Immorality and the Free Market

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.