A criticism that strikes the core of free market capitalism

[joe]

So far, every economic criticism of free market capitalism, to me, is not satisfying. I think the free market does the best job of setting prices, not government or anyone else. I think the market does best when there is almost zero regulation. On and on.

However, this is a critique that I have thought about many times, and it is more philosophical or from a humanities perspective.

The backbone of capitalism is human greed. We believe that if the market is left unchecked by the government, human greed will naturally create a flourishing society. Business owners, desiring money, will pour their blood and sweat into creating a new product for the lowest possible price (the greed of the customer coming into play). Over time, these constant innovations will create prosperity. I believe this to be 100% true.

However, when you continuously praise greed in a society, how can that not cause problems? Sure, we argue that the GOVERNMENT is to blame for most of our economic problems. But arent they not just acting out of their own greed? The politicians pass laws so they can gain favors and friends, improving their own lot in life. The regulators are busy bodies because they want more power and money and influence.

How can a society based on greed not eventually spawn a government based on greed?

Not only government, what about society itself? People treat cashiers and store clerks like shit. Employers pay less for longer hours, always looking to squeeze more out of their employees. People in general just care about their money and their own situation.

How much of this is natural to humans, and how much is encouraged by our society, and the fact that we want EVERYTHING yesterday. We always want the best of the best, as quick as possible, no hassle, no annoyance. Everyone just complaining constantly when they dont get exactly what they want in a minutes notice.

I dont think the government can do a good job of regulating the economy- I am not saying they should. I dont think they should regulate our greed. But as human beings, should we have higher standards for ourselves when it comes to greed? When it comes to money? Should we be willing to accept slightly inferior products if it means employees can take regular breaks and not have to work weekends? Should we stop exalting luxury and owning a Mercedes and all of these things? Is that really good for us?

The main question here.. how can a society/economy based on greed, not wind up with a shitty, greedy government and tons of rudeness and impatience among the people?

[97 bulls]

Heres the problem as I see it. Free markets would be great if these "competing businesses". actually competed. They don't. Case and point. Next time you pull into a gas station, check the prices of them (theres almost always two or three sharing an intersection. They almost always are priced the same or within a few pennies of each other. Is that really competitive????

The car companies always make cars very similar to each other. All the full sized suv seat 7-8 passengers and have the same options with the same price. Hell they even look the same.

"Competing" grocery stores price their food the same.

To me, business is just one big entity.....

[dubeta]

Heres the problem as I see it. Free markets would be great if these "competing businesses". actually competed. They don't. Case and point. Next time you pull into a gas station, check the prices of them (theres almost always two or three sharing an intersection. They almost always are priced the same or within a few pennies of each other. Is that really competitive????

The car companies always make cars very similar to each other. All the full sized suv seat 7-8 passengers and have the same options with the same price. Hell they even look the same.

"Competing" grocery stores price their food the same.

To me, business is just one big entity.....


:facepalm

LOL u do realize how commodities work right?

[joe]

Heres the problem as I see it. Free markets would be great if these "competing businesses". actually competed. They don't. Case and point. Next time you pull into a gas station, check the prices of them (theres almost always two or three sharing an intersection. They almost always are priced the same or within a few pennies of each other. Is that really competitive????

The car companies always make cars very similar to each other. All the full sized suv seat 7-8 passengers and have the same options with the same price. Hell they even look the same.

"Competing" grocery stores price their food the same.

To me, business is just one big entity.....

Another example of this- car parts becoming shittier over time. My mechanic is always talking to me about this. He took a door off this new car the other day when we were there, the thing was like a piece of aluminum with cotton inside. Thin as a piece of loose leaf, figuratively speaking. He tells me about the old cars he works on, how strong and sturdy the frames are.

The problem with these types of examples though is that we are not currently living in a capitalist economy. We have more non-capitalism in our economy now than the USA has had in a very long time, hundreds of years. And we are starting to see many of the problems of government control in the economy, that many people blame on capitalism as though we are even a capitalist country at this point. We are to a degree, but that degree is getting smaller all of the time!

[joe]

Heres the problem as I see it. Free markets would be great if these "competing businesses". actually competed. They don't. Case and point. Next time you pull into a gas station, check the prices of them (theres almost always two or three sharing an intersection. They almost always are priced the same or within a few pennies of each other. Is that really competitive????

The car companies always make cars very similar to each other. All the full sized suv seat 7-8 passengers and have the same options with the same price. Hell they even look the same.

"Competing" grocery stores price their food the same.

To me, business is just one big entity.....

I see what you are saying in a way.

But first of all, we are not aware of what these companies are PAYING for these products. Maybe they are operating on small margins. Can most grocery stores afford to lower prices? It might not be feasible.

You do see competition though. What about the $1 shampoos verses the more expensive ones? The organic food against the maybe less healthy but cheaper food? Some gas stations pump your gas for you, some dont.

[97 bulls]

:facepalm

LOL u do realize how commodities work right?
Absolutely.

[97 bulls]

I see what you are saying in a way.

But first of all, we are not aware of what these companies are PAYING for these products. Maybe they are operating on small margins. Can most grocery stores afford to lower prices? It might not be feasible.

You do see competition though. What about the $1 shampoos verses the more expensive ones? The organic food against the maybe less healthy but cheaper food? Some gas stations pump your gas for you, some dont.
Im sure they're paying the same price for the same item. It comes down to how much a company is willing to compete for the consumer. They don't compete. They all seem to have the same margin and just work with that. It almost like theyre colluding.


I remember a commercial (for the life of me I can't remember what it was for), in which a hotdog vendor opens up a cart right directly across the street from another and posts a sign selling his hitdogs for 50

[KevinNYC]

Joe, I think you're making a lot of assumptions here that aren't true.
I think the free market does the best job of setting prices, not government or anyone else. I think the market does best when there is almost zero regulation. On and on.
Do you have any examples of free market capitalism without government regulation? If I sign a contract with you and you take my money without delivering the goods, what's my form of redress without fraud legislation and access to government courts? Do I show up at your house with a baseball bat? If I personally have to enforce of all my contracts with threat of force, is that efficient? Does that lead to proper planning and allocation of capital?

What about property rights? Patent rights? What about laws that allow investors to keep their own money when a company goes bankrupt? When countries have no regulations or weak government, do they flourish? Or do they produce mafias and warlords?


The backbone of capitalism is human greed. We believe that if the market is left unchecked by the government, human greed will naturally create a flourishing society.Is this true or are you confusing self-interest with greed? Greed is beyond self-interest, greed is excessive. You can participate in capitalism without being greedy. Again do you have any examples of unchecked human greed producing a flourishing society?


Business owners, desiring money, will pour their blood and sweat into creating a new product for the lowest possible price (the greed of the customer coming into play). Over time, these constant innovations will create prosperity. I believe this to be 100% true.Do you know any business owners? Because this is just a platitude. Lots of business owners I know want to get the highest price they can and they are actually concerned with "not leaving any money on the table" and "cutting corners (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/06/documents-bp-cut-corners-in-days-before-gulf-explosion/1#.VWlPEc9VhBc)." Did you hear the one about the ****ing Olive Garden refused to salt its pasta water to save money? (http://www.businessinsider.com/starboard-olive-garden-doesnt-salt-pasta-water-2014-9) If prosperity is a mouthful of lousy unedible pasta, you can keep it.
However, when you continuously praise greed in a society, how can that not cause problems? Sure, we argue that the GOVERNMENT is to blame for most of our economic problems. But arent they not just acting out of their own greed? The politicians pass laws so they can gain favors and friends, improving their own lot in life. The regulators are busy bodies because they want more power and money and influenceDon't let go off the rope. Look down and do you recognize anything below you? I'll go get help. Try and stay tethered to the ground while I'm gone.


Employers pay less for longer hours, always looking to squeeze more out of their employees. Oh, you have met some business owners.
I don't think the government can do a good job of regulating the economy- I am not saying they should. I dont think they should regulate our greed. But as human beings, should we have higher standards for ourselves when it comes to greed? When it comes to money? Should we be willing to accept slightly inferior products if it means employees can take regular breaks and not have to work weekends? Should we stop exalting luxury and owning a Mercedes and all of these things? Is that really good for us?

The main question here.. how can a society/economy based on greed, not wind up with a shitty, greedy government and tons of rudeness and impatience among the people?It's a pickle. However, I guess there's a reason that morality and ethics and religion and philosophy are all thousands of years older than capitalism.

[kNIOKAS]

Joe, I think you're making a lot of assumptions here that aren't true.
Do you have any examples of free market capitalism without government regulation? If I sign a contract with you and you take my money without delivering the goods, what's my form of redress without fraud legislation and access to government courts? Do I show up at your house with a baseball bat? If I personally have to enforce of all my contracts with threat of force, is that efficient? Does that lead to proper planning and allocation of capital?

What about property rights? Patent rights? What about laws that allow investors to keep their own money when a company goes bankrupt? When countries have no regulations or weak government, do they flourish? Or do they produce mafias and warlords?

Is this true or are you confusing self-interest with greed? Greed is beyond self-interest, greed is excessive. You can participate in capitalism without being greedy. Again do you have any examples of unchecked human greed producing a flourishing society?

Do you know any business owners? Because this is just a platitude. Lots of business owners I know want to get the highest price they can and they are actually concerned with "not leaving any money on the table" and "cutting corners (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/06/documents-bp-cut-corners-in-days-before-gulf-explosion/1#.VWlPEc9VhBc)." Did you hear the one about the ****ing Olive Garden refused to salt its pasta water to save money? (http://www.businessinsider.com/starboard-olive-garden-doesnt-salt-pasta-water-2014-9) If prosperity is a mouthful of lousy unedible pasta, you can keep it.Don't let go off the rope. Look down and do you recognize anything below you? I'll go get help. Try and stay tethered to the ground while I'm gone.

Oh, you have met some business owners. It's a pickle. However, I guess there's a reason that morality and ethics and religion and philosophy are all thousands of years older than capitalism.
OK good post.


I would chime in later because now very busy with the paper.

[Droid101]

Good thread.

Expect chewing and the other repubtards to ignore it.

[Dresta]

The only legitimate criticism of the free-market is that it is too radical, that it changes things too drastically, too quickly, and that this is destructive to pre-existing norms and conventions, particularly when combined with democratic governance, which tends to isolate individuals - thus being destructive to societal harmony.

It is basically a truism that limited government, equality before the law, and unfettered capitalism produces vast accumulations of wealth and a large increase in the general standard of living, over a short period of time. To deny this is to deny the hand that fed you, and to ignore the very reason you are able to congregate and worship the Federal government on ISHs like Kev does.

What you guys are really railing about is the greed produced by democracy, not capitalism, which has always existed in one form or another (and was generally restrained by aristocracies who considered wealth to be of only tertiary significance). What we have now is looking more and more like the Mercantilism Adam Smith railed against in 1776, so there isn't anything particularly new about it: just another reversion back to tribal instincts (because capitalism, for its flaws, is open and expansive, and the opposite of tribal).

[NumberSix]

Heres the problem as I see it. Free markets would be great if these "competing businesses". actually competed. They don't. Case and point. Next time you pull into a gas station, check the prices of them (theres almost always two or three sharing an intersection. They almost always are priced the same or within a few pennies of each other. Is that really competitive????

The car companies always make cars very similar to each other. All the full sized suv seat 7-8 passengers and have the same options with the same price. Hell they even look the same.

"Competing" grocery stores price their food the same.

To me, business is just one big entity.....
Wal-Mart doesn't compete?

They use all their leverage to sell the same products at lower prices than other stores. They've crushed all of their competitors because they give the customer what they want.

The point of a free market is not to succeed. It is to succeed OR fail on your own merit.

The essence of a free market is in the first word, not the second. Freedom.

[joe]

The only legitimate criticism of the free-market is that it is too radical, that it changes things too drastically, too quickly, and that this is destructive to pre-existing norms and conventions, particularly when combined with democratic governance, which tends to isolate individuals - thus being destructive to societal harmony.

It is basically a truism that limited government, equality before the law, and unfettered capitalism produces vast accumulations of wealth and a large increase in the general standard of living, over a short period of time. To deny this is to deny the hand that fed you, and to ignore the very reason you are able to congregate and worship the Federal government on ISHs like Kev does.

What you guys are really railing about is the greed produced by democracy, not capitalism, which has always existed in one form or another (and was generally restrained by aristocracies who considered wealth to be of only tertiary significance). What we have now is looking more and more like the Mercantilism Adam Smith railed against in 1776, so there isn't anything particularly new about it: just another reversion back to tribal instincts (because capitalism, for its flaws, is open and expansive, and the opposite of tribal).

I was hoping you replied.

At the heart of this is really a question of human nature and what we value. Do we HAVE to value materialism to such a high degree that we become kind of...***** to everyone else?

I agree with you about limited government+markets=prosperity as a truism. Especially if those limits are in the right places. I believe our central economic problem right now is the central banking, central regulation and control. I think that is why our economy will continue to get worse and worse over time.

Here is an example of what I feel Dresta.

I own a Wii U and every Thursday they release new downloadable games for their virtual store. And almost every Thursday I am disappointed in the games they release. A lot of people are, and they end up writing posts about how much Nintendo sucks, they need to do this game instead, or that game instead of what they actually did. I don't actually take the time to post about it but I am annoyed nonetheless.

However, that annoyance and anger we feel might have effects on real people. The owners lose money, so they start to put pressure on the lower bosses and managers to do better. The employees feel the heat and are getting shit on all the time by the managers. They have to work harder, more hours to give these crying customers what they want and have to have soooo much.

And I was just thinking... do I really need Nintendo to make certain games on their virtual console for me THAT BAD? Do I really care that much that I need to allow it to make me angry or annoyed? Should somebody else have to work overtime so I can download Paper Mario and finally my life will be fulfilled?

I am not saying that we should shun materialism and live in huts. But does a society based on capitalism make us too greedy, too demanding, and put too much expectation on others?

That is not to mention the government side of things which is probably a bigger question. Doesn't the prosperity of capitalism and the greed of such a society lead to a government that is out of control with greed and power lust? I mean... we have all allowed ourselves to chase greed and power without any shame or guilt. The government just does the same, except they are also in control of the law and often above the law.

What are your thoughts?

[NumberSix]

I was hoping you replied.

At the heart of this is really a question of human nature and what we value. Do we HAVE to value materialism to such a high degree that we become kind of...***** to everyone else?

I agree with you about limited government+markets=prosperity as a truism. Especially if those limits are in the right places. I believe our central economic problem right now is the central banking, central regulation and control. I think that is why our economy will continue to get worse and worse over time.

Here is an example of what I feel Dresta.

I own a Wii U and every Thursday they release new downloadable games for their virtual store. And almost every Thursday I am disappointed in the games they release. A lot of people are, and they end up writing posts about how much Nintendo sucks, they need to do this game instead, or that game instead of what they actually did. I don't actually take the time to post about it but I am annoyed nonetheless.

However, that annoyance and anger we feel might have effects on real people. The owners lose money, so they start to put pressure on the lower bosses and managers to do better. The employees feel the heat and are getting shit on all the time by the managers. They have to work harder, more hours to give these crying customers what they want and have to have soooo much.

And I was just thinking... do I really need Nintendo to make certain games on their virtual console for me THAT BAD? Do I really care that much that I need to allow it to make me angry or annoyed? Should somebody else have to work overtime so I can download Paper Mario and finally my life will be fulfilled?

I am not saying that we should shun materialism and live in huts. But does a society based on capitalism make us too greedy, too demanding, and put too much expectation on others?

That is not to mention the government side of things which is probably a bigger question. Doesn't the prosperity of capitalism and the greed of such a society lead to a government that is out of control with greed and power lust? I mean... we have all allowed ourselves to chase greed and power without any shame or guilt. The government just does the same, except they are also in control of the law and often above the law.

What are your thoughts?
That's exactly why the government should have very little power.

Don't get stuck on things like greed, money, success or failure. What we are really talking about is freedom vs government control.

Capitalism is a dumb word. It's not an accurate one either. "Ism" means an ideology. There is no ideology of capital. It's not like marxism where idiots believe doing certain things and taking certain steps will create a utopian society. Nobody thinks a free market will create a utopian society. It's just a preference for living in a more free society.

[joe]

Do you have any examples of free market capitalism without government regulation? If I sign a contract with you and you take my money without delivering the goods, what's my form of redress without fraud legislation and access to government courts? Do I show up at your house with a baseball bat? If I personally have to enforce of all my contracts with threat of force, is that efficient? Does that lead to proper planning and allocation of capital?


This is both a legit question but also a red herring. My post is directed at those who already accept that free markets with a very limited government creates prosperity. If you don't believe that, this isn't the post where I am looking to debate it. I want to talk about the other implications of a capitalist society as I see them.

However, one good example would be the Wild West expansion in the usa. Despite the propaganda that says the Wild West was a madhouse of murder and mayhem, it was actually very non-violent, peaceful, and people built a market economy without the federal government around at all- because they had yet to expand past the east coast.


Oh, you have met some business owners. It's a pickle. However, I guess there's a reason that morality and ethics and religion and philosophy are all thousands of years older than capitalism.

Yeah that is probably true

[NumberSix]

Joe, I think you're making a lot of assumptions here that aren't true.
Do you have any examples of free market capitalism without government regulation? If I sign a contract with you and you take my money without delivering the goods, what's my form of redress without fraud legislation and access to government courts? Do I show up at your house with a baseball bat? If I personally have to enforce of all my contracts with threat of force, is that efficient? Does that lead to proper planning and allocation of capital?
That's enforcement of contract law. Enforcing contracts isn't a market regulation.

[Eric Cartman]

But does a society based on capitalism make us too greedy, too demanding, and put too much expectation on others?
Without a doubt.

Like the way you think :cheers:

[joe]

That's exactly why the government should have very little power.

Don't get stuck on things like greed, money, success or failure. What we are really talking about is freedom vs government control.

Capitalism is a dumb word. It's not an accurate one either. "Ism" means an ideology. There is no ideology of capital. It's not like marxism where idiots believe doing certain things and taking certain steps will create a utopian society. Nobody thinks a free market will create a utopian society. It's just a preference for living in a more free society.

Personally, I am not talking about freedom vs government control. I think a very limited government + capitalism is the best system, the one I would most want to live in. I also believe in freedom, the idea of negative rights, all of those things. Even with this criticism, I do not think the government should in any way regulate our greed to try and make us a better society.

But should we ourselves do that.. to ourselves? Should we as people learn to recognize our own greed and work to not have so much of it? Maybe we can be a little more patient when the waiter is not getting us our food right away. Maybe we can buy less things and not constantly have to define ourselves through products. I know I am working at having less DEMAND all of the time. Just learn to live with what I have and not always be looking for the next best thing.

[joe]

That's exactly why the government should have very little power.

Don't get stuck on things like greed, money, success or failure. What we are really talking about is freedom vs government control.

Capitalism is a dumb word. It's not an accurate one either. "Ism" means an ideology. There is no ideology of capital. It's not like marxism where idiots believe doing certain things and taking certain steps will create a utopian society. Nobody thinks a free market will create a utopian society. It's just a preference for living in a more free society.

Ism: a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.

I think capitalism does qualify as an ism, because there are certain philosophies behind it that you must agree to before you can accept capitalism as a whole.

You have to accept the idea of property rights. Should humans really be able to own 100 miles of property just because they have more money? Why do we not share the Earth with each other? How can somebody own a large chunk of something that is completely natural.. while other people only have a small hut with no good land? So you do have to accept property rights.

You also have to accept the idea that individuals are in charge of their own capital. Bill Gates can get rich, and then invest in what he wants. And he can own the equipment and machinery of his investments. For instance in fascism, the belief is that individuals should not have the ability to own their own capital equipment, all of that is owned by the government.

[joe]

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Im sure they're paying the same price for the same item. It comes down to how much a company is willing to compete for the consumer. They don't compete. They all seem to have the same margin and just work with that. It almost like theyre colluding.


I remember a commercial (for the life of me I can't remember what it was for), in which a hotdog vendor opens up a cart right directly across the street from another and posts a sign selling his hitdogs for 50

[kNIOKAS]

So far, every economic criticism of free market capitalism, to me, is not satisfying. I think the free market does the best job of setting prices, not government or anyone else. I think the market does best when there is almost zero regulation. On and on.

However, this is a critique that I have thought about many times, and it is more philosophical or from a humanities perspective.
So OP is on to provide a critique that's more satisfying to him, personally, because others are not. Very well.


The backbone of capitalism is human greed. We believe that if the market is left unchecked by the government, human greed will naturally create a flourishing society. Business owners, desiring money, will pour their blood and sweat into creating a new product for the lowest possible price (the greed of the customer coming into play). Over time, these constant innovations will create prosperity. I believe this to be 100% true.
Turns out, his critique is based on what he believes to be 100% true. He will not accept critique about the real world, because it is both unsatisfying and does not accord to what he believes in and thus is willing to discuss about.

My post is directed at those who already accept that free markets with a very limited government creates prosperity. If you don't believe that, this isn't the post where I am looking to debate it. I want to talk about the other implications of a capitalist society as I see them.
Cool bro. You could also debate how many angels could fit there on a pin while you're at it.

[Lakers Legend#32]

The capitalist machine is oiled by the blood of the workers.

[joe]

So OP is on to provide a critique that's more satisfying to him, personally, because others are not. Very well.

Turns out, his critique is based on what he believes to be 100% true. He will not accept critique about the real world, because it is both unsatisfying and does not accord to what he believes in and thus is willing to discuss about.

Cool bro. You could also debate how many angels could fit there on a pin while you're at it.

You have low intelligence and it shows. What I did was qualify my statement by stating my beliefs. This was to avoid other free market supporters accusing me of just not being educated on the topic, and to show where I am coming from. I spent years learning and debating economics and no, I don't care to get involved in that minutia any longer.

Angels on a pin? What? Actually don't bother explaining because your opinion is meaningless to me.

[kNIOKAS]

You have low intelligence and it shows. What I did was qualify my statement by stating my beliefs. This was to avoid other free market supporters accusing me of just not being educated on the topic, and to show where I am coming from. I spent years learning and debating economics and no, I don't care to get involved in that minutia any longer.

Angels on a pin? What? Actually don't bother explaining because your opinion is meaningless to me.
:roll:

Amazing. Does it mean that since you've officially stated that you believe into something it becomes optional to be educated on that same subject?

You already hinted that what you allegedly spent years learning and debating is based on faith and not reason. What some of the posters here call "learning economy" would better read as "learning a bible of economy". Therefore you can only engage with those that believe in things the way you do, and discuss things that you all believe to be true. The real world does not apply, conveniently.

Have a productive evening :hammerhead:

[YouGotServed]

nerd fight

http://i.imgur.com/eYBlyNq.gif

[dunksby]

Another example of this- car parts becoming shittier over time. My mechanic is always talking to me about this. He took a door off this new car the other day when we were there, the thing was like a piece of aluminum with cotton inside. Thin as a piece of loose leaf, figuratively speaking. He tells me about the old cars he works on, how strong and sturdy the frames are.


Car manufacturers have been forced to drastically reduce their fossil fuel consumption by environmentalists in order to stay competitive, the easiest way to do that is by making the car lighter.

[EwingMan]

That's exactly why the government should have very little power.

Don't get stuck on things like greed, money, success or failure. What we are really talking about is freedom vs government control.

Capitalism is a dumb word. It's not an accurate one either. "Ism" means an ideology. There is no ideology of capital. It's not like marxism where idiots believe doing certain things and taking certain steps will create a utopian society. Nobody thinks a free market will create a utopian society. It's just a preference for living in a more free society.


That's enforcement of contract law. Enforcing contracts isn't a market regulation.


:rolleyes:

http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/tlr/sources/Volume%2092/Issue%206/Rogers/Rogers.fn091.Hale.CoercionDistribution.pdf

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1260&context=clr

http://duncankennedy.net/documents/Photo%20articles/Distributive%20and%20Paternalist%20Motives%20in%20 Contract%20and%20Tort%20Law.pdf

[Horde of Temujin]

Capitalism has destroyed the world. We're in the midst of one of the greatest extinctions ever. Capitalism is to blame.
More, more, more, more, more, more
better, better, better, better better
Newer, newer, newer, newer, newer
faster, faster, faster, faster, faster

We are never satisified

[NumberSix]

Capitalism has destroyed the world. We're in the midst of one of the greatest extinctions ever. Capitalism is to blame.
More, more, more, more, more, more
better, better, better, better better
Newer, newer, newer, newer, newer
faster, faster, faster, faster, faster

We are never satisified
Of course. If only we could live in a world without electricity, modern medicine, automobiles, planes and Internet. :rolleyes:

[Horde of Temujin]

Of course. If only we could live in a world without electricity, modern medicine, automobiles, planes and Internet. :rolleyes:

Very short-sighted, and truncated thinking

What good is all of that shit we are not around to enjoy any of it.

Anyways, there is no reason why we cant have both, but we have such short sighted greedy people with all of the power who cant practice some restraint and common sense. Instead here we are, destroying the planet because for SOME ****ING REASON people like you believe the two are mutually exclusive :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

[Nanners]

So far, every economic criticism of free market capitalism, to me, is not satisfying. I think the free market does the best job of setting prices, not government or anyone else. I think the market does best when there is almost zero regulation. On and on.

However, this is a critique that I have thought about many times, and it is more philosophical or from a humanities perspective.

The backbone of capitalism is human greed. We believe that if the market is left unchecked by the government, human greed will naturally create a flourishing society. Business owners, desiring money, will pour their blood and sweat into creating a new product for the lowest possible price (the greed of the customer coming into play). Over time, these constant innovations will create prosperity. I believe this to be 100% true.

However, when you continuously praise greed in a society, how can that not cause problems? Sure, we argue that the GOVERNMENT is to blame for most of our economic problems. But arent they not just acting out of their own greed? The politicians pass laws so they can gain favors and friends, improving their own lot in life. The regulators are busy bodies because they want more power and money and influence.

How can a society based on greed not eventually spawn a government based on greed?

Not only government, what about society itself? People treat cashiers and store clerks like shit. Employers pay less for longer hours, always looking to squeeze more out of their employees. People in general just care about their money and their own situation.

How much of this is natural to humans, and how much is encouraged by our society, and the fact that we want EVERYTHING yesterday. We always want the best of the best, as quick as possible, no hassle, no annoyance. Everyone just complaining constantly when they dont get exactly what they want in a minutes notice.

I dont think the government can do a good job of regulating the economy- I am not saying they should. I dont think they should regulate our greed. But as human beings, should we have higher standards for ourselves when it comes to greed? When it comes to money? Should we be willing to accept slightly inferior products if it means employees can take regular breaks and not have to work weekends? Should we stop exalting luxury and owning a Mercedes and all of these things? Is that really good for us?

The main question here.. how can a society/economy based on greed, not wind up with a shitty, greedy government and tons of rudeness and impatience among the people?


Nice post Joe. I dont exactly agree with everything you are saying, but your core question here is a good one.

[Pushxx]

End the Fed.

[plowking]

How do you suppose a market for inelastic goods would go given absolutely no regulation? Fuel for example?

[Dresta]

I was hoping you replied.

At the heart of this is really a question of human nature and what we value. Do we HAVE to value materialism to such a high degree that we become kind of...***** to everyone else?

I agree with you about limited government+markets=prosperity as a truism. Especially if those limits are in the right places. I believe our central economic problem right now is the central banking, central regulation and control. I think that is why our economy will continue to get worse and worse over time.

Here is an example of what I feel Dresta.

I own a Wii U and every Thursday they release new downloadable games for their virtual store. And almost every Thursday I am disappointed in the games they release. A lot of people are, and they end up writing posts about how much Nintendo sucks, they need to do this game instead, or that game instead of what they actually did. I don't actually take the time to post about it but I am annoyed nonetheless.

However, that annoyance and anger we feel might have effects on real people. The owners lose money, so they start to put pressure on the lower bosses and managers to do better. The employees feel the heat and are getting shit on all the time by the managers. They have to work harder, more hours to give these crying customers what they want and have to have soooo much.

And I was just thinking... do I really need Nintendo to make certain games on their virtual console for me THAT BAD? Do I really care that much that I need to allow it to make me angry or annoyed? Should somebody else have to work overtime so I can download Paper Mario and finally my life will be fulfilled?

I am not saying that we should shun materialism and live in huts. But does a society based on capitalism make us too greedy, too demanding, and put too much expectation on others?

That is not to mention the government side of things which is probably a bigger question. Doesn't the prosperity of capitalism and the greed of such a society lead to a government that is out of control with greed and power lust? I mean... we have all allowed ourselves to chase greed and power without any shame or guilt. The government just does the same, except they are also in control of the law and often above the law.

What are your thoughts?You definitely need to read Tocqueville's Democracy in America, as it deals mostly with this issue: how the American experiment has altered human nature, changed societal wants and needs, increasing prosperity combined with increased restlessness and the need for more.

An example that explains one of the things you were talking about (chapter is called WHY THE AMERICANS ARE SO RESTLESS IN THE MIDST OF THEIR PROSPERITY):

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/DETOC/ch2_13.htm


It is strange to see with what feverish ardor the Americans pursue their own welfare, and to watch the vague dread that constantly torments them lest they should not have chosen the shortest path which may lead to it.

A native of the United States clings to this world's goods as if he were certain never to die; and he is so hasty in grasping at all within his reach that one would suppose he was constantly afraid of not living long enough to enjoy them. He clutches everything, he holds nothing fast, but soon loosens his grasp to pursue fresh gratifications.

In the United States a man builds a house in which to spend his old age, and he sells it before the roof is on; he plants a garden and lets it just as the trees are coming into bearing; he brings a field into tillage and leaves other men to gather the crops; he embraces a profession and gives it up; he settles in a place, which he soon afterwards leaves to carry his changeable longings elsewhere. If his private affairs leave him any leisure, he instantly plunges into the vortex of politics; and if at the end of a year of unremitting labor he finds he has a few days' vacation, his eager curiosity whirls him over the vast extent of the United States, and he will travel fifteen hundred miles in a few days to shake off his happiness. Death at length overtakes him, but it is before he is weary of his bootless chase of that complete felicity which forever escapes him.

At first sight there is something surprising in this strange unrest of so many happy men, restless in the midst of abundance. The spectacle itself, however, is as old as the world; the novelty is to see a whole people furnish an exemplification of it.

Their taste for physical gratifications must be regarded as the original source of that secret disquietude which the actions of the Americans betray and of that inconstancy of which they daily ford fresh examples. He who has set his heart exclusively upon the pursuit of worldly welfare is always in a hurry, for he has but a limited time at his disposal to reach, to grasp, and to enjoy it.


Again, these things are not strictly caused by capitalism, for capitalism has always existed in one form or another (it is a natural impulse to acquire things and then to use them in barter with others - modern capitalism is only a refined expansion of this same impulse). What unleashing democracy did was kick away all the restraints tradition and aristocracy had placed on human nature (well, we still had religion, but that is steadily evaporating also), and human beings are naturally dissatisfied with what they have (this is likely an evolutionary impulse: for we would not have got very far if we were intrinsically satisfied with little).

It also introduced a contradiction: human beings search for distinction, that is, of being superior to their fellow men, in one way or another; yet democracy introduces the dogma of equality, and as time progresses, many (particularly the unsuccessful and frustrated) become obsessed with the concept of equality, and are willing to throw away liberty in search of this completely irrational apparent panacea. Democracy severs close societal ties over time, and alienates individuals, which is why so many find solace in belief in the state as a social being, through which they can work beneficently. The dogma of equality becomes more important than liberty; the community of the democratic 'majority' supersedes the rights of the individual. No thought could be more anti-human, more in contrary to human instincts, and yet it remains the favourite trope of the degenerate. Tocqueville recognised all these things, which was why he thought Democracy in America was doomed without its strong local political institutions (which have been completely eroded and overrun by Federal prerogative), and the community spirit these engendered (which also forced people to take an interest in politics).

We see untrammelled human nature in action now: uneducated populations being wealthy and privileged while not even recognising this fact, demanding free stuff, free healthcare, free education, free further education, subsidised loans, a consumer economy completely devoid of savings and restraint, and a manipulative government feeding these desires for its own expansive purposes. Things aren't going well? Solution: spend more money, consume, consume, consume!! And because the state has largely monopolised education, where now, instead of being properly educated, kids are stuffed with horribly distorted historical 'facts' and instilled with 'democratic values' (whatever this means) - in this way, the state naturally creates whole hoards of minions ready to rush to its defense, and to justify the expansion of its power.

The ease of life has made puritan intolerance rather appealing to some. Whereas puritans used to boring, to go to church or do some charity work, they now see governmental authorities as extensions of themselves, as a means to spread their message under some phoney mantra such as 'public health' (when it is all about control, about power, about affecting the lives of others and influencing people, by tyrannical means if need be - for tyranny is justifiable if it's a good cause, if it increase the rather mythical 'general welfare'). All i see here is people seeking vindication by having the government affirm that their way of life is the right way to live, and a fine example for others!

But when i look back on history, it is hard to see things happening any other way: Democracy created a bunch of gaping desires in the human soul, and simply waited for sellers of snake-oil to tell the people what they wanted to hear, to tear down constitutional restraints for reasons of 'stability' or 'progress' or some other demagogic chant - this is how i see Keynes, FDR, Freud - lying, manipulative ***** who provided the ideas that the public so desperately wanted to hear at the time, and which they knew would immortalise their names.

The growth of democracy as a sign of ever-increasing decadence? I think so...

[Dresta]

Oh, you have met some business owners. It's a pickle. However, I guess there's a reason that morality and ethics and religion and philosophy are all thousands of years older than capitalism.
No; actually, it is logical that the instincts of capitalism came first. If you think about it, man cannot have learnt how to judge morally until he has first learned to evaluate tangible things, through the process of barter, which is consequently, older than all of those things. It likely took a some time before the first human being asked 'why?'

[GimmeThat]

In response to OP. Purchasing power does not equate to equity.

The vague truth about greed, Is that it can become dense and transcend into force. The terms Wall-street, as well as Glass-seagul act, all points to one direction. Chambers that ought to let go, as well as the diversity, subjected to variety as well as variance cliche'd classification and not categorization. As it is the people, who had been viewed too long, without the ability to reverse the cliff bar.

[GimmeThat]

Imagine if each companies were ranked similar to Universities.
You have leadership/accounting precisions/salary negotiations etc listed out with rankings. While certain technical aspects may not be avoided, this at the very least, provides additional information not just for mutual funds holder, but independent investor, excluding day trader, opportunities to review its portfolio.

[ILLsmak]

So far, every economic criticism of free market capitalism, to me, is not satisfying. I think the free market does the best job of setting prices, not government or anyone else. I think the market does best when there is almost zero regulation. On and on.

However, this is a critique that I have thought about many times, and it is more philosophical or from a humanities perspective.

The backbone of capitalism is human greed. We believe that if the market is left unchecked by the government, human greed will naturally create a flourishing society. Business owners, desiring money, will pour their blood and sweat into creating a new product for the lowest possible price (the greed of the customer coming into play). Over time, these constant innovations will create prosperity. I believe this to be 100% true.

However, when you continuously praise greed in a society, how can that not cause problems? Sure, we argue that the GOVERNMENT is to blame for most of our economic problems. But arent they not just acting out of their own greed? The politicians pass laws so they can gain favors and friends, improving their own lot in life. The regulators are busy bodies because they want more power and money and influence.

How can a society based on greed not eventually spawn a government based on greed?

Not only government, what about society itself? People treat cashiers and store clerks like shit. Employers pay less for longer hours, always looking to squeeze more out of their employees. People in general just care about their money and their own situation.

How much of this is natural to humans, and how much is encouraged by our society, and the fact that we want EVERYTHING yesterday. We always want the best of the best, as quick as possible, no hassle, no annoyance. Everyone just complaining constantly when they dont get exactly what they want in a minutes notice.

I dont think the government can do a good job of regulating the economy- I am not saying they should. I dont think they should regulate our greed. But as human beings, should we have higher standards for ourselves when it comes to greed? When it comes to money? Should we be willing to accept slightly inferior products if it means employees can take regular breaks and not have to work weekends? Should we stop exalting luxury and owning a Mercedes and all of these things? Is that really good for us?

The main question here.. how can a society/economy based on greed, not wind up with a shitty, greedy government and tons of rudeness and impatience among the people?

Somewhat.

You don't even have to go into greed and morality, though, in case you argue against someone who believes things such as greed are evolutionary advantages.

The issue is media. IF there was greed and it was based on a good product... it would be fine. Greed or hunger for success has absolutely inspired all of the geniuses, too, back before media was so pervasive.

However, once you have x amount of money, you can influence media. Now, we have a brainwashed society (by media) that is being told this is a good product, when it's not. It's a cycle that cannot be broken.

So the people at the top control not only our products but our information. That is the ultimate downside of our situation and, as I said before, something that I don't think people saw coming. It totally invalidates every positive.

Greed is no issue in the market... as long as rules are followed, but it just got skewed once the top dogs realized hey wait a minute, we can do whatever we want. Nobody can really take our spot no matter how good their product is.

-Smak

[joe]

How do you suppose a market for inelastic goods would go given absolutely no regulation? Fuel for example?

I dont believe that companies could take advantage of that due to the nature of the market. I think there are checks in place within a free market economy that stop that kind of behavior.

If one company tries to raise their prices extremely high, it only takes one other company to NOT do that and the first company is screwed.

If all of the companies collude to raise prices, it opens the door for a new competitor to enter the market with more sane prices.

Through all of this, consumers can look for alternatives. Money would start pouring in for alternative forms of energy research/productions if every gas company just went crazy with their prices.

The reputation hit to a company for doing this would be massive.

I dont even think it would ever be tried to any extreme degree. Companies are not looking to cut their own throats when they are already raking in billions.

[LikeABosh]

Typical kid takes ECON101 and thinks he knows jack shit.

[plowking]

I dont believe that companies could take advantage of that due to the nature of the market. I think there are checks in place within a free market economy that stop that kind of behavior.

If one company tries to raise their prices extremely high, it only takes one other company to NOT do that and the first company is screwed.

If all of the companies collude to raise prices, it opens the door for a new competitor to enter the market with more sane prices.

The profit margins for fuel are already high enough, and even with regulation we don't really have new competitors flooding in to offer "saner prices". As an entrant into the market, you always face higher costs initially, and yet you really think they'd be inclined to undercut, set their own price, instead of join a cartel and collude, and reap potential higher profits over the long term? I don't think so.

Do you honestly believe we'd be at a more affordable price for fuel currently under less regulation?

[joe]

The profit margins for fuel are already high enough, and even with regulation we don't really have new competitors flooding in to offer "saner prices". As an entrant into the market, you always face higher costs initially, and yet you really think they'd be inclined to undercut, set their own price, instead of join a cartel and collude, and reap potential higher profits over the long term? I don't think so.

Do you honestly believe we'd be at a more affordable price for fuel currently under less regulation?

Is something insane about current gas prices? With profit margins being high enough as you say... it still isnt that big of a deal to afford gas. People drive less than they used to because the economy is worse. People adapt, life is still going on. The price itself has gone up a lot but then again so has the price of a lot of things.

You can think what you want.. you will anyway. If I have learned anything its that people have opinions and wont let them go. This is why I dont care to talk about this anymore. Nothing can be proven, even facts are just opinions when it comes to economics.

[joe]

Typical kid takes ECON101 and thinks he knows jack shit.

Actually I think I know far more than jack shit.. though not everything there is to know. I think you probably assume anyone who doesn't agree with you is dumb. That is the sign of a person I have no respect for.

[joe]

The profit margins for fuel are already high enough, and even with regulation we don't really have new competitors flooding in to offer "saner prices". As an entrant into the market, you always face higher costs initially, and yet you really think they'd be inclined to undercut, set their own price, instead of join a cartel and collude, and reap potential higher profits over the long term? I don't think so.

Do you honestly believe we'd be at a more affordable price for fuel currently under less regulation?

Actually.. in many industries the regulations are the reason we dont have many new competitors entering markets, which is why the big companies are the ones that support the regulations to begin with. Not related to the ways in which the same big companies write the regulations for their own industries in ways that benefit them.

It always sounds good to have some nice regulations to just cleanly manage any industry. Until you realize that the regulators are corrupted and bought off by the people they are supposed to regulate. If it helps you sleep at night to think the government is smoothly handling all of this stuff behind the scenes.. be my guest. But it isnt reality.

[plowking]

Actually.. in many industries the regulations are the reason we dont have many new competitors entering markets, which is why the big companies are the ones that support the regulations to begin with. Not related to the ways in which the same big companies write the regulations for their own industries in ways that benefit them.

It always sounds good to have some nice regulations to just cleanly manage any industry. Until you realize that the regulators are corrupted and bought off by the people they are supposed to regulate. If it helps you sleep at night to think the government is smoothly handling all of this stuff behind the scenes.. be my guest. But it isnt reality.

So again, you're getting into collusion, cartels, etc, which largely spawn from a more free market structure.

I agree with you on a more free market economy being the best in regards to an efficient outcome, but for essential household items and commodities, it cannot be the case. I was just using fuel as an example, because it is a current "issue" if you want to call it that. It is something with little to no diversification in terms of product, essentially a monopoly type, is a necessity for normal life currently, and is overpriced as it is in a somewhat regulated system. A free market one would be even worse given the structure.

In regards to other things, I completely agree with a free market. It is dynamic and destructive in the sense that it will eliminate inefficiencies, while allowing prices to be set and found on their own merit and perceived value.