Is capitalism bad?

[luns101]

Some feel that people should not languish because they don't have the right skill sets.

However, people can obtain skill sets that they once lacked for a variety of different occupations that will produce a reliable source of income for themselves.

[AlgyTaylor]

... A fair distribution of wealth? With capitalism, personal income will be determined by the demand for one's skills, no? Those with in-demand skill sets will make more than those with no training. This is bad?

... Or are you thinking of CEO types, raking in millions while smoking fat cigars and drinking cognac, laughing at the pitiful wretches working under them?

...

You do assume that the people who have the best skills always get paid the most money there. But Fair distribution of wealth - do you honestly think that Michael Jordan or David Beckham earning tens of millions of dollars a year are worth so much more than, say, an African farmer? Do they really put in so much more effort in to doing what they do and have a skill so useful that it warrants being paid so much more?

I'm not knocking either of them for taking the money that's offered to them, by the way - but I certainly don't approve of the system which puts them in that position in the first place.

[Nobunaga]

... A fair distribution of wealth? With capitalism, personal income will be determined by the demand for one's skills, no? Those with in-demand skill sets will make more than those with no training. This is bad?

... Or are you thinking of CEO types, raking in millions while smoking fat cigars and drinking cognac, laughing at the pitiful wretches working under them?

...

You do assume that the people who have the best skills always get paid the most money there. But Fair distribution of wealth - do you honestly think that Michael Jordan or David Beckham earning tens of millions of dollars a year are worth so much more than, say, an African farmer? Do they really put in so much more effort in to doing what they do and have a skill so useful that it warrants being paid so much more?

I'm not knocking either of them for taking the money that's offered to them, by the way - but I certainly don't approve of the system which puts them in that position in the first place.

... I do not assume, I state fact. People with the most in demand skill sets get paid more than those without. You believe this is not the case?

... And Michael Jordan? Well in the society we live in, his particular and very specialized set of skills was in extreme demand while he was playing. I'm not arguing that he helped more people than some random African guy, I am saying millions of people were willing to pay a lot of money to see Jordan play.

...

[AlgyTaylor]

... I do not assume, I state fact. People with the most in demand skill sets get paid more than those without. You believe this is not the case?

Correct. There's numerous factors which go in to determining how much someone gets paid, not just the skills they hold. For example, good trade union support will get higher wages without them necessarily being better than someone without trade union support. The length of time someone has been at a place of work also is a factor, even though that person may not possess as strong a skillset as someone who has been there for less time. People's gender (unfortunately) also can play a part sometimes, as does their location and .... need I go on? Wages are not determined purely by skill.

... And Michael Jordan? Well in the society we live in, his particular and very specialized set of skills was in extreme demand while he was playing. I'm not arguing that he helped more people than some random African guy, I am saying millions of people were willing to pay a lot of money to see Jordan play.

...

That may well be true - however, it doesn't mean that it's a fair distribution of wealth. Just one that has happened to occur because a lot of people have similar a similar opinion.

[72o]

... I do not assume, I state fact. People with the most in demand skill sets get paid more than those without. You believe this is not the case?

Correct. There's numerous factors which go in to determining how much someone gets paid, not just the skills they hold. For example, good trade union support will get higher wages without them necessarily being better than someone without trade union support. The length of time someone has been at a place of work also is a factor, even though that person may not possess as strong a skillset as someone who has been there for less time. People's gender (unfortunately) also can play a part sometimes, as does their location and .... need I go on? Wages are not determined purely by skill.

... And Michael Jordan? Well in the society we live in, his particular and very specialized set of skills was in extreme demand while he was playing. I'm not arguing that he helped more people than some random African guy, I am saying millions of people were willing to pay a lot of money to see Jordan play.

...

That may well be true - however, it doesn't mean that it's a fair distribution of wealth. Just one that has happened to occur because a lot of people have similar a similar opinion.

I think you have a misconception when it comes to defining "fair". "Fair" in this sense is whatever the market will bear. Someone was willing to pay MJ the amounts they did, making it a fair transaction.

Were you to sell your car, whatever price you agree upon with the buyer is a "fair" price, and will thusly be used as a benchmark for other open market pricing activities.

This is how everything works in a free market. Take the stock market. GE stock is selling at $14 a share. I can bitch and moan that this isn't a fair price, because I bought it at $40 a year ago, but guess what? The fact that people are buying and selling it at $14 means that $14 is the right price. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be changing hands.

So, any distribution of wealth that is agreed upon by the parties engaged in the transaction is by its very definition "fair". The only time that "unfair" transactions take place is when one party or the other is compelled to accept less than "fair" terms because of some external circumstance that negatively impacts the normal market equilibrium, such as union involvement or governmental legislation.

The amount of a particular individual is paid is affected not only by their skills, but also by factors you mention above like labor unions, gender, age, etc. What you're missing is that these factors are affecting the demand for that worker. If I am hiring for a Hooters waitress, my criteria will value certain, ahem, assets more than waitressing skills. If I'm a successful wealthy male office manager, I might value a female assistant higher for the potential extra-curricular activity over an equally qualified male. A plant manager running a union plant will place a higher value on a union worker, because hiring that union worker will please the union, who can make life very difficult for him otherwise. While you may say that these things aren't "fair", they do affect the value of any particular individual in the open market. To try to control this demand artificially by mandating a particular individual's value arbitrarily would actually be "unfair".

[2dimes]

Not to downplay the African agricultural industry but I think Mike Jordan and Beckham probably do work harder then most of those guys.

I most certainly would rather eat some nice food than watch sports to be honest though.

[Nobunaga]

... Yeah, what he said.

...

[jay_a2j]

Capitalism is not bad.
That is not the same as saying unregulated, unrestrained capitalism with no checks and balances is good.

Just as long as the regulations and checks and balances are built within and DO NOT come from government.

But what if they don't "self-regulate?" As they very very very rarely have?

In that case, States can step in and pass laws. The Fed needs to be put in check, they have too often over stepped their bounds.

[ser stiefel]

Interesting topic.

I have recently re-watched the Donahue interviews with Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman (available on google). The discussion of the value (positive or negative) of capitalism is very interesting to me, and it is interesting to see that the arguments going on today are the exact arguments that were presented and rebutted on Donahue 30-40 years ago. I have Adam Smith on my reading list, but have not read him yet. "Wealth of Nations" in particular.

Nothing new under the sun.

[luns101]

Not to downplay the African agricultural industry but I think Mike Jordan and Beckham probably do work harder then most of those guys.

I most certainly would rather eat some nice food than watch sports to be honest though.

Fortune magazine had an article on Michael Jordan's impact on the economy back in the 90s. Counterpoint to that still admits that Jordan-related industries created wealth.

The notion that wealth is static and can't be increased/created is a hard one to overcome. Many people believe what the popular culture shows us in movies, tv, and music to be true. These sources often portray business people (CEOs in particular) as villainous. Entry-level employees are portrayed as the "good guys". So it's no wonder that people believe that wealth is finite and that it must be redistributed "fairly".

This report is about 11 years old now, but goes into the issue of greed, profit, and the role of business. I know, I know...another John Stossel report It's instructive though to those who might currently be thinking through the issue and aren't as vocal in the forums.

Greed, part 1
Greed, part 2
Greed, part 3
Greed, part 4
Greed, part 5
Greed, part 6

[hecter]

Capitalism is good, greed is bad.

Capitalism is based on greed.

No, its based on a free market and competition.


Well at least we all know who voted "yes" now.

Actually, I didn't vote. As it's been stated, you can't simply place an entire political ideology into such narrow little categories. To do so is simply foolish.

The free market and competition is all about making a profit, as much profit as you can. It's not about the betterment of human kind, or your nation, but rather for the benefit of your company. That's pretty greedy if you ask me.

[jay_a2j]

Capitalism is good, greed is bad.

Capitalism is based on greed.

No, its based on a free market and competition.


Well at least we all know who voted "yes" now.

Actually, I didn't vote. As it's been stated, you can't simply place an entire political ideology into such narrow little categories. To do so is simply foolish.

The free market and competition is all about making a profit, as much profit as you can. It's not about the betterment of human kind, or your nation, but rather for the benefit of your company. That's pretty greedy if you ask me.

Well, if owning a business was about "taking a loss" no one would be in it. People need to stop thinking it's ok to punish success. Yes, greed is sometimes an unfortunate result of making profits but the error lies within the individual not the system. Why does anyone go to work? Because they profit from it. If they didn't, they'd stay home.

[Agent 86]

Well, we can take a look at communism..it just doesn't work on a large scale. I live in China and the concensus here is that capitalism is the way to go. Bye bye Mao, Stalin and Marx you idiots got it wrong....

86

[Nobunaga]

Well, we can take a look at communism..it just doesn't work on a large scale. I live in China and the concensus here is that capitalism is the way to go. Bye bye Mao, Stalin and Marx you idiots got it wrong....

86

... What part of China? (i've spent some time there - Shenzhen, Xi'an, Beijing).

... Oh, gotta' stay on topic... Capitalism rocks!

...

[Phatscotty]

why would you even ask the question in the first place. Milk is bad for you if you drink 2 gallons a day.......it's all on the people individually to make it or break it.

[hecter]

Capitalism is good, greed is bad.

Capitalism is based on greed.

No, its based on a free market and competition.


Well at least we all know who voted "yes" now.

Actually, I didn't vote. As it's been stated, you can't simply place an entire political ideology into such narrow little categories. To do so is simply foolish.

The free market and competition is all about making a profit, as much profit as you can. It's not about the betterment of human kind, or your nation, but rather for the benefit of your company. That's pretty greedy if you ask me.

Well, if owning a business was about "taking a loss" no one would be in it. People need to stop thinking it's ok to punish success. Yes, greed is sometimes an unfortunate result of making profits but the error lies within the individual not the system. Why does anyone go to work? Because they profit from it. If they didn't, they'd stay home.

So what you're saying is that in order to get into business, the individual who goes into business, whether it's owning one or working for one, must profit? And since businesses is what capitalism is based on, and making profit is, quite simply, greed, then effectually capitalism is based on greed. You say greed is bad, therefore, by your definition, capitalism is bad.

[Phatscotty]

Well, if owning a business was about "taking a loss" no one would be in it. People need to stop thinking it's ok to punish success. Yes, greed is sometimes an unfortunate result of making profits but the error lies within the individual not the system. Why does anyone go to work? Because they profit from it. If they didn't, they'd stay home.[/quote]
So what you're saying is that in order to get into business, the individual who goes into business, whether it's owning one or working for one, must profit? And since businesses is what capitalism is based on, and making profit is, quite simply, greed, then effectually capitalism is based on greed. You say greed is bad, therefore, by your definition, capitalism is bad.[/quote]
that is the most narrow analysis I have ever heard

[hecter]

that is the most narrow analysis I have ever heard

You cannot deny that capitalism is based on greed. It's been stated time and time again, "If you have nothing to gain, you wouldn't go into business, you wouldn't work." Gain, making profit, is inherently greedy. You want something. There has to be a personal reward. How is that not greed? I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's bad, but it's greed nonetheless.

[Phatscotty]

that is the most narrow analysis I have ever heard

You cannot deny that capitalism is based on greed. It's been stated time and time again, "If you have nothing to gain, you wouldn't go into business, you wouldn't work." Gain, making profit, is inherently greedy. You want something. There has to be a personal reward. How is that not greed? I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's bad, but it's greed nonetheless.

capitalism allows for greed. there are many types of ways greed an be used, for good and bad. Is greed for love bad? greed for security for your family? Is it greedy to be a doctor, only for the money? capitalism utilizes greed, which creates jobs. jobs dont magically appear, they are created by someone elses drive for a profit. its a beutiful thing actually.

GREED is a human trait, as common as "emotion" or "adrenaline". it's perfectly natural

[hecter]

that is the most narrow analysis I have ever heard

You cannot deny that capitalism is based on greed. It's been stated time and time again, "If you have nothing to gain, you wouldn't go into business, you wouldn't work." Gain, making profit, is inherently greedy. You want something. There has to be a personal reward. How is that not greed? I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's bad, but it's greed nonetheless.

capitalism allows for greed. there are many types of ways greed an be used, for good and bad. Is greed for love bad? greed for security for your family? Is it greedy to be a doctor, only for the money? capitalism utilizes greed, which creates jobs. jobs dont magically appear, they are created by someone elses drive for a profit. its a beutiful thing actually.

GREED is a human trait, as common as "emotion" or "adrenaline". it's perfectly natural

Jay disagrees.

Capitalism is good, greed is bad.

I say that you cannot have capitalism without greed. That's all, nothing more.

[Phatscotty]

that is the most narrow analysis I have ever heard

You cannot deny that capitalism is based on greed. It's been stated time and time again, "If you have nothing to gain, you wouldn't go into business, you wouldn't work." Gain, making profit, is inherently greedy. You want something. There has to be a personal reward. How is that not greed? I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's bad, but it's greed nonetheless.

capitalism allows for greed. there are many types of ways greed an be used, for good and bad. Is greed for love bad? greed for security for your family? Is it greedy to be a doctor, only for the money? capitalism utilizes greed, which creates jobs. jobs dont magically appear, they are created by someone elses drive for a profit. its a beutiful thing actually.

GREED is a human trait, as common as "emotion" or "adrenaline". it's perfectly natural

Jay disagrees.

Capitalism is good, greed is bad.

I say that you cannot have capitalism without greed. That's all, nothing more.

he does not, i said capitlaism is good, and greed can be good or bad. um...so....

[Woodruff]

Think the idea of having a political ideology 'good' or 'bad' is a bit of a strange one.

Capitalism - yeah, it's good at some things (offering choice, maximising production) and bad at others (a fair distribution of wealth, doesn't "think" about the consequences of it's actions).

... A fair distribution of wealth? With capitalism, personal income will be determined by the demand for one's skills, no? Those with in-demand skill sets will make more than those with no training. This is bad?

... Or are you thinking of CEO types, raking in millions while smoking fat cigars and drinking cognac, laughing at the pitiful wretches working under them?

...

Some feel that people should not languish because they don't have the right skill sets.

I have all the right skill sets for languishing. I'm in fact more than competent at it.

[john9blue]

By "greed" I imagine he meant "greed at the expense of others". Greed has a negative connotation, but at its core is nothing more than the desire to acquire things, which is fine.

[jay_a2j]

So what you're saying is that in order to get into business, the individual who goes into business, whether it's owning one or working for one, must profit?

If not, they go OUT OF BUSINESS. Profits are a must for a business to be successful.

And since businesses is what capitalism is based on, and making profit is, quite simply, greed, then effectually capitalism is based on greed. You say greed is bad, therefore, by your definition, capitalism is bad.

Wrong. Capitalism is not based on greed. If Joe who owns Big Mart sells a TV for $400, and Sue who owns Small Mart sells the same TV for $350, Sue will probably sell more TV's because it's cheaper. (and this is why Wal-Mart is so successful here in the US) Now if the government owns both Big Mart and Small Mart and sell the TV for $500 , too bad, there is no other place to buy the TV from because there is no competition.



Greed is like when a company makes products overseas in some 3rd world sweatshop, paying the employees .50 an hour to make their goods. This is bad. And not a result of Capitalism, it's a result of greed. (Sorry Wal-Mart, you greedy business you!)

[jay_a2j]

that is the most narrow analysis I have ever heard

You cannot deny that capitalism is based on greed. It's been stated time and time again, "If you have nothing to gain, you wouldn't go into business, you wouldn't work." Gain, making profit, is inherently greedy. You want something. There has to be a personal reward. How is that not greed? I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's bad, but it's greed nonetheless.

Do you go to work? Then by your own definition YOU are greedy.