Which 'one True God?'

[Pellaken]

capitalims promotes greed. greed is bad.

that is a simple universal truth, all things capitalisim does will be tainted by this.

[Elder]

capitalims promotes greed. greed is bad.

that is a simple universal truth, all things capitalisim does will be tainted by this.

Capitalism promotes independence. Independence is good, but if overstressed can lead to greed. Capitalism is power, and as with all power, it must be used responsibly, and in my oppinion, helpfully. A capitalist can do far more good of his own volition then a socialist can under force of law.

[d4dev]

Capitalism promotes independence.

I wish you could tell that to the people who live life on the streets, or the poor, or those who have to make a choice between paying their rent and feeding their children. I'm sure they would relish their independence very much.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

A capitalist can do far more good of his own volition then a socialist can under force of law.

Once a capitalist helps another, he ceases to be a true capitalist. He has stepped down the 'evil' road to socialist 'hell'.

Seriously, though, charity and social values are opposites to individual gain.

[August1991]

Greed is inevitable.

At this moment in history, our "best solution" is ownership and terms of trade - prices. With these, greed is turned into co-operation. Let's admire this wonderful human invention of prices, and mathematics.

Now, can anyone imagine a way to extend the solution?

[Hugo]

Once a capitalist helps another, he ceases to be a true capitalist. He has stepped down the 'evil' road to socialist 'hell'.

This, again, is incorrect. Capitalism depends upon mutual help and support, it depends on family and upon co-operation. Concepts such as these are crucial aspects of capitalism, and as I said, capitalism produces more charity, more communal good and more co-operation than socialism. Do you identify "capitalists" more as sole traders or large corporations?

Seriously, though, charity and social values are opposites to individual gain.

Actually, they are not, they coincide. "Individual gain" as defined by Adam Smith does not mean working purely from selfish motivations. There are very, very few people in a capitalist society motivated purely by selfishness. Most people are working for a variety of reasons, including to better the co-operative they work in, because they believe in their work, and most often and most importantly, to support their family. Therefore, selfishness doesn't even enter into the heads of capitalists most of the time.

Are you unable or just unwilling to answer any of my other points?

[Hugo]

I wish you could tell that to the people who live life on the streets, or the poor, or those who have to make a choice between paying their rent and feeding their children. I'm sure they would relish their independence very much.

There are far fewer poor in capitalist nations than in other systems, and their standard of living and wealth are far higher. The key difference is that a poor person in the USA is free to improve their lot and there are countless "rags to riches" stories to prove it. On the other hand, a poor person (i.e. pretty much everybody) in a "socialist paradise" has no freedom and therefore cannot hope for anything better. This is why socialism produces so much disenchantment and apathy. People do not like being given a lousy standard of living and then being told there is absolutely nothing they can do about it, so they can just live with it and be good proletarians. That's why they get upset and have a tendency to overthrow and destroy socialist regimes, whereas capitalist ones remain politically stable for centuries.

[d4dev]

There are far fewer poor in capitalist nations than in other systems, and their standard of living and wealth are far higher.

If you are comparing the capitalist system with a communist system, you may or may not be right. I'm not sure about the levels of poverty in a communist country, compared to that in a capitalist country. but if you compare the number of poor people in a capitalist vis a vis those in a socialist country, I disagree. Do you think that Canada or Denmark or Norway have more people living under the poverty line than the US? I think you are wrong there.

The key difference is that a poor person in the USA is free to improve their lot and there are countless "rags to riches" stories to prove it.

I've heard this argument many times. However, those 'countless' stories that you are talking about, what percentage of the people living below the poverty line is that? 0.5%, 1%? Not more than that. Then how can you justify a whole economic system on that basis?

On the other hand, a poor person (i.e. pretty much everybody) in a "socialist paradise" has no freedom and therefore cannot hope for anything better.

Which socialist country are you talking about here?

This is why socialism produces so much disenchantment and apathy. People do not like being given a lousy standard of living and then being told there is absolutely nothing they can do about it, so they can just live with it and be good proletarians. That's why they get upset and have a tendency to overthrow and destroy socialist regimes, whereas capitalist ones remain politically stable for centuries.

You know what, first let's agree on the definition of 'socialist'.

And, btw, if you are referring to communist governments, which communist government was overthrown by it's own people? (If you're talking about the USSR, please read the book, 'At the highest Levels' by Strobe Talbott)

[Hugo]

Do you think that Canada or Denmark or Norway have more people living under the poverty line than the US? I think you are wrong there.

Oh, you think so? You didn't bother to check up on this before you posted, did you?

US poverty level in 1990 and 1999: 13.5% & 11.8% (decrease). In Canada: 15.3% & 16.2% (increase). Denmark does not officially measure poverty, and neither does Norway (to the disgust of charities in both countries), but in the latter country it was unofficially measured at 26% in 2002.

In Denmark it was measured at 7.2% but this was computed as a very simple measure of people earning less than 50% of the median income for the entire period 1987-1997, and as such is invalid for comparative purposes. To illustrate that, using the same definition of "poverty" Slovakia measures at 2.1% and the Czech Republic at 2.3%, while the US measures at 16.9% and Australia at 14.3%. Needless to say, that statistic is pretty much useless.

Not to mention that because the three countries you list have economic problems due to their high tax/high spend policies, they are facing serious sustainability issues. For instance, most Canadian provincial premiers don't believe that current Canadian healthcare levels can be maintained for much longer. Suffice it to say that not only are there more poor people in the three countries you mention, that number is likely to grow greater.

I've heard this argument many times. However, those 'countless' stories that you are talking about, what percentage of the people living below the poverty line is that? 0.5%, 1%? Not more than that. Then how can you justify a whole economic system on that basis?

Well, as I've just shown you, capitalism is the best system for getting people out of poverty. Socialism just guarantees equal poverty for all, and not a chance at escaping it.

Which socialist country are you talking about here?

The PRC, North Korea, or Cuba. You can even take mixed economies such as the nations you mentioned, if you like, but bear in mind that the free markets of those countries will raise their standards above those of the truly socialist states.

And, btw, if you are referring to communist governments, which communist government was overthrown by it's own people?

Any Eastern European nation, really. Do you not think that the uprisings in Czechoslovakia and Hungary were a sign that all was not well in the socialist paradise? How about the fact that all the illegal human traffic over the Berlin Wall was all going West? What about the Solidarity movement? It does not matter who officially overthrew government, the fact is that that was merely the final explosion of a popular timebomb set ticking by the injustices of socialism.

[Elder]

Amen Hugo! I would like to pose one question. How much good to think a Capitalist could do compared to a Socialist. I also think it would be interresting to see which has bigger and better charities, Capitalist Nations or Socialist nations. I think the problem with those on the left is that they want the government to be charitable instead of them being charitable themselves. I could be wrong. You'd have to check the politicians records to see how much that particular politician actually contributed out of his or her personal funds. It would be worth looking into. I don't know, I haven't checked yet.

[Black Dog]

I think the problem with those on the left is that they want the government to be charitable instead of them being charitable themselves.

Well, geez, maybe that's because the government has the power, ability, infrastructure etc. to do more good than I could ever do by dropping a few loonies in the jar at Safeway. State intervention is necessary simply because there are too many important issues out there to be left to the iffy charitable impulses of a select few. If history has shown anything about capitalism, it sthat the average capitalists favorite charity is themselves.

[Elder]

If history has shown anything about capitalism, it sthat the average capitalists favorite charity is themselves.

Please do back this statement up. By the way, if you'd like to do more than "drop a few loonies in the jar at Safeway" just send some charity organization a check. They won't mind. There are about a thousand ways the average citizen can contribute to world-wide charity. Look it up on-line. There are plenty of charities that are dying for your money, and they aren't forcing it on you like a socialist government would. Go find a blood drive (of course that would be really wierd if the government forced that kind of chairty on people). Of course, if you'd rather the government did it for you.......... This is how a private politician can contribute, they write a check. I was commenting on how it would be interesting to see which politicians contribute more personally, the socialist or the capitalist. I'm willing to bet that if everyone in the Socialist movement shut up for a second and actually did their own contributing, they'd beat any socialists charity efforts hands down.

I am a capitalist. I am currently a very poor capitalist. I live in a neighborhood that could easily be compared to downtown L.A. with cramped living spaces surrounded by neighbors who blast ghetto rap and who I really would rather not cross. I eat well, and for that I'm grateful. I contribute what I can (after I pay my dues), and what I can't give in cash, I give in service. However, I have both the freedom and the abillity to contribute as much as I can afford (and I have the freedom to expand that). I have the freedom to give of my own, because I have enough that I can give. I have time to go over to my neighbors and help them with their problems. I have access to public services. I get what I earn, I use what I need, and I give what I can.

[August1991]

Given this crazy argument, I'll start with Hugo.

Hugo: "Free enterprise" is exactly that: free. It means you are free to do what you will and that includes selfless acts and co-operation. Socialism gives no freedom and therefore strangles selflessness, co-operation and free associations.

Hugo, you are basically wrong. Let's be honest. Capitalism/Free Enterprise/Free Markets encourage people to be greedy and get the most for themselves. True, they sometimes share but that's not the main intention.

Yet, as a result, these capitalists co-operate more than even the best intentioned socialist ever would. Why? Because the capitalists compete on price - they compete for a simple number (money if you will). What inventions, prices and money! It didn't exist 6,000 years ago when people could only co-operate as socialists would have us co-operate now. ("You do this and I'll do that and then we'll meet later. OK?")

Underneath it, socialists don't understand how capitalism produces this level of co-operation because socialists are usually bad at math.

Hugo, I suspect you understand these ideas from the best teacher: experience. What will the future do when such teachers don't exist? We can only teach math now.

[August1991]

To TheloniousFleaBag:

But victims too. We will provide to our children yet receive nothing from them.

I can only say that you must have raised them poorly.

My reference to "children" was poetic. I meant your children, your children's children, and then their children again.

There is no doubt that you have stolen from the past. You are born into a world with so much but you gave up nothing to get this. (Even if you were born in a so-called Third World country, you still benefit by so much compared to anyone born as recently as, say, 500 years ago.)

Now then, your children's children's children will benefit from you -by their birth - but you will get absolutely nothing from them. They probably won't even remember you! (Do you know who your ancestor was 500 years ago?)

Theft has nothing to do with anything I understand as "justice". We are all thieves.

[August1991]

To TheloniusFleaBag:

Waste is a key ingredient for capitalism. It helps to maximize profit. Not always waste from the producer, mostly from the consumer. A good business owner would pray that the consumer wastes their product.

By this quote, you believe that hurricanes and earthquakes are good for capitalist economies. All those destroyed buildings mean good business (and profits) for construction firms.

Please, use rigorous common sense when discussing these issues. Hurricanes and earthquakes (and wars) do not make societies rich. (What about 'foreign' wars, if you're American? Manufacture bombs and planes, put them on a boat, sail the boat into the ocean, sink the boat. Everyone gets rich!)

As my mother would say, for heaven's sake, think. Countries do NOT become rich this way.

Capitalism is successful because it tends to abhor waste. Socialism is unsuccessful because it tends to cause waste. The only measure of 'justice' I can imagine is waste - the cardinal sin. My grandmother taught me that. Poor, she wasted nothing. Individuals don't waste on their own, but badly organised collectives can waste a lot.

[August1991]

A contentious pre-final.

Why is 'theft' as we know it bad? Well, why is 'welfare as we know it' bad?

Because, if people can steal, they waste! How? Well, rather than do something useful with their time, they waste time devising ways to steal (go on welfare). Victims then waste time devising ways to prevent theft (avoid taxes).

Which is "richer"? Iceland or Russia? Why?

[August1991]

Final.

Bill Gates is careful with (does not waste) his time; the guy on Ste-Catherine street is careful with (does not waste) the coins in his hand. I'm sure both splurge sometimes. But that's not waste.

Even Bill Gates will get at most 80 some-odd years. Who is rich really?

[Hugo]

Hugo, you are basically wrong. Let's be honest. Capitalism/Free Enterprise/Free Markets encourage people to be greedy and get the most for themselves. True, they sometimes share but that's not the main intention.

It is the intention. I believe I have already spoken about the difference between moral intent and moral outcome, the whole idea of the capitalist system is to harness the inescapable evil side of human nature - greed, covetousness, etc. - to produce good. Read the works of any great democratic capitalist thinker, such as Adam Smith or Benjamin Franklin, and you will see that this was their intention from the start.

The difference is that socialism wishes to harness the good side of human nature to produce good. The problem is that humans are born into sin and the vast majority will never truly escape that, which is why socialism always fails.

As to encouraging people to be greedy, well, that just depends on what you mean by "greedy", doesn't it? Is it greedy to want to work harder and earn more to give your children a better life? That's the reason most people work, after all. I believe there are very few people out there who are working purely from complete selfishness. Most combine their personal greed and ambition with a desire for prosperity for their families, a desire to see their co-operative succeed, or even a belief that the job they are doing is truly for the social good.

Regardless, it does not matter. You can rely on people to be "greedy" as you put it, to want to better themselves and their situation. Democratic capitalism simply harnesses that drive for the greater good, producing more freedom and prosperity for individuals and for society as a whole.

[August1991]

the whole idea of the capitalist system is to harness the inescapable evil side of human nature - greed, covetousness, etc. - to produce good.

Evil side? Are you a Mel Gibson Christian? What is the 'evil' side of human nature?

Is it greedy to want to work harder and earn more to give your children a better life? That's the reason most people work, after all.

Not evil. Human. For thousands of years, millions, people wanted this.

Democratic capitalism simply harnesses that drive for the greater good, producing more freedom and prosperity for individuals and for society as a whole.

Is it clear to you how this happens? Free market prices do not appeal to higher angels. This is not right/wrong Christianity. (In fact, I suspect Christianity was the first socialist response to the wonderful human invention of math!)

[Black Dog]

(Black Dog @ Mar 3 2004, 04:06 PM)

If history has shown anything about capitalism, it sthat the average capitalists favorite charity is themselves. 

Please do back this statement up.

Enron.

By this quote, you believe that hurricanes and earthquakes are good for capitalist economies. All those destroyed buildings mean good business (and profits) for construction firms.

Please, use rigorous common sense when discussing these issues. Hurricanes and earthquakes (and wars) do not make societies rich. (What about 'foreign' wars, if you're American? Manufacture bombs and planes, put them on a boat, sail the boat into the ocean, sink the boat. Everyone gets rich!)

Actually, that's sort of correct. Disasters can be good for the economy, at least as its currently measured in terms of GDP. the U.S GDp went up after 9-11. Now the long term effects can be ambiguouis, and large economies deal with disasters better than smaller ones, but there's some ambiguity as to whther or not the GDP is a accurate reflection or economic value.

Capitalism is successful because it tends to abhor waste. Socialism is unsuccessful because it tends to cause waste. The only measure of 'justice' I can imagine is waste - the cardinal sin. My grandmother taught me that. Poor, she wasted nothing. Individuals don't waste on their own, but badly organised collectives can waste a lot.

What is a corporation but a "badly organized collective"?The notion that private corporations are inherently better organized than public institutions is a myth.

Yet, as a result, these capitalists co-operate more than even the best intentioned socialist ever would. Why? Because the capitalists compete on price - they compete for a simple number (money if you will). What inventions, prices and money! It didn't exist 6,000 years ago when people could only co-operate as socialists would have us co-operate now. ("You do this and I'll do that and then we'll meet later. OK?")

This statement makes absoultely no sense. capitalists cooperate becaus ethey compete? huh?

Underneath it, socialists don't understand how capitalism produces this level of co-operation because socialists are usually bad at math.

[Elder]

Yet, as a result, these capitalists co-operate more than even the best intentioned socialist ever would. Why? Because the capitalists compete on price - they compete for a simple number (money if you will). What inventions, prices and money! It didn't exist 6,000 years ago when people could only co-operate as socialists would have us co-operate now. ("You do this and I'll do that and then we'll meet later. OK?")

This statement makes absoultely no sense. capitalists cooperate becaus ethey compete? huh?

Underneath it, socialists don't understand how capitalism produces this level of co-operation because socialists are usually bad at math.

I'm not entirely sure what he's saying either (socialists aren't the only one's bad at math, I hate it!) but I will say this much. I can see how a capitalist politician could be more cooperative. They contribute more becaue they constantly have to keep public support. They donate to charities and the like to keep the goodwill of the people. It ultimately has a selfish end to it, but you can't argue with the results. The beauty of the captitalist republican system. Our leaders have to work to please us or we will probably vote them out of office.

[Hugo]

What is the 'evil' side of human nature?... Not evil. Human.

I don't agree with this moral relativism. Some things are just evil. Killing innocents is evil. Stealing is evil. Rape is evil. There is a definite evil side to human nature and if you really have to ask what that is, I invite you to just watch the news tonight.

[Black Dog]

I'm not entirely sure what he's saying either (socialists aren't the only one's bad at math, I hate it!) but I will say this much. I can see how a capitalist politician could be more cooperative. They contribute more becaue they constantly have to keep public support. They donate to charities and the like to keep the goodwill of the people. It ultimately has a selfish end to it, but you can't argue with the results. The beauty of the captitalist republican system. Our leaders have to work to please us or we will probably vote them out of office.

The whole problem with this thread is that there's a huge gulf between the theories being espoused and their application in the real world. Take the above as an example. Politicians keep the support of the people by making good policy, providing leadership and doing thethings that leaders are supposed to do. I don't think people really care how much a politician gives to charity.

However, that raises an interesting aside on the role of money in democratic capitalism. As we've seen corporations become larger and more powerful than ever before, more and more politicians are becoming beholden to these economic interests (look at the U.S. where both parties are deep in the pockets of their contributers). How thios cozy relationship benefits the average Joe is certainly unclear.

The fact is, the face of capitalism has changed since the days of Ben Franklin and Adam Smith. We're no longer talking about the rugged individualists pulling their own weight blah blah blah. The reality of today is that democratic capitalism (if such a thing ever existed) has been supplanted as the dominant ideaology by corporatism, which centeralizes economic power in the hands of a few. Corporations are among the world's largest economies and they seldom have any interest in mind beyond the bottom-line and a healthy return for shareholders. The cozy relationship between government and their corporate donors is well-documented and poses a far greater threat to democracy than andy Al-Q'aeda terrorist ever could dream.

[Hugo]

The fact is, the face of capitalism has changed since the days of Ben Franklin and Adam Smith.

That is a very good point, BD, and I would agree. Democratic capitalism is a pluralist system with three parts: the economic, the political, and the moral-cultural. When one of those three falters the whole is compromised. I think what we are seeing of late is to do with failures in the moral-cultural aspect of the system. People no longer subscribe to the values that were popular when democratic capitalism was young, such as Christian ethics, a communal spirit, family values, and so forth.

We have replaced these things with disdain for all things religious and moral-absolutist, with disenchantment with the community, and with new family values that swap excuses (permissiveness and "quality time") for proper child-raising, and are more interested in finding oneself than improving oneself.

The cozy relationship between government and their corporate donors is well-documented and poses a far greater threat to democracy than andy Al-Q'aeda terrorist ever could dream.

I agree with this too. The three aspects of polity, economy and society are supposed to be separated for their own good. Church and state should be separate for the protection of both and for the people. When two start to merge and have undue influence on each other, there is a problem. However, it goes both ways. Big business can interfere in government, but government can interfere in big business, too. Just look at the controversies surrounding Canada Steamship Lines, all of Chretien's sordid little projects and other pork-barrelling. This is why they are supposed to be shielded from one another. Democratic capitalism praises freedom above all else and if any one of the three key aspects is compromised, freedom is in danger. Freedom is obtained by having a fluid power structure where no one body can obtain too much power in any one field, let alone more than one. Interference in this separation concentrates too much power in too few hands.

[Black Dog]

hat is a very good point, BD, and I would agree. Democratic capitalism is a pluralist system with three parts: the economic, the political, and the moral-cultural. When one of those three falters the whole is compromised. I think what we are seeing of late is to do with failures in the moral-cultural aspect of the system. People no longer subscribe to the values that were popular when democratic capitalism was young, such as Christian ethics, a communal spirit, family values, and so forth.

We have replaced these things with disdain for all things religious and moral-absolutist, with disenchantment with the community, and with new family values that swap excuses (permissiveness and "quality time") for proper child-raising, and are more interested in finding oneself than improving oneself.

I would mostly agree, but beg to differ on the causes of this moral decay. I believe the problems in society don't arise from some assault on traditional values (which could more acturately be referred to as the traditional power-structure) by the forces of secularism or the bugbear of "political correctness". Rather the qualities you speak of have been systematically undermined by the growth of consumer capitalism, which relegates individuals to the dual role of worker/consumer, where personal fulfillment is said to be reached through the aquisition of material goods, where family time is sacrificed to 80 hour work weeks in order to pay for the new SUV, where greed and self-interest are the new religion. God isn't dead: he drives a Lexus.

How did this happen? Easy. Greed, self-interest are part of human nature. When you have a system that touts greed as a value, it may work for a time, but it's bound to break down as it makes the natural progression from promoting benign self-interest to complete disinterest in anyone else. So the problem isn't outside the system: it's the system itself.