Capitalism Rewards Immorality

Capitalism Rewards Immorality
creativesoul
Unapproachable
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 17, 2010
Location: The rock

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 1271
#31 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 24, 2010 - 11:07 PM:

I think that we have a democracy for a reason, to protect the interests of a countries people in general, not its smartest 1%.


Just wanted to note that the top 1% concerning financial 'class' is not necessarily the smartest 1% of people in general. Nor are the poorest necessarily the dumbest.

Wealth does not necessarily denote/reflect intelligence.
Desidude666
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 9
#32 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 25, 2010 - 12:33 AM:

StreetlightX wrote:


But this is not necessarily true in real world conditions. Abstractly, of course I agree with you! One sum minus another sum equals a smaller sum - this proposition is utterly undeniable... insofar as its application remains utterly blind to the reality of the functioning of money and therefore has no bearing whatsoever on what is today called 'capitalism', which the thrust of your post is directed at. And as far as that reality goes, the profit/pay margins do not necessarily exactly adversely affect one another exactly. That is, empirically, you cannot say they do, and therefore empirically there does not exist a clear financial reward for an employer's blatant and callous disregard for fellows humans (their employees) and their dependents. Maybe on paper, in which case of course you're right. Which is fine, so long as you don't confuse such trivial abstractions for capitalism.


Sure - but the only issue you didn't address is the risk factor. Profit is not certain. If profit was not certain then this anti-capitalism hypothesis might ahve a case. But since there isn't a certainty, there isn't a case.
StreetlightX
An Arrow, Drawn
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jun 13, 2010
Location: In medias res

Total Topics: 48
Total Posts: 3036
#33 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 25, 2010 - 3:05 AM:

creativesoul wrote:
Every penny paid to employee compensation costs (including wages) reduces owner profit - because it is a business expense. However, it does not necessarily follow that an owner increases profit through wage reduction, there are conditions that could reduce profit through a reduction in employee productivity. That is the mistake that I see, and what you're skirting around, I think.

Furthermore, that is the curiousness implicit in the conclusion. I must concede that that(financial reward for blatant/callous disregard) is not necessarily the case, but can be and very well is at times, and it is 'perfectly' legal.


Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. I'm not entirely sure what you mean in the first paragraph of your post tho =/

desdude666 wrote:
Sure - but the only issue you didn't address is the risk factor. Profit is not certain. If profit was not certain then this anti-capitalism hypothesis might have a case. But since there isn't a certainty, there isn't a case.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say either, I'm afraid. I've made no claim either way whether or not reducing pay/working conditions will or will not adversely affect profit. Only that neither is assured a priori.
BioLogicist
HULK SMASH
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 09, 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 171
#34 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 25, 2010 - 6:01 AM:

prothero wrote:
Capitalism also rewards industry, innovation, risk taking and efficiency. Capitalism also generates more wealth than any other form of economic system, provides more choice and opportunity for advancement, and is more responsive to consumer preferences.
Capitalism has its problems. Oversight and regulation are needed. Hard decisions about the distribution and use of the wealth generated must be made.
Exactly what alternative to capitalism, free markets and private ownership is being proposed?
Socialism and Communism are both based on false premises about the nature of man. Man is naturally competitive and acquisitive. When you remove the incentive of economic reward you remove a great deal from your economy and your society.


I like this statement. Especially the part about the distribution of wealth and regulation. I think capitalism is better for an economy than socialism but I think socialism is better for humanity that capitalism. I think there needs to be a mixture that let's people aspire to greatness, compete and satisfy their personal greed for wealth but not at the cost of any other human being. The only real way I can think of to do this is through taxation. The wealthier you are the more taxes you pay. Then the government must use the extra money in areas that will help poor people achieve what the wealthy have. Meaning, don't invest the extra money into welfare programs that reward laziness, instead use the money to invest in education, work release programs, and other programs that will help the poor rise out of a bad situation through work.

I also think big business should be rewarded with tax breaks for investing money in a way that will build the country as a whole, not just their own personal pockets. We need industry again so that we can create a middle class. Until the bigger companies stop trying to focus purely on the profit margin and place some importance on the ethical aspects of running their businesses we will continue to watch the gap between rich and poor get bigger. I like Obamas focus on energy to create industrial opportunities. We need to invest in ways that will create industry and then figure out a way to keep greedy capitalists from exploiting the system simply to make profit while at the same time let them get as rich as they want without hurting humanity in the process.
Caffeine
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 25, 2010
Location: Los Angeles

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2
#35 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 25, 2010 - 11:10 AM:
Subject: The problem of Greed
Capitalism doesn't reward immorality, per se. Capitalism benefits immorality, or what I would call "greed." Capitalism also benefits other elements of society. It is amoral.

Thus, I believe capitalism can flourish within the bounds of socialism. Invention is not dependent on capitalism. Complacency is found in every form of economy/politic.
creativesoul
Unapproachable
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 17, 2010
Location: The rock

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 1271
#36 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 25, 2010 - 11:22 AM:

Streetlight,

My first paragraph which you've questioned represented(not very clearly) much of the problem I have with 'capitalism' as it is being implemented in the US and much of the world today. The doublespeak has changed the focus onto things like taxes being called 'stealing'. Socialist measures being considered the same. Those are merely expressions of covert disregard for fellow citizens, and exemplify the blatant hypocrisy.

The father of 'capitalism', Adam smith, clearly spoke of the necessity of a transparent progressive taxation method. For it is only through the existence of the state/society that wealth can be accrued and/or enjoyed. In today's day and age, for those who enjoy such benefits contigent upon society formation, it is often the case that they abhor the idea of entitlement(another doublespeak), citing the need for one to 'earn' what they get, while conveniently ignoring the fact that the conditions in which one come into the world, are in no way, a result of their own doing.

Self-interest, when it trumps societal interest, is extremely short-sighted, and when taken to it's logical conclusion will fail. It is the job of the state to counter such things on behalf of society on a whole. That is their sole purpose in this republic with democratic tradition. However, the state has been bought one congressman at a time... 'legally' so. The people are rather ignorant, and that too is being perpetuated by the refusal of the wealthy to pay into public education the resources that it so desperately needs, creating an even greater divide between the wealthy and the poor through controlling the quality of public education. The result is that those with the wealth control the economic stability of the state, the quality of public education, and therefore the very livelihood of the people who have no say in the conditions into which they are born.

Athletes and entertainers(including most 'news' programs) being no exceptions to the rule, because even there exists a financial reward to media giants and the wealthy through furthered 'doublespeak', to the point of the concepts being a complete bastardization of what is supposed to be transparency.

There are blatant lies being told to the public which have the necessary consequence of deflecting the larger problems at hand, and so those do not get the attention they need. Rather it creates a public understanding which is anything but a true understanding. It is a crime against humanity to allow such things to be put forth without consequence.

The US has sold it's 'soul'.
Reformed Nihilist
Oblong
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: Cow town

Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 666
#37 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 25, 2010 - 11:38 AM:

prothero wrote:
Man is naturally competitive and acquisitive.


True, but he is also naturally cooperative, social and compassionate. In finding the balance between "pure" capitalism (every man for himself) and pure communism (we'll all look after each other) there must be some balance that reflects both of these aspects of human nature. Most of the world calls this some form of socialism (I know it's a dirty word in the US).
StreetlightX
An Arrow, Drawn
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jun 13, 2010
Location: In medias res

Total Topics: 48
Total Posts: 3036
#38 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 25, 2010 - 5:09 PM:

@creativesoul,

I'd agree with that analysis for the most part, but I'm not sure I would invest as much in arguing that the matter is a problem of ignorance, interests and/or a blatant willing to disregard the poor. While those elements are definitely present, I suspect that much of it results from systemic pressures resulting from the structuring of the political economy in the US. That is, the problem is not so much a result of particular agents, but of subjects caught up in the 'mad march of capital', or simply the logic of capital itself, which seeks to turn everything into a measure of itself. Not even culture, which once used to be a refuge from capital, can escape it, with the increasing politicization and economization of it. So the 'lies' you refer to are particular ones, in that both those who tell them and those who are told them for the most part beleive them (to a point).
photographer
φύσις κρύπτεσθαι φιλεῖ
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 22, 2010

Total Topics: 66
Total Posts: 3459
#39 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 25, 2010 - 5:35 PM:
Subject: I think where this analysis falls short...
StreetlightX wrote:
That is, the problem is not so much a result of particular agents, but of subjects caught up in the 'mad march of capital', or simply the logic of capital itself, which seeks to turn everything into a measure of itself. Not even culture, which once used to be a refuge from capital, can escape it, with the increasing politicization and economization of it. So the 'lies' you refer to are particular ones, in that both those who tell them and those who are told them for the most part believe them (to a point).


is in dealing with the reality of Wall Street and the political class - including the media - in Washington who are deliberately working toward a corporate state that serves their interests on a preemptive basis.
StreetlightX
An Arrow, Drawn
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jun 13, 2010
Location: In medias res

Total Topics: 48
Total Posts: 3036
#40 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 25, 2010 - 5:42 PM:

Yeah, I guess it's the old question of structure vs. agency. I'm just trying to not put the inflection too much on one or the other.
locked
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.