The idea that it's justifiable to let unspeakable suffering within your community continue when you have enough excess (meaning losing it wouldn't affect your overall quality of life) resources to stop it, just because those resources "belong" to you and you shouldn't be expected to give them up unless you get something better in return, is absolutely the most selfish, morally bankrupt and evil foundation for a society that always leads to fascism eventually.
#Capitalism
🇳🇱
Agreed, people who dont donate their time and money to help charities, especially when you have excess, is morally dubious at best.
Not sure what that has to do with #Capitalism however.
@freemo @Vincarsi
#Capitalism concentrates wealth and resources into the hands of a few rich individuals, which is what leads to the kind of conditions that the OP is talking about, where wealthy people hoard resources for themselves and refuse to give any to others unless they can benefit financially in some way.
concentrates wealth and resources into the hands of a few rich individuals
Yes, though, it distributes fairly based on their contribution to society when operating in a healthy way. Societies dont have an equal distribution of people contributing equal utility, ergo you should see unequal distribution of wealth in a healthy government with a typical population.
which is what leads to the kind of conditions that the OP is talking about
Fully disagree. Uneven distributions of wealth does not, in and of itself, lead to lower quality of life or less charitable works. In fact, it has been objectively shown that rich people give significantly higher percentages of their income to charity than middle class or poor.
where wealthy people hoard resources for themselves and refuse to give any to others
That does not line up with reality IMO. Very few rich “hoard wealth” which would look like a mountain of resources sitting in a vault collecting dust (such as useful minerals, or other materials useful to society). In fact they dont even tend to hoard money itself. Almost all rich people have all of their money actively in the community and used for social utility. For example in investment in businesses. No person who hoarded wealth would be rich because wealth looses value with time. You only become rich by not hoarding wealth (putting your money out into the community, at a risk of loosing it or getting a return).
@freemo @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi Missing their whole point it seems.
@freemo @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi Even if you don't include america. Capitalism in every conception creates inequality. Not just in the context of incom. But in the context of access to resources. Even in some of the european countries non-citizens are forced to pay out of pocket for healthcare. No human should be denied treatment. So no, contribution hardly matters. The market decides your worth, which is arbitrary and non-sensical.
Even if you don’t include america.
Agreed, I am not including america here specifically. I am speaking of capitalism as a whole (which would include the whole of the EU, the UK and the overwhelming majority of countries world-wide).
Capitalism in every conception creates inequality.
It doesnt create inequality, it fairly rewards people for the amount of utility they give to society. Since people give utility to society unequally, this means people are fairly rewarded and those rewards are unequal.
Capitalism (when healthy) provides equity (fairness) not equality (everyone event) which is exactly how it should be!
Not just in the context of incom [sic] But in the context of access to resources.
Agreed, and this is a good thing. People who provide more utility to society should have access to more resources since they have proven to be more effective in converting resources to utility.
Again equity over equality. The bigger issue is if people have the same access to opportunity. In other words, if you can demonstrate you provide utility to society will you have the equity of having access to the resources you have demonstrated you earned. A healthy capitalism does just that.
Even in some of the european countries non-citizens are forced to pay out of pocket for healthcare.
If you can afford healthcare you should be paying for it out of pocket. If you cant society should help you with welfare programs. A capitalism does not preclude social welfare.
No human should be denied treatment.
Agreed, and when a capitalist government provides healthcare to those who cant afford it, they are still a capitalist country. Capitalism is not mutually exclusive with social welfare.
The market decides your worth, which is arbitrary and non-sensical.
No it doesnt. It defines your access to resources, and it isnt arbitrary, it is based on the utility you provide to society (in a healthy capitalism).
The fact that you think a persons worth as an individual is synonymous with the resources they have access to is a very concerning POV.
«People who provide more utility to society should have access to more resources since they have proven to be more effective in converting resources to utility.»
Someone who believes this ought to support a very different system from modern-day “capitalism”.
For example, one should support taxing inheritance at 100%, since proof of effectiveness at converting resources to utility is not hereditary.
One would also have to support the abolition of rentier income of all kinds, because mere ownership of a resource does not contribute to the productive process.
Whether or not rentier income can in practice be clearly distinguished from productive profit does not detract from the point that rentier income is incompatible witht he principle of distribution based on effectiveness at converting resources to utility.
being a landlord is not "mere ownership of a resource".. The resource is the land, the utility you provide is the livability of that land. You are providing the maintenance of the building, keeping it up to code, repairing damage due to natural disasters or renter abuse, hell at one point you had to even build the building, not mention maintaining the physical land (removing trees and overgrowth, repairing fences etc).
Landlords very much are providing a utility from a resource.
Yes, of course, a landlord does managerial work that should be compensated. But ownership of the building is not necessary for the ability to do that managerial work, nor is doing that work required for the legal entitlement of the collection of rent.
The landlord isn't even usually the person who built the building or repairs the fences.
Yes, of course, a landlord does managerial work that should be compensated.
Cool we agree there at least.
But ownership of the building is not necessary for the ability to do that managerial work, nor is doing that work required for the legal entitlement of the collection of rent.
I dont recall anyone saying it was necessary that the owner of the resource be the same person who is deriving utility from said resource.
These can of course be complete separate resources. In which case the person who owns the land is providing the utility of selecting/screening the most effective managerial service. The managerial service is then outsourced to do the actual management. In this case the utility is provided in multiple steps is all. But the landlord and t
he rental service are still providing a utility.
The landlord isn’t even usually the person who built the building or repairs the fences.
Not always, and as I just covered when they are separate then the landlord is providing a different utility than the managerial service. But both are still providing utility.
«In which case the person who owns the land is providing the utility of selecting/screening the most effective managerial service.»
Of course, but that work could be provided by anyone. The tenant. The government. A tenants' union. It takes no special skill and neither does it require ownership of the building.
The only reason it's the owner who gets to do that job is that they're legally entitled to. And somehow that entitles them to rent.
Of course, but that work could be provided by anyone.
It absolutely could… Any case of a resource being turned into a utility could be done by anyone. The point here is in capitalism the people whoa re most effective at converting resources to utilities are the ones who get assigned those abilities through the free-market pressures that drive it.
If a tenant were as good or better than the landlord at driving utility then in a healthy capitalism they would be a home owner and not a renter, thats the whole point.
A tenants’ union
Nothing stopping such an entity from existing in a capitalist government. The key is such an entity will only exist (for long) if they can provide such a utility better than everyone else.
It takes no special skill and neither does it require ownership of the building.
It absolutely does take special skill. Evaluating the quality of a managerial service and who you defer such services to is very much a skill. Pick a bad service and you loose everything (as you provided bad utility), pick a good one and you thrive. You also need to be ready to switch services should your current service decline in quality.
The only reason it’s the owner who gets to do that job is that they’re legally entitled to.
No that isnt the only reason. They are legally entitled to and provides the best utility in doing it. If they were only legally entitled to but didnt provide good utility they would pick a poor service and have lost their property as a result, which would mean a newer better landlord would take their place that can provide that utility better.
You're making a very strong assumption that resources would get distributed to whoever can best turn them into utility.
Do you have a specific mechanism in mind through which this happens? Or is it just magic?
You’re making a very strong assumption that resources would get distributed to whoever can best turn them into utility.
Yes I am. If you dont then you dont have a healthy capitalism. The assumption here is you have a healthy capitalism, which i defined as a free market (a market where utility is the determiner of profit, and is not gamed by centralized interests).
Do you have a specific mechanism in mind through which this happens? Or is it just magic?
Not magic, yes. But systems of governments are hugely complex pieces of working machinery. While we can discuss the tenants (such as capitalism, social welfare and others) the specific mechanisms are huge complex and would require an exorbitant amount of time to exhaustively discuss. That say, I am willing to discuss any specific aspects you’d like to challenge as I have so far done.
Snark I dont mind. But the employing the red herring fallacy (grossing mischaracterizing a persons stance to be the opposite of what is said as some gotcha to appear to create an illusion of “winning)… honestly based on your comments up until now I’d like to think your better than that.
That said at least you had the good sense to point out it was snark rather than a fair evaluation. So i can be a little less critical of it. But it certainly isnt helping your stance IMO.
«a free market (a market where utility is the determiner of profit...)»
This sounds like an incredibly difficult, if not impossible, thing to achieve. I for one don't see a way to achieve it without outright abolishing private property as we know it.
This sounds like an incredibly difficult
Most governments eventually fail no matter what ideology they employ, this is true of capitalist, communistic and everything else. Yes governments are incredibly difficult to do successful. No argument there.
I for one don’t see a way to achieve it without outright abolishing private property as we know it.
Its been done, and those governments have all failed too. Even when they are democratic they have literally been voted out of existance by the massive starvation it tends to result in.
So we have very clear proof that simply enacting such a policy in a government system will absolutely not be a magic fix for these ills.
Let me clarify what i meant. I didn't mean just that it would be difficult in practice. What i meant is that not even in theory is it clear how «a market where utility is the determiner of profit» could be made to work.
Let me clarify what i meant. I didn’t mean just that it would be difficult in practice. What i meant is that not even in theory is it clear how «a market where utility is the determiner of profit» could be made to work.
From your perspective that is very understandable. I would completely expect that it would be unclear how it would work in theory, because as I said the theory is extraordinarily complex when it comes to any system of government. Since I have not conveyed the full details of such a system to you, due to time and complexity, it is perfectly understandable you dont have that information and therefore it would be unclear.
However from my perspective, as someone who has put a great many man hours into the study of such systems and have considering it in great detail to formulate my stance it is quite clear both in theory and practice. Being complex in no way implies it isnt clear.
It is likewise perfectly understandable you wouldnt just take my word for it, nor should you. The best I can do is answer your questions where you happen to remain confused and alleviate some minor aspects of your confusion and get you closer to understanding. If such conversations go on for an extended period of time you would either come to understand the theory, or find holes in it and thus I would refine my stance further.
Thats simply the nature of complex systems, and it is why governments tend to fail, most people are not good with high complexity, and therefore democracies are a bit paradoxical in that you are trying to get people bad at complex things to be the ones making decisions about complex things. This is why most governments fail.
Given your stated willingness to answer my questions, let me rephrase my last few replies in the form of a question:
How does it come to be that utility is the determiner of profit in a “free market”, whatever that means?
How does it come to be that utility is the determiner of profit in a “free market”, whatever that means?
Through a very complex system of laws and regulations that are carefully selected. I could not ellucidate such a complex and complete system trivially here in these comments in a single night.
That said, if you’d like to touch on a small fraction of some of the major regulations that keep a market free we can certain touch on some of the major points in a non-exhaustive manner.
1) free education and training for everyone at every level. You cant have equity (equal oppertunity, not equality) if peoples start in life in terms of skills and abilities arent equal.
2) Good generous caring results-based conditional welfare… in others words, a system that makes sure the poor have the absolute basic to survive no matter what, and enough to thrive as long as they are willing to do their part.
3) Strong anti-trust (anti-monopoly) laws that are enforced. Monopolies mean the market isnt free. You cant have a free market if monopolies can control it.
4) Strong laws and strong enforcement against corruption, particularly price fixing. Regulations mean nothing if you can simply collude to circumvent them.
These 4 are probably some of the most important top 4 elements neccesary for a capitalism to be a capitalism (as I defined it), though as I stated they are only a very small tip of the iceburg.
Those are all practical policy recommendations which may or may not help make utility the determiner of profit. I can even grant that they do. My question is about something different.
Is it wrong of me to assume that you're taking for granted that production and distribution are organized around markets as they're typically understood? Markets in goods and services, markets in labor and capital, supply and demand—that sort of context?
Those are all practical policy recommendations which may or may not help make utility the determiner of profit. I can even grant that they do. My question is about something different.
I am glad we agree, at least, so far as we can with such a limited scope.
Is it wrong of me to assume that you’re taking for granted that production and distribution are organized around markets as they’re typically understood?
Yes I would say thats a wrong assumption. I am not taking it for granted. At no point did I say that current governments are healthy governments. Therefore how they are currently organized has little bearing on how I claim a healthy government should be organized.
The disconnect, as I see it, is that I am arguing that such dysfunction arises in the nuance between the extremely complex facets of government systems that ultimately fail to deliver healthy markets, as well as quite a few other unhealthy byproducts (like starving poor people). The solution is not and never will be a dogmatic and ideologically pure system like pure blind redistribution of wealth (everything is free and equal) or pure unregulated wealth (everyone has whatever they can kills steal and rob and its theirs). A healthy solution can only arise from the careful nuance and interplay of various ideologies and an understanding of where and how they should be applied in such as system.
On the flip side it would appear your argument is that the very tenant of capitalism as an element int he more complex systems of governement is the factor that is to blame and will rot it away (never mind the fact that we have counter proof of that since governments that are anti-capitalist have likewise failed). One might presume your argument would be one for communism as an idealized principle, but that is just speculation. and I argue that any idealized dogmatic principle applied tot he formation of a government is in fact what leads them to fail, and not any one principle in isolation.
No, i haven't posed an argument so far, i have only expressed my objections to your position. If i had to make an argument, it would look something like this:
Wealth affects agents' ability to pay for a resource, therefore their willingness to pay. Thus wealth inequality distorts demand, and so distorts prices, and so distorts profit. Thus someone commited that «utility should be the determiner of profit» should take a stand against inequality.
Ok, so if your premise is that inequality of wealth leads to these problems I would presume (correct me if im wrong) that the corollary is therefore true. Ensure perfect wealth equality (Everyone has the same amount of wealth, exactly) would be the only way to ensure a fair market?
If wealth equality is threfore the solution, how would you achieve that without invoking communism, which is literally the principle of wealth equality?
I should clarify that i'm not interested in achieving “a fair market”. I am, at best, agnostic about markets.
I should also emphasize that inequality is a spectrum. Taking a stand against inequality doesn't mean advocating perfect equality, it just means prefering less inequality rather than more. It means that inequality should be (perhaps ambiguously) undesirable on principle, rather than an unambiguously good outcome of “healthy capitalism”.
If inequality drives power vacuums that ultimately lead to corrupt elements of systems (like the market), then what would your reason be for wanting a little bit of inequality at all? Wouldnt perfect equality be superior to simply reducing inequality? What the reasoning there for you?
It has nothing to do with what i want. Perfect wealth equality is unachievable even if inequality is undesirable.
Neither does one need to be committed to perfect wealth equality to agree that, for example, a billion dollars is too much wealth for anyone to have.
> It has nothing to do with what i want. Perfect wealth equality is unachievable even if inequality is undesirable.
Ok lets rephrase slightly. Would your view of an ideal system be one that achieves the most wealth equality as possible through 100% even distribution of wealth (or as close to 100% even as the system can reasonably do)... If not, why not?
“as close to 100% as reasonable” is very generous and arguably passed by any given system. Maybe someone considers **any** attempt at wealth redistribution unreasonable, and therefore complete laissez-faire is to them as close to 100% equality as it reasonably gets.
Rather, i believe that relative equality would be the outcome of the system doing other things well, rather than a goal to pursue in spite of other concerns.
> Maybe someone considers **any** attempt at wealth redistribution unreasonable, and therefore complete laissez-faire is to them as close to 100% equality as it reasonably gets.
We are talking about what you envision as an ideal system (not what you want but what will make for the best system for all in your opinion)... therefore we are talking about reasonable by your reasoning and no one elses.
not sure i follow. I thought equality wasnt just a side effect but needed to prevent power vacuums?
Not trying to give you a hard time. Genuinely trying to understand your POV.
Well, i never said anything about power vacuums. You must be mistaking me with another commenter.
Insofar as concentration of wealth leads to concentration of power, the ideal system leads to relative wealth equality in particular because it's good at preventing concentration of power in general.
Not so much that im mistaking you, rather that im trying to extrapolate from what you said and getting some of it wrong, which is why we are talking and not yelling at each other :)
Ironically we are in complete agreement. In a healthy system wealth equality will in fact occur naturally through he other mechanisms in place. You do not want equality, but you will have less of a wealth gap in a healthy system than you would in an unhealthy system.
That said, as to the point I made many times a wealth gap is also going to exist (and needed) for such a healthy system as well.
Also, please, don't mistake granting a statement with agreement.
I see plenty of problems with the ideas of free education, welfare in general, conditional welfare in particular, law in general, and anti-trust law in particular, both in the context of the “free market” and beyond.
I'm just not interested in discussing them right now because, like i said, my question is about something different.
Also, please, don’t mistake granting a statement with agreement.
I see plenty of problems with the ideas of free education, welfare in general, conditional welfare in particular, law in general, and anti-trust law in particular, both in the context of the “free market” and beyond.
I didnt, dont worry. This is why I was careful to add the bit about the limited scope of our agreement. Specifically the aspect you said that you “granted” me.
Snark, not a serious question
@freemo @magitweeter @aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom
So basically you're asserting that Capitalism works perfectly when it doesn't interact with reality?