Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Topic: Immorality and the Free Market Posted: February 17 2008 at 03:40 |
Lies, rich=evil. Seriously, though not every rich person is greedy, back-stabbing b*****d, just like not every poor person is a lazy wino welfare monger. Whatever, position anyone has, my sincere wish is that they will never forget we are talking about people. Not just characters in a cartoon caricature, nor just deviations from a mean.
|
|
Hirgwath
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 16 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
|
Posted: February 17 2008 at 00:13 |
I believe the house, food, and bills being paid can all be filed under the term "self-interest"
|
OK, in the technical sense, it is "self-interest." But those things are not exclusively in the self-interest of one individual.
My point is, one is not thinking about the consumer when doing your job or being an entrepreneur, one is thinking about making money or providing for themselves and their family.
|
Yes and no. Pleasing the consumer is related to providing for your family, no? Which goes back to the point you made earlier, about how people helping themselves will indirectly help others. However, anyone who creates a product or provides a service is almost certainly thinking of their potential consumers. Otherwise their product will suck.
And I can most certainly assure you, those who own major corporations and form the lifeblood of the American economy are not striving to just support their family anymore, they have more than enough for that.
|
That is a few thousand people out of millions. And it seems too broad to say that every major CEO is greedy. Are some of them? Sure. But the vast majority of them are not latter-day Ebenezer Scrooges. They can be hard-working people with simple ambition. I don't label them "greedy" because they are well-off.
Edited by Hirgwath - February 17 2008 at 00:14
|
Skwisgaar Skwigelf: taller than a tree.
Toki Wartooth: not a bumblebee.
|
|
Scapler
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 18 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 2567
|
Posted: February 16 2008 at 21:21 |
Hirgwath wrote:
Scapler wrote:
No, it does not. In fact, the very nature of the Free Market takes what would otherwise be an immorality and uses it for the good of all.
The Invisible Hand, an idea put forth by the brilliant thinker Adam Smith, states that, yes, self-interest is the driving force behind the free market, however, this is what makes it work better than other systems. Self-interest drives producers to produce what the public demands, in an efficient way. Competition forces lower prices and higher quality. The Invisible Hand causes the entire economic system of a country to function in the most efficient way with minimal effort actually focusing on the economy as a whole. Everything works simply because everyone is working to make it better for themselves.
Smith further states that greed is, in effect, good. By helping oneself, you help society as a whole. Face it, not much would be done if societal progress relied on people thinking of others, sad but true. Businesses are not there thinking of meeting the needs of others, they don't really care about customers. They only care about making society work and giving people what they want because it is advantageous for THEM.
Society's needs are meet because people try to meet their own needs.
| Wanting to make money is not greed. Often, more money means more nice things for your family, especially your children. In America, paying for your children's college education is a huge concern, for example. Besides this, there's the house, the food, the bills, and the gifts you give to your family. You're mistaken if you think that this is "greed" or "self-interest", even. You don't have to justify greed to justify the free market.There's nothing wrong with wanting to make money, or being ambitious. Most of the time, people just want to lead successful lives. |
I believe the house, food, and bills being paid can all be filed under the term "self-interest"
My point is, one is not thinking about the consumer when doing your job or being an entrepreneur, one is thinking about making money or providing for themselves and their family.
And I can most certainly assure you, those who own major corporations and form the lifeblood of the American economy are not striving to just support their family anymore, they have more than enough for that.
|
Bassists are deadly
|
|
Hirgwath
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 16 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
|
Posted: February 16 2008 at 21:15 |
Scapler wrote:
No, it does not. In fact, the very nature of the Free Market takes what would otherwise be an immorality and uses it for the good of all.
The Invisible Hand, an idea put forth by the brilliant thinker Adam Smith, states that, yes, self-interest is the driving force behind the free market, however, this is what makes it work better than other systems. Self-interest drives producers to produce what the public demands, in an efficient way. Competition forces lower prices and higher quality. The Invisible Hand causes the entire economic system of a country to function in the most efficient way with minimal effort actually focusing on the economy as a whole. Everything works simply because everyone is working to make it better for themselves.
Smith further states that greed is, in effect, good. By helping oneself, you help society as a whole. Face it, not much would be done if societal progress relied on people thinking of others, sad but true. Businesses are not there thinking of meeting the needs of others, they don't really care about customers. They only care about making society work and giving people what they want because it is advantageous for THEM.
Society's needs are meet because people try to meet their own needs.
|
Wanting to make money is not greed. Often, more money means more nice things for your family, especially your children. In America, paying for your children's college education is a huge concern, for example. Besides this, there's the house, the food, the bills, and the gifts you give to your family. You're mistaken if you think that this is "greed" or "self-interest", even. You don't have to justify greed to justify the free market. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make money, or being ambitious. Most of the time, people just want to lead successful lives and provide for their family. There's a huge distinction between someone who's working hard for a promotion, and a Dickensian, heartless capitalist.
Edited by Hirgwath - February 16 2008 at 21:18
|
Skwisgaar Skwigelf: taller than a tree.
Toki Wartooth: not a bumblebee.
|
|
Scapler
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 18 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 2567
|
Posted: February 16 2008 at 13:01 |
No, it does not. In fact, the very nature of the Free Market takes what would otherwise be an immorality and uses it for the good of all.
The Invisible Hand, an idea put forth by the brilliant thinker Adam Smith, states that, yes, self-interest is the driving force behind the free market, however, this is what makes it work better than other systems. Self-interest drives producers to produce what the public demands, in an efficient way. Competition forces lower prices and higher quality. The Invisible Hand causes the entire economic system of a country to function in the most efficient way with minimal effort actually focusing on the economy as a whole. Everything works simply because everyone is working to make it better for themselves.
Smith further states that greed is, in effect, good. By helping oneself, you help society as a whole. Face it, not much would be done if societal progress relied on people thinking of others, sad but true. Businesses are not there thinking of meeting the needs of others, they don't really care about customers. They only care about making society work and giving people what they want because it is advantageous for THEM.
Society's needs are meet because people try to meet their own needs.
|
Bassists are deadly
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 09:16 |
Gamemako wrote:
A one-party system where the ruling body owns everything and defines the paths of individuals? Jeez, nitpick more. It's entirely irrelevant. What do you want to call it? Capito-socialism? Hell. The only choice a person has in the system is to leave it. And if it were the same everywhere, there would be no choices: the company would be the government, doling out as it saw fit. There isn't much "advanced" about that.
|
You lost me
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 09:15 |
Proletariat wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Proletariat wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Proletariat wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
THe only difference is that one has to be a shareholder to elect a CEO. Your desire to transfer control of the means of production to workers negates the notion of private property. All experiments like this have failed. |
name three.
Democracy/Republics failed the first few times they tried it too. | Do you want 3 experiments? I'll name one, but a big one - the USSR. You could find a few more in its ruins.
Not a good example, the whole voting part was conspicuosly missing, not to mention too much power was placed in too few hands, a council is always more trustworthy than one person. Also I have said nothing about redistribution of wealth through forced means.
Proletariat wrote:
I know that one company doing this is a stupid Idea that would never hold up in the economy as it is but if they all were...
The public company is the OPPOSITE of what I want, shareholders are the elite and wouldn't care for the needs of the workers |
Not true. Workers are given a piece of the pie thru their profit sharing plans, bonus pay, etc. If you look at the unions' pension mutual funds, it's scary how much power they have over corporations sometimes.
Not what I am talking about at all, I am talking about direct power by workers over the leaders of corperations through democracy, in all companies, with no other changes to the system.
| | We misunderstood each other.
To transfer control of a plant (the means of production ) to workers equates to expropriation of private property since it belongs to someone else (shareholders or private owners). This is what I meant by "experiments." This type of "communal" ownership is endemic to comminist philosophy. Thus the USSR was the best example here. I know that they tried workers' ownership in Yugoslavia in the 50's and 60's (maybe longer), and you know how it all ended up.
Unfortunately, fear is the engine of progress. Not greed, not incentive, but fear. One fears to lose a means of survival (in a broad sense on the word) be that a job, a business, a trade - any source of income. Absence of fear brings complacency. What you advocate is complacency. That's why it doesn't work. |
first off I think you still don't understand what I'm trying to explain, however no matter how you look at it, it is more moral. The reason moral systems dont work is because morals dont exist in nature, they are simply ideas that people have placed on animal behaviors, in the end people are animals and will act like animals. I can only hope that we can become more communal animals and boost are chance of survival. |
I'm not sure it's more moral, but I agree with you - it doesn't work
|
|
Gamemako
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 31 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1184
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 07:03 |
A one-party system where the ruling body owns everything and defines the paths of individuals? Jeez, nitpick more. It's entirely irrelevant. What do you want to call it? Capito-socialism? Hell. The only choice a person has in the system is to leave it. And if it were the same everywhere, there would be no choices: the company would be the government, doling out as it saw fit. There isn't much "advanced" about that.
|
Hail Eris!
|
|
Proletariat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
|
Posted: February 14 2008 at 22:06 |
IVNORD wrote:
Proletariat wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Proletariat wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
THe only difference is that one has to be a shareholder to elect a CEO. Your desire to transfer control of the means of production to workers negates the notion of private property. All experiments like this have failed. |
name three.
Democracy/Republics failed the first few times they tried it too. | Do you want 3 experiments? I'll name one, but a big one - the USSR. You could find a few more in its ruins.
Not a good example, the whole voting part was conspicuosly missing, not to mention too much power was placed in too few hands, a council is always more trustworthy than one person. Also I have said nothing about redistribution of wealth through forced means.
Proletariat wrote:
I know that one company doing this is a stupid Idea that would never hold up in the economy as it is but if they all were...
The public company is the OPPOSITE of what I want, shareholders are the elite and wouldn't care for the needs of the workers |
Not true. Workers are given a piece of the pie thru their profit sharing plans, bonus pay, etc. If you look at the unions' pension mutual funds, it's scary how much power they have over corporations sometimes.
Not what I am talking about at all, I am talking about direct power by workers over the leaders of corperations through democracy, in all companies, with no other changes to the system.
| | We misunderstood each other.
To transfer control of a plant (the means of production ) to workers equates to expropriation of private property since it belongs to someone else (shareholders or private owners). This is what I meant by "experiments." This type of "communal" ownership is endemic to comminist philosophy. Thus the USSR was the best example here. I know that they tried workers' ownership in Yugoslavia in the 50's and 60's (maybe longer), and you know how it all ended up.
Unfortunately, fear is the engine of progress. Not greed, not incentive, but fear. One fears to lose a means of survival (in a broad sense on the word) be that a job, a business, a trade - any source of income. Absence of fear brings complacency. What you advocate is complacency. That's why it doesn't work. |
first off I think you still don't understand what I'm trying to explain, however no matter how you look at it, it is more moral. The reason moral systems dont work is because morals dont exist in nature, they are simply ideas that people have placed on animal behaviors, in the end people are animals and will act like animals. I can only hope that we can become more communal animals and boost are chance of survival.
|
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: February 14 2008 at 21:59 |
Hirgwath wrote:
I presume immorality includes (non-consensually) physically injuring people, committing fraud, and breaking contracts. Doing these things actually makes it more likely that other people will retaliate and/or stop buying your goods/doing business with you.
Thus, the somewhat regulated free market (or even the completely unfettered one, perhaps) does not promote immorality. It promotes commerce, trading, and exchange of goods and ideas. Does it need to be moderated? Yes. But only to the extent that a government prevents companies from lying to and misleading consumers, as well as keeping human rights and environmental standards. Anti-trust legislation seems good, but it is often under-enforced. Many monopolies would disappear if government welfare was removed. Government handouts to big business encourage monopoly more than the unfettered free market.
Critics of capitalism tend to ignore its good features, such as instilling inventiveness, independence, and entrepreneurship in a people. Self-reliance and a hard-working nature are virtues, in my book.
|
In the spirit of fairness, capitalism forces those virtues onto people.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: February 14 2008 at 21:50 |
Gamemako wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Gamemako wrote:
A free market is inherently immoral*. It encourages people to make others suffer for self-advancement. A completely free market ultimately results in communism, miner-style.
| This statement would have earned you the chairman's seat at the congress of revisionists of Marxism some 50 years ago.
Without capitalizing on your misprint, would you elaborate on minor- and major-style communism? |
It is not an error. Mining towns around the turn of the 20th century were owned and operated entirely by the mining companies. The company owned the mine, the stores, the banks, and everything else. Without limits on a free market, one company eventually owns everything and rules with an iron fist.
|
Is that your definition of communism? First of all, your mentioning of banks invalidates it. Theoretical communism declares money and any monetary systen to be an anachronism. The absense of money would eliminate the need for banks. The stores would go too, as the projected prosperity under communism should provide everyone with all necessities regardless of the person's abilities or production output. But those are minor things. Your mining town is a perfect example of advanced capitalism. As a matter of fact, steel companies built similar towns for their workers at the turn of the century too.
|
|
Hirgwath
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 16 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
|
Posted: February 14 2008 at 18:34 |
I presume immorality includes (non-consensually) physically injuring people, committing fraud, and breaking contracts. Doing these things actually makes it more likely that other people will retaliate and/or stop buying your goods/doing business with you.
Thus, the somewhat regulated free market (or even the completely unfettered one, perhaps) does not promote immorality. It promotes commerce, trading, and exchange of goods and ideas. Does it need to be moderated? Yes. But only to the extent that a government prevents companies from lying to and misleading consumers, as well as keeping human rights and environmental standards. Anti-trust legislation seems good, but it is often under-enforced. Many monopolies would disappear if government welfare was removed. Government handouts to big business encourage monopoly more than the unfettered free market.
Critics of capitalism tend to ignore its good features, such as instilling inventiveness, independence, and entrepreneurship in a people. Self-reliance and a hard-working nature are virtues, in my book.
Edited by Hirgwath - February 14 2008 at 18:34
|
Skwisgaar Skwigelf: taller than a tree.
Toki Wartooth: not a bumblebee.
|
|
Gamemako
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 31 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1184
|
Posted: February 14 2008 at 18:05 |
IVNORD wrote:
Gamemako wrote:
A free market is inherently immoral*. It encourages people to make others suffer for self-advancement. A completely free market ultimately results in communism, miner-style.
| This statement would have earned you the chairman's seat at the congress of revisionists of Marxism some 50 years ago.
Without capitalizing on your misprint, would you elaborate on minor- and major-style communism? |
It is not an error. Mining towns around the turn of the 20th century were owned and operated entirely by the mining companies. The company owned the mine, the stores, the banks, and everything else. Without limits on a free market, one company eventually owns everything and rules with an iron fist.
|
Hail Eris!
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: February 14 2008 at 15:25 |
bhikkhu wrote:
^^^But here's the thing. The original question asked if the free market (or capitalism) promotes immorality. Before that can be answered, you have to discuss morality. As I stated before, I don't think it does. |
It doesnt becuase those are two different things.
bhikkhu wrote:
Someone made a statement about capitalism, or greed, basically being the haves preying on the have-nots. That is true, but isn't it interesting how the wealthy conservatives are always preaching family values. So where does the morality lie?
|
That would be another deviation. We can open a new thread
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: February 14 2008 at 14:22 |
HughesJB4 wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
Morality is a subjective concept. You cannot impose your morals (or lack thereof) on someone who isn't predisposed to them. Now, there are many things that I may personally se as immoral, so I don't engage in them. But it is up to me to make that choice. There are others that may see my sense of humor as immoral. So be it. But there are no absolutes in this arena. The Free market reaps what it will bear. If the majority of consumers were only interested in the "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle, that's what the market would offer. All T.V. moms would be June Cleaver. If most people were Buddhist, there would be a lot of ads about peace, and low cost incense. | We use morality in a generally accepted form, not philosophical. | But what is the generally accepted form of morality? In your community it may be something quite different than mine. | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality |
Seriously, you are using Wikipedia to prove your point? That only bolsters my position that morality is a subjective concept, not an absolute.
| I would rather side with you since the two notions are incomparable. Capitalism (wrongly termed 'free market' here) is a natural process, while morality is a product of human mind. It's like comparing red and wooden. We never came to this poins as the discussion deviates widely. |
Can we not argue that both are natural processes, in that over time both have evolved as society has progressed (or regressed if some people hold that opinion), and are both products of the human mind as well? Capitalism has evolved to fit certain morals or lack there of, and to fit what is 'right' in the human mind. |
I have to disagree with you here. Capitalism was a result of the natural evolution of society (due to development of technology) as it went from the primeval man to the ancient world's slavory to feudalism. Morality was induced thru the system of laws, both religious and secular. To protect one's life and property in the primitive society, one had to rely on his muscles and stone axe, while the Code of Hamurabbi established it thru legal means, as it was recognized by humans that protection of life and property is a prerequisite for prosperity. In addition, religions provided the set of moral requirements, which with time transformed into a moral code as societal conscience developed. While one can argue that this transformation was natural, the fact that the law it was based on had been a product of human mind makes it artificial in comparison with capitalism, which was more spontaneous. Marx for one declares that capitalism, with imperialism as its highest form, is a result of economic relations. What can be a better argument. BTW, Engels' works on origins of family touch upon moral code (if I'm not mistaken).
HughesJB4 wrote:
Just the same as Marxism was not only a natural process, but it was 'shaped' to fit the needs of certain leaders i.e while many can agree the USSR was never a real Communist state, the leaders in their mind created their interpretation of Communism, a product of their own mind to an extent, not merely the natural process that was somewhat set out Marx and Engels.
(I understand that Capitalism is not the same thing technically speaking, as the free market, and I understand the opposite to the free market economy is the command economy, but I'll leave that for now). |
How was Marxism a natural process? Any philosophy is a product of human mind. By natural I mean something that is independent of human will.
As for the Soviet leaders, they used Marxism as phraseology. Initially, it appealed to weak proletarian minds, but eventually it stopped working.
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: AČ Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
Posted: February 14 2008 at 09:18 |
^^^But here's the thing. The original question asked if the free market (or capitalism) promotes immorality. Before that can be answered, you have to discuss morality. As I stated before, I don't think it does. I think it goes with trends. It will reflect the general values society has already adopted. Someone made a statement about capitalism, or greed, basically being the haves preying on the have-nots. That is true, but isn't it interesting how the wealthy conservatives are always preaching family values. So where does the morality lie?
|
|
|
Petrovsk Mizinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210
|
Posted: February 14 2008 at 09:12 |
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
Morality is a subjective concept. You cannot impose your morals (or lack thereof) on someone who isn't predisposed to them. Now, there are many things that I may personally se as immoral, so I don't engage in them. But it is up to me to make that choice. There are others that may see my sense of humor as immoral. So be it. But there are no absolutes in this arena. The Free market reaps what it will bear. If the majority of consumers were only interested in the "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle, that's what the market would offer. All T.V. moms would be June Cleaver. If most people were Buddhist, there would be a lot of ads about peace, and low cost incense. | We use morality in a generally accepted form, not philosophical. | But what is the generally accepted form of morality? In your community it may be something quite different than mine. | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality |
Seriously, you are using Wikipedia to prove your point? That only bolsters my position that morality is a subjective concept, not an absolute.
| I would rather side with you since the two notions are incomparable. Capitalism (wrongly termed 'free market' here) is a natural process, while morality is a product of human mind. It's like comparing red and wooden. We never came to this poins as the discussion deviates widely. |
Can we not argue that both are natural processes, in that over time both have evolved as society has progressed (or regressed if some people hold that opinion), and are both products of the human mind as well? Capitalism has evolved to fit certain morals or lack there of, and to fit what is 'right' in the human mind. Just the same as Marxism was not only a natural process, but it was 'shaped' to fit the needs of certain leaders i.e while many can agree the USSR was never a real Communist state, the leaders in their mind created their interpretation of Communism, a product of their own mind to an extent, not merely the natural process that was somewhat set out Marx and Engels.
(I understand that Capitalism is not the same thing technically speaking, as the free market, and I understand the opposite to the free market economy is the command economy, but I'll leave that for now).
|
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: February 14 2008 at 07:57 |
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: February 14 2008 at 07:50 |
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
Morality is a subjective concept. You cannot impose your morals (or lack thereof) on someone who isn't predisposed to them. Now, there are many things that I may personally se as immoral, so I don't engage in them. But it is up to me to make that choice. There are others that may see my sense of humor as immoral. So be it. But there are no absolutes in this arena. The Free market reaps what it will bear. If the majority of consumers were only interested in the "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle, that's what the market would offer. All T.V. moms would be June Cleaver. If most people were Buddhist, there would be a lot of ads about peace, and low cost incense. | We use morality in a generally accepted form, not philosophical. | But what is the generally accepted form of morality? In your community it may be something quite different than mine. | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality |
Seriously, you are using Wikipedia to prove your point? That only bolsters my position that morality is a subjective concept, not an absolute.
|
I'm not proving anything. I am not contesting your point, just explaining that there's an everyday use of the word, and Wikipedia is very descriptive here. It's like philosophizing about God and saying "god-damm-it."
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: February 14 2008 at 01:57 |
Morality is a consensus for the purposes of social science. This a sociological debate, so using the social imagination is probably the preferred mode of debate. Having a debate on multiple levels of abstraction is kinda pointless.
I'm an engineer, so we use stuff all the time that's not the truth. Newtonian mechanics, classical e-mag, and so forth. Just because something is not the absolute truth does not mean it isn't useful.
Edited by Deathrabbit - February 14 2008 at 02:05
|
|