the by far the best model for securing survival of the most members of the collective. People who would not survive if operating solo.
     
  21. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
  22. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I'm squarely spotlighting elite (mostly coastal) cities. Progressives cannot escape this one. And with every passing month the disparity is growing. FTR, I'm suprised the rot has set in so quickly, and I loathe Progressives. I can only imagine how embarrassed they are. At least they SHOULD be embarrassed.

    And you must be joking that the 21stC Left is interested in equality. No one has believed that little vanity for at least 5 years.
     
  23. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    See how confused your terminology is?
    (And as you can see Starjet is 'tilting at windmills' with his own conception of 'socialism', which as Lafayette says only exists in N. Korea today)

    For example Bernie Sanders, who describes himself as a social democrat, is surely Left. He is actually concerned with inequality, and promotes inter alia universal healthcare, free education and public infrastructure. Are you claiming he is ineligible to describe himself as Left, because he is wealthier than average?

    Are you claiming he is 'elite'?

    btw, there is a difference between 'equality', which does not and has never existed, and equality of opportunity. I should not have to tell you that, since you believe in the joys of laissez faire capitalism, with its associated entrenched underclass* who surely don't share the same opportunities as those not subject to poverty.

    * reinforced by the job insecurity of the "last on, first off" nature of capitalism's economic cycles.

    I agree: your 'elites' - or "progressives" as you seem to want to describe them - are self-interested in the extreme.

    But the term "progressive" is usually thought of as on the other side of the spectrum, when compared with 'Conservative'.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2019
  24. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Notice how Starjet simply ignores powerful arguments that demolish his claim to "rationality".

    Because Rand's concept of 'rationality' is inadequate? For example:

    "Landlords grow richer in their sleep, without working, risking, or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title." J.S Mills.
     
  25. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    LOL- From each according to their ability, to eac according to their need. Well, when this each says no, how you you going take mine?
     

Share This Page