The Problem With Capitalism Is That You Eventually Run Out Of Other People's Money...

Or was there some other reason for the credit-crunch that I've missed? 

Original Post by gi-jane:

Or was there some other reason for the credit-crunch that I've missed? 

 AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

"Socialism runs on taxes, capitalism runs on tick"....  GI-Jane 2009

Discuss...

I guess the main question is, what makes wealth "someone's own", in a moral way?

Is it if they work for it? (Capitalism is based on returns without the labour of the capitalist - money making more money for the investor "all by itself". The very rich rarely work.)

Is it if they are inherently superior people and therefore deserve it? (Seems to be the belief of those who have it, anyway)

Is it "just because they already have it", because they were born to wealthy parents? (So much for meritocracy)

Is it because they were able to function within the current system of laws to acquire it? (That means that the legitimacy of their private wealth is subject to democratic control via the political process of lawmaking)

Is it given to them by God in exchange for their piety? (Not only are there a lot of pious poor people out there, but honestly, if that is the answer there is no point in continuing the conversation, Barney Frank had a point with his "kitchen table" comment)

I would be curious to figure out what the moral justification for holding ludicrous wealth in a world of poverty and pain would be, to those who profess unregulated capitalism.

Original Post by trustwomen:

I would be curious to figure out what the moral justification for holding ludicrous wealth in a world of poverty and pain would be, to those who profess unregulated capitalism.

 

Who's to decide what is "ludicrous"?  Who's to decide what is poverty or pain?

It's all subjective.

The moral justification is that I get what I want.  That's pretty much all there is to it.

Original Post by dnrothx:

Who's to decide what is "ludicrous"?  Who's to decide what is poverty or pain?

It's all subjective.

 i've gotta agree with this. i don't feel rich at all, but the amount of money i have in my bank account would be a ludicrous amount of wealth to someone who survives on less than $1 a day. so where is the line drawn?

Original Post by dnrothx:

The moral justification is that I get what I want.  That's pretty much all there is to it.

That's about what I figured, thanks for being honest.

I guess I'm an idealist, but I like to think of humans being able to live in a society together, where the collective good is something people are willing to sacrifice for, recognizing that we are all interconnected.

Interestingly, my recent neurosurgery rotation brought this home to me. We are all just a traumatic brain injury away from being on the very bottom of society, dependent on so much public effort and collective goodwill it is hard to imagine until you see it. (Then again this was in socialist Quebec, so maybe I would have been underwhelmed anywhere else.)

Original Post by trustwomen:

I guess I'm an idealist, but I like to think of humans being able to live in a society together, where the collective good is something people are willing to sacrifice for, recognizing that we are all interconnected.

 Heh.  Define the "collective good."  Adherents of all sorts of economic systems each argue that theirs achieves whatever is best for the "collective good," even laissez-faire capitalists.

Original Post by jules817:

 i've gotta agree with this. i don't feel rich at all, but the amount of money i have in my bank account would be a ludicrous amount of wealth to someone who survives on less than $1 a day. so where is the line drawn?

Usually the way these lines are drawn is by drawing invisible lines on a map, calling them borders, and then the "collective" of people inside those borders are the ones that people decide to include in their calculations.

Then, systems are set in place to limit the amount of wealth one person or family can accumulate. This usually includes things like inheritance taxes over a certain amount (generally in the millions), progressive income taxes, etc. Generally, as long as everyone gets to have their basic needs met, wealth is not curtailed too strictly. Most places consider not only food, shelter and clothing to be a basic need, but also things like education, health care, and infrastructure (water, power, roads, police, firefighters, etc.)

Balancing out the wealth worldwide is interesting in concept but even the most socialist of countries have ZERO interest in doing that. This is also why they tend to be very, very xenophobic and resistant to immigration. The wealth of developed countries, while arguably at least partly the result of exploiting the rest of the world's resources, is only trickled back to the poor countries and continents at a rate that does not actually enrich them sufficiently so as to be powerful enough to be a real threat.

Typically when you hear about socialism, it will be within a country's borders, and wealth tends to be curtailed from the absolute extremes on down, until the basic needs of those at the bottom can be met - then it becomes difficult to justify continuing (again, socialism not communism). Your bank account wouldn't likely be affected by that, Jules, unless you are secretly a multimillionaire.

"Basic needs" is even a point of debate.

Best to just fall in line and do what you can within whatever system you find yourself in. :D

"I guess I'm an idealist, but I like to think of humans being able to live in a society together, where the collective good is something people are willing to sacrifice for, recognizing that we are all interconnected."

I agree with you.  I make sure all of my basic needs are met and donate everything that I can afford to.  I would rather give $30 a month to a family in need than have cable.  I would feel guilty watching cable and knowing there are kids at the local school without winter coats.  Doesn't seem right to me.

"so where is the line drawn?"

I draw the line with what helps me sleep at night.  I don't need anyone to tell me I should be helping others and setting a specific amount.  I guess I'm just happy with what I have and don't feel I need more.

Original Post by dnrothx:

Original Post by trustwomen:

I guess I'm an idealist, but I like to think of humans being able to live in a society together, where the collective good is something people are willing to sacrifice for, recognizing that we are all interconnected.

 Heh.  Define the "collective good."  Adherents of all sorts of economic systems each argue that theirs achieves whatever is best for the "collective good," even laissez-faire capitalists.

Collective good: the basic needs of all members of a society being met. (See post above for description of basic needs).

The laissez-faire capitalists are the first to admit that the losers of their society are really losers and will not get their basic needs met - they are meant to die off quickly and quietly and without making a fuss or causing trouble, which of course never happens. (Funny, that even people who are entirely inadequate at competing in the capitalist system refuse to recognize that fact, and insist on surviving nonetheless - often by crimes against the more deserving.) There are some laissez-faire capitalists who speak of private charities, of course, but that is hardly part of the philosophy itself. They do say that their system provides the most "overall good", meaning that even if the weakest die off (or perhaps because of that?), the rest are wealthier overall. This might even be true. Still doesn't make it morally acceptable to me, but hey, I'm picky that way.

Original Post by augustnkate:
"so where is the line drawn?"

I draw the line with what helps me sleep at night.  I don't need anyone to tell me I should be helping others and setting a specific amount.  I guess I'm just happy with what I have and don't feel I need more.

Good for you. For me, I voted with my feet and moved to a place where the political and tax structure best reflects my personal values (short of Scandinavia). I will be earning 150-200K a year once residency is over, and probably about 45-50% of that will go to income taxes alone. But I will know that I am contributing to help keep this society going, and to help my fellow citizens.

Original Post by trustwomen:

Original Post by augustnkate:
"so where is the line drawn?"

I draw the line with what helps me sleep at night.  I don't need anyone to tell me I should be helping others and setting a specific amount.  I guess I'm just happy with what I have and don't feel I need more.

Good for you. For me, I voted with my feet and moved to a place where the political and tax structure best reflects my personal values (short of Scandinavia). I will be earning 150-200K a year once residency is over, and probably about 45-50% of that will go to income taxes alone. But I will know that I am contributing to help keep this society going, and to help my fellow citizens.

:)  I made sure that my house payment could be made with one paycheck.  All other expenses could be paid with the next and I have one for retirement and one for donations and helping.  I'm fortunate enough to be able to stay home (since I married) so I volunteer my time with any group needing my help.  I volunteered as an Emergency Medical Technician for a few years when they didn't have enough staff.  I also volunteered for almost a year as an officer manager at a local animal shelter.  Lots of other volunteer kind of things...but those two were my favorites.  There is even more money available to help with local community projects.  I am fortunate enough to live in an area where most of the community gets involved and gives whatever can be given.

Original Post by trustwomen:

Original Post by dnrothx:

Original Post by trustwomen:

I guess I'm an idealist, but I like to think of humans being able to live in a society together, where the collective good is something people are willing to sacrifice for, recognizing that we are all interconnected.

 Heh.  Define the "collective good."  Adherents of all sorts of economic systems each argue that theirs achieves whatever is best for the "collective good," even laissez-faire capitalists.

Collective good: the basic needs of all members of a society being met. (See post above for description of basic needs).

The laissez-faire capitalists are the first to admit that the losers of their society are really losers and will not get their basic needs met - they are meant to die off quickly and quietly and without making a fuss or causing trouble, which of course never happens. (Funny, that even people who are entirely inadequate at competing in the capitalist system refuse to recognize that fact, and insist on surviving nonetheless - often by crimes against the more deserving.) There are some laissez-faire capitalists who speak of private charities, of course, but that is hardly part of the philosophy itself. They do say that their system provides the most "overall good", meaning that even if the weakest die off (or perhaps because of that?), the rest are wealthier overall. This might even be true. Still doesn't make it morally acceptable to me, but hey, I'm picky that way.

I think you are confusing laissez-faire capitalism with social Darwinism.

Most capitalists believe and support private charity.  Check out Carnegie-Mellon, or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  Believe it or not, a lot of extremely wealthy people recognize that there is a limit to what spending money on yourself accomplishes for you.  Extremely wealthy people are not inherently evil; they generally also want the world to be a better place for their children.  They just want to decide for themselves how they want their wealth spent rather than having the government decide for them.

A rising tide lifts all ships.  The poorest people in America are still much, much wealthier than the average folks in many developing nations.  "Poor" is a very relative term.

Original Post by trustwomen:

For me, I voted with my feet and moved to a place where the political and tax structure best reflects my personal values (short of Scandinavia).

 But our country is better than yours.

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by trustwomen:

Original Post by dnrothx:

Original Post by trustwomen:

I guess I'm an idealist, but I like to think of humans being able to live in a society together, where the collective good is something people are willing to sacrifice for, recognizing that we are all interconnected.

 Heh.  Define the "collective good."  Adherents of all sorts of economic systems each argue that theirs achieves whatever is best for the "collective good," even laissez-faire capitalists.

Collective good: the basic needs of all members of a society being met. (See post above for description of basic needs).

The laissez-faire capitalists are the first to admit that the losers of their society are really losers and will not get their basic needs met - they are meant to die off quickly and quietly and without making a fuss or causing trouble, which of course never happens. (Funny, that even people who are entirely inadequate at competing in the capitalist system refuse to recognize that fact, and insist on surviving nonetheless - often by crimes against the more deserving.) There are some laissez-faire capitalists who speak of private charities, of course, but that is hardly part of the philosophy itself. They do say that their system provides the most "overall good", meaning that even if the weakest die off (or perhaps because of that?), the rest are wealthier overall. This might even be true. Still doesn't make it morally acceptable to me, but hey, I'm picky that way.

I think you are confusing laissez-faire capitalism with social Darwinism.

Most capitalists believe and support private charity.  Check out Carnegie-Mellon, or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  Believe it or not, a lot of extremely wealthy people recognize that there is a limit to what spending money on yourself accomplishes for you.  Extremely wealthy people are not inherently evil; they generally also want the world to be a better place for their children.  They just want to decide for themselves how they want their wealth spent rather than having the government decide for them.

A rising tide lifts all ships.  The poorest people in America are still much, much wealthier than the average folks in many developing nations.  "Poor" is a very relative term.

 Oh, this'll be good.

*sits back with popcorn*

The degree to which you have the capacity to control (something valuable) and/or influence (someone with control in an area you do not) affects how well any system treats you.

There is no productive system that is kind to people with little control or influence.

Original Post by ignayshus:

The degree to which you have the capacity to control (something valuable) and/or influence (someone with control in an area you do not) affects how well any system treats you.

There is no productive system that is kind to people with little control or influence.

The interesting part about democracy is that it does mean that "the masses" have some kind of power. Of course, the masses have to actually care and vote. One thing I like about my province is the level of political engagement among the poor and working class.

There is no system that is AS kind to those without power as to those with, but there are systems that are fundamentally decent to the ones at the bottom. They all need some tweaking or improvement, likely (certainly they do here, and presumably also in other socialist countries) but I would not define them as unkind to those at the bottom.

Original Post by ignayshus:

There is no productive system that is kind to people with little control or influence.

 Unless it's a system where I'm the one in control.  Then, it is kind to me.

Bologna.

The masses have power, in so far as they have the capacity (and desire) to riot out of control.

Their power is influence. Their method is fear.

Beyond that they have nothing, so without fear of meaningful reprisal or likelihood of being caught, the worlds leaders act in their own self-interest first.