Freedom and Capitalism

[iARTthere4iam]

The right to make a living by using your talents and hard work is one of the greatest blessings we can hope for. Capitalism is the natural result of freedom of action. Capitalism is not Walmart, or "big" oil, or the stock market but the thousands of private enterprises that employ the majority of us in this country.

 

[darkbeaver]

Capitalism is freedom.

 

[coldstream]

That's right, with some qualifications. What we see now with Chicago School, Friedman/von Hayek school of Free market mania.. including Free Trade, monetarism (free trade in currency and credit), privatization of natural monopolies (basicly in transportation, utilities, communication, natural resources).. is a complete anathema to a true Fee Enterprise system. It causes chaos and industrial collapse where ever it is implemented. Capitalism requires a strong centralized role for government in supervising markets for the common good, and ensuring an equitable distribution of wealth. It also requires a strong respect for national prerogatives and soveriegnty .. all of that is lost in free market ideology.

 

[Toro]

That's right, with some qualifications. What we see now with Chicago School, Friedman/von Hayek school of Free market mania.. including Free Trade, monetarism (free trade in currency and credit), privatization of natural monopolies (basicly in transportation, utilities, communication, natural resources).. is a complete anathema to a true Fee Enterprise system. It causes chaos and industrial collapse where ever it is implemented. Capitalism requires a strong centralized role for government in supervising markets for the common good, and ensuring an equitable distribution of wealth. It also requires a strong respect for national prerogatives and soveriegnty .. all of that is lost in free market ideology.

Straw man.

Government spending accounts for a third of the economy in Canada and the US. Such a description of the economy does not exist.

 

[darkbeaver]

Freedom is relative.

 

[china]

darkbeaver ,

Freedom is relative.

Sounds very "intellectual"and wise,but it not the case darkbeaver.

 

[iARTthere4iam]

That's right, with some qualifications. What we see now with Chicago School, Friedman/von Hayek school of Free market mania.. including Free Trade, monetarism (free trade in currency and credit), privatization of natural monopolies (basicly in transportation, utilities, communication, natural resources).. is a complete anathema to a true Fee Enterprise system. It causes chaos and industrial collapse where ever it is implemented. Capitalism requires a strong centralized role for government in supervising markets for the common good, and ensuring an equitable distribution of wealth. It also requires a strong respect for national prerogatives and soveriegnty .. all of that is lost in free market ideology.

I'm not sure capitalism requries a stron centralized role for government as much as the population requires a stability provided by a strong centralized government. Capitalism is freedom, socialism is safety.

 

[china]

iARTthere4iam

Capitalism is freedom, socialism is safety.

Nope , Capitalism is people taking advantage of other people . Socialism is the other way around .

 

[Niflmir]

Capitalism, like anything with the same suffix, is the philosophy that views the root word as the central aspect of the human condition (or at the very least, as the central method to another goal). In viewing capital as the primary indicator or vehicle of quality of life, capitalism necessary promotes certain views on how capital should be treated by society.

Under such views, classical economics proceeded to formulate an ideal market place, the perfect market, and show that this would result in price efficiency. One factor of the perfect market is that each producer was atomic, and thus a price taker. It was not that capitalism would produce a plethora of producers, it was that a plethora of producers were necessary to achieve the ideal marketplace.

There is nothing that says the ideal outcome of capitalism will or will not be equivalent to the ideal outcome of another philosophy. It is generally asserted by interested parties one way or another, however. In any case, capitalism is the philosphy that puts capital first. Socialism, is the philosophy that puts the members of society first. The ultimate objective is not price efficiency, it is the highest possible quality of life for all citizens; alternatively, the goal is the constant betterment of quality of life.

 

[warrior_won]

iARTthere4iam

Nope , Capitalism is people taking advantage of other people . Socialism is the other way around .

That's funny.

Capitalism is people taking advantage of other people. If Socialism is the other way around, then Socialism is different people taking advantage of other people.

I liken your stance to the argument for raising the minimum wage. Is raising the minimum wage a miracle cure for poverty? Not at all. At best, it's a placebo that maintains the present status quo. At worst, it's a poison pill that thrusts many more folks into poverty. So much for Socialism.

 

[Toro]

Capitalism, like anything with the same suffix, is the philosophy that views the root word as the central aspect of the human condition (or at the very least, as the central method to another goal). In viewing capital as the primary indicator or vehicle of quality of life, capitalism necessary promotes certain views on how capital should be treated by society.

Under such views, classical economics proceeded to formulate an ideal market place, the perfect market, and show that this would result in price efficiency. One factor of the perfect market is that each producer was atomic, and thus a price taker. It was not that capitalism would produce a plethora of producers, it was that a plethora of producers were necessary to achieve the ideal marketplace.

There is nothing that says the ideal outcome of capitalism will or will not be equivalent to the ideal outcome of another philosophy. It is generally asserted by interested parties one way or another, however. In any case, capitalism is the philosphy that puts capital first. Socialism, is the philosophy that puts the members of society first. The ultimate objective is not price efficiency, it is the highest possible quality of life for all citizens; alternatively, the goal is the constant betterment of quality of life.

A very insightful and intelligent post as always N, but I would disagree.

Most of those who believe in capitalism as the ideal - and I stress the word "ideal" - would say you have it backwards. It is capitalism that puts the individual first while socialism subjects the individuals to the powers and whims of the state. To the idealistic capitalist, the rights of the person in a socialist society is everywhere and always subsumed by the state, stripping away her ability to choose what is best for her. In a capitalistic society, the rights of the individual are paramount and placed ahead of those of the state. In this sense, socialism and fascism are similar in that the interests of the state are always put ahead of the individual. Thus, the ultimate objective is the highest possible quality of life, but that cannot be obtained in a socialist society where the state's interest always subsumes the individual's.

 

[Niflmir]

The minimum wage is a tool to maintain a certain threshold of wealth in the labor class. If the government has control of the value of the currency, they can accomplish this and more. Were they to release minimum wage completely, wealth and class would become dangerously polarized and there are many historical examples of this.

Periodically, the minimum wage must be increased to accomodate for inflation and thus prevent the lowest labor class from becoming poorer. Socialism which targets the minimum wage class can thus be achieved by increasing the minimum wage, controlling the value of currency and having a sufficient safety net to accomodate for fluctuations in the employment rate and prevent unemployment destitution.

To set up minimum wage as a supposed miracle cure, is to set it up to be knocked down: a straw man. Minimum wage can effect certain social goals given other effective policies.

 

[warrior_won]

The minimum wage is a tool to maintain a certain threshold of wealth in the labor class. If the government has control of the value of the currency, they can accomplish this and more. Were they to release minimum wage completely, wealth and class would become dangerously polarized and there are many historical examples of this.

Not to nitpick, but when you assert that there are many examples, you should provide at least one example to support your argument. Two examples would be even better, if you were wanting to avoid being accused of presenting the exception as the rule.

I find that I run into this practice all too often. People will use the phrase, "there are many examples of this," without providing any of those examples as corroboration. I've also been running into a lot of people who choose to stress the exception as the rule. It, apparently, is common practice for those seeking to mislead or manipulate facts. Not that I'm accusing you of this. I'm just saying.

As for your point about minimum wage being used to maintain a threshold, or "status quo" as I wrote, I agree. To think that raising the minimum wage would accomplish more than this is naive wishful thinking in my opinion. Of course, it is just my opinion.

 

[Niflmir]

A very insightful and intelligent post as always N, but I would disagree.

Most of those who believe in capitalism as the ideal - and I stress the word "ideal" - would say you have it backwards. It is capitalism that puts the individual first while socialism subjects the individuals to the powers and whims of the state. To the idealistic capitalist, the rights of the person in a socialist society is everywhere and always subsumed by the state, stripping away her ability to choose what is best for her. In a capitalistic society, the rights of the individual are paramount and placed ahead of those of the state. In this sense, socialism and fascism are similar in that the interests of the state are always put ahead of the individual. Thus, the ultimate objective is the highest possible quality of life, but that cannot be obtained in a socialist society where the state's interest always subsumes the individual's.

Haha, I tried to do some justice to capitalism, without appearing too biased. But it is generally quite impossible, one is always biased.

I would of course argue that socialism need not be utilitarian, or totalitarian, that was the lesson that the quebec government learned when the supreme court overturned their version of universal health care and ruled that they could not prevent private health care through legislation alone. This was a lesson for Quebec alone; had they sought systems such as Ontario's or Nova Scotia's they could have attempted to make private insurance infeasible. In any case I view socialism less as an ideal and more as a contant struggle for betterment, generally I am not really opposed to anything in particular but I do have the view that certain policies have been around for too long without achieving their objectives.

When I mentioned that capitalism in some cases views capital as the vehicle to some other objective, I was of course tyring to grant views which see capital as a primary step in granting personal freedoms or satisfaction. I was going to put in a statement about how superficial the definitions I was giving was, but didn't really know where to put it without giving undue weight. I simply left it at the statement that socialism and capitalism are not necessarily mutually exclusive at the ideal; in practice, there are many differences and insults based, sadly, on definitions such as the ones I gave.

 

[darkbeaver]

darkbeaver ,



Sounds very "intellectual"and wise,but it not the case darkbeaver.

How's it going China? At least it sounds" intellectual and wise" not being the case is not the point. So when you red that you didn't leap to the conclusion that I was an important author or a visiting proffessor, you're a hard one to fool Phil.:smile:

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Capitalism, like anything with the same suffix, is the philosophy that views the root word as the central aspect of the human condition (or at the very least, as the central method to another goal). In viewing capital as the primary indicator or vehicle of quality of life, capitalism necessary promotes certain views on how capital should be treated by society.

Under such views, classical economics proceeded to formulate an ideal market place, the perfect market, and show that this would result in price efficiency. One factor of the perfect market is that each producer was atomic, and thus a price taker. It was not that capitalism would produce a plethora of producers, it was that a plethora of producers were necessary to achieve the ideal marketplace.

There is nothing that says the ideal outcome of capitalism will or will not be equivalent to the ideal outcome of another philosophy. It is generally asserted by interested parties one way or another, however. In any case, capitalism is the philosphy that puts capital first. Socialism, is the philosophy that puts the members of society first. The ultimate objective is not price efficiency, it is the highest possible quality of life for all citizens; alternatively, the goal is the constant betterment of quality of life.

As mob rule is not democracy so too is materialism not capitalism. Capitalism is a framework through which individuals may choose their livelihood and do with their life what they will. Capitalism says nothing about what an individual may or should do with that life. Aquiring things is something that people do often because they don't know what else to do. Many people choose a life of religion, academic study, the study of the arts, travel or charitable works over income or the accumulation of stuff. Other people choose collecting massive piles of wealth. Still others spend lifetime accumulating wealth only to give it away in a grand flourish of philanthropy like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Andrew Carnegie.

 

[darkbeaver]

(Freedom is relative)----------Max Plank in a conversation with Werner Von Braun March 23 1926 01:37 AM Hymies Bar And Grill, in Hiedelburg . There China is that better. I suppose you won't be satisfied with Max's ideas niether. hanadhaha:lol:

 

[Niflmir]

Not to nitpick, but when you assert that there are many examples, you should provide at least one example to support your argument. Two examples would be even better, if you were wanting to avoid being accused of presenting the exception as the rule.

I find that I run into this practice all too often. People will use the phrase, "there are many examples of this," without providing any of those examples as corroboration. I've also been running into a lot of people who choose to stress the exception as the rule. It, apparently, is common practice for those seeking to mislead or manipulate facts. Not that I'm accusing you of this. I'm just saying.

As for your point about minimum wage being used to maintain a threshold, or "status quo" as I wrote, I agree. To think that raising the minimum wage would accomplish more than this is naive wishful thinking in my opinion. Of course, it is just my opinion.

It would be hard to level an argument against nitpicking when I could probably be accused of it quite often. In mentioning "historical" examples, I mean that a reasonably knowledgeable person can pick any society and go back in time, and know of a time where there was no minimum wage and simultaneously wealth was concentrated in the hands of a minority class. I left it at that hoping that people would accept historical as the proper emphasis and all the caveats that should go with history would necessary weaken any examples that I could currently come up with.

Plus, I really didn't feel like it was at all essential to my argument, so I left it intentionally weak, not wanting to string off debates on the applicability of early Canada, the early USA, pre-victorian England, pre renaissance European countries, and so forth.

The crux if the argument, without needing examples:

If one could keep the employment rate and the value of the currency constant, raising the minimum wage would indisputably make the minimum wage class richer: they would not be laid off or they would be but get jobs at equal or higher than minimum wage, the buying power of the money would be equal and so they are richer. Thus the dream of using it to empower the minimum wage class depends strongly on one's ability to control two capitalist indicators.

One can also weaken the requirements and still arrive at net gains for the minimum wage class, so long as the net gain from those still employed is higher than the net loss from those who end up seeking welfare due to layoffs, one can argue that it is better is some restricted sense.

In any case, given the reality of economies, doing away with the minimum wage or not increasing it with inflation would be disastrous from a social indicator standpoint.

 

[iARTthere4iam]

iARTthere4iam

Nope , Capitalism is people taking advantage of other people . Socialism is the other way around .

I am an artist. If I paint you a picture and you buy it, which of us took advantage of the other? If the government takes money (taxes) from me even before it reaches my wallet and then passes laws that restrict my freedom to buy (with my after-tax money) medically necessary treatment and forces me into a dangerously long que to wait for treatment, have I not been taken advantage of? Money taken, freedom restricted, health jepordized.

 

[Niflmir]

As mob rule is not democracy so too is materialism not capitalism. Capitalism is a framework through which individuals may choose their livelihood and do with their life what they will. Capitalism says nothing about what an individual may or should do with that life. Aquiring things is something that people do often because they don't know what else to do. Many people choose a life of religion, academic study, the study of the arts, travel or charitable works over income or the accumulation of stuff. Other people choose collecting massive piles of wealth. Still others spend lifetime accumulating wealth only to give it away in a grand flourish of philanthropy like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Andrew Carnegie.

Your mistake is in conflating capitalism with freedom. The two are distinct. From Merriam Webster:

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

As opposed to freedom to do with their lives what one wills, it is freedom to do with one's capital what one wishes. In this light a monarchy could just as easily be capitalist, in particular, I believe Saudi Arabia fits the bill quite nicely. Although you may believe that capitalism is the only government philosophy which can achieve the penultimate goal of social freedom, you do no justice to capitalism by equating the means with the attempted ends.

Opponents of capitalism, or proponents of alternative philosophies, point out that in order to achieve certain other goals, some investments must necessarily be prevented or constrained. In order to be free from smog for instance, an environmentalist would point out that we need to constrain investments in dirty energy production.

I have been attempting to be clear on the distinction between capital, money and material. In any case, I wanted to merely distinguish socialist politics from capitalist politics, now I will point out that there are also egalitarian politics, which will often be opposed to both of these and which take as first principles the ideas of freedom and equality.