"Capitalism is thoroughly immoral and has no moral foundation," said Kirkpatrick Sale…"In fact, it celebrates all of what we know of as the seven deadly sins except for sloth."
A new center at Clemson University, focused on the moral foundations of capitalism, puts forth a different view. The pointer is from www.politicaltheory.info.
To me capitalism is about making and keeping agreements. Between each other and between society and the individual.
Its about rewarding hard work and innovation. Its about making wise decisions about resources. Its about aligning individual self interest with the common good. Its about creating institutions that reward long term investment in things which are useful to others.
If anything, the so-called evils of capitalism occur where this alignment has not yet been created. No one owns the oceans yet, so they are polluted and overfished. No one has created financial instruments that invest in student futures, so education remains an underfunded, political morass, at least where government is involved.
And frequently, what people are calling capitalist is nothing remotely resembling what I consider it to be. Before you can agree about how good something is, you have to at least agree upon a definition. It seems many of capitalisms critics are loathe to do exactly that.
Capitalism isn’t immoral; it’s amoral. Like technology, it can be used for good or evil; the moral implications are a matter of the individual using it.
Capitalism works because people are made for the most part to produce before they are paid. Speculators produce AND THEN offer to the market. It is a system which encourages overproduction, and many trying to enter the existing market, as well as making new ones. I don’t think its any more moral than anything else.
Profit is just money that is overpaid for a product or service. Its just money for nothing, no different than the welfare people criticize. A lot of the financial markets are just casinos. The secret of the system is the speculative production. People will still work for break-even money. After all, we have to live. Remember, its not the profit motive, but speculative production that makes it all work.
I think capitalism can have morals. I mean if companies don’t take care of there employees what will they have. I do have a problem when there is no government oversight because of the monopolies that sometimes form. However there is a need for them I assume because if you have government ran business someone will always be trying to steal from somewhere. I do think however sometimes there is to much capitalism companies like Wal-Mart. That get away with paying there employees under the poverty line that isn’t right that is where the government should and did set in Maryland where the sate forced Wal-Mart to cover there employees with more insurance. That I think is an example of where capitalism has no morals.
I personally think that as wealth increases that people value their time more. This means that a wealthy person has a better guage on what their time wether it is work or play is worth. For example, rich people are more likely to hire someone to do their lawn and yard work. Does this mean that wealthy people are lazy? No, I don’t think so. what it means is that wealthy person understands that it is more productive for them to work hard at their occupation (what they are good at) and spend less time doing other less productive work (mowing lawn). Therefore, it may seem to the average person that wealthy indivduals have more free time. This is a great example of absolute advantage. The wealthy indivdual does what he or she is great at doing while allowing others who are good at yard and lawn work to do that job. By doing this both groups get a higher return and higher productivity.
Econstudent79
Or maybe they just don’t like yard work.
The question was “Doesn’t leisure time rise with wealth?” What an interesting question that is that one poses.
Here are two examples of why this question contradicts itself and makes no sense at all.
The first example is: I am a college student. I don’t have leisure time. Is it to be suggested that the reason that I don’t have leisure time is because I do not possess wealth? No-the reason why I do not have leisure time is because I am too busy with academics/extracurricular activities/community service/etc. to have any leisure time.
The second exampe is: One of my friend’s parents is a lawyer. They have no leisure time. but-it was stated that wealth buys you leisure time, and lawyers possess wealth. So, what kind of generalization is being made here?
This question makes no sense whatsoever.
Wealth doesnt get you leisure time, wealth
helps you come to terms with being
poor as a kid. Since you have money, now you
can afford to do whatever you want. So I
figure this blog is telling me that the
older you get the more money you make whichs in
s sense brings happiness.
“This is a great example of absolute advantage. The wealthy indivdual does what he or she is great at doing while allowing others who are good at yard and lawn work to do that job. ”
In most cases, that’s true. For some, it may be an example of comparative advantage.
I’m in good condition, and trained in industrial engineering. I could probably figure out how to do my lawn work more efficiently than the Mexican-American I hire. But I’d be forced to reduce time spent on my small business. Hiring that lawn worker allows us both to increase our wealth.
Comments on this entry are closed.