The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[Revoltingest]

This thread is about why we're nuts. Everyone in this thread is being psychoanalyzed by experts.

And who psychoanalyzes them?

 

[Stevicus]

That would make it unnatural selection, which does not align with evolution. Is the Left saying evolution and natural selection are flawed?

No, the Left isn't saying that. However, many people across the spectrum tend to denounce social Darwinism as unpalatable and odious.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, the Left isn't saying that. However, many people across the spectrum tend to denounce social Darwinism as unpalatable and odious.

Wikipedia gets "social darwinism" wrong.
But it also note that the article needs to be re-written.

Social Darwinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Excerpted...
Social Darwinism is the study and implementation of various pseudoscientific theories and societal practices that purport to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology, economics and politics, and which were largely defined by scholars in Western Europe and North America in the 1870s.

There is actually a sound scientific basis, ie, the analog with
biological evolution. Evolution's conditions of individuals
reproducing, random inputs, & fitness functions are met in
free market economics. Business models vary with the individual
creator (random element). Companies arise (reproduction), &
either succeed or fail (fitness function). Successful models are
copied (evolution).

The arguments should arise in deciding on the extent to
which life & death aspects of evolution should apply to
human systems.

 

[Stevicus]

Labor Unions are good or at least good when they start. In many cases, the pendulum swings from Capitalism without a heart to Labor Unions with no common sense. Both are good when hearts are good. Both can become bad when hearts are bad.

Actually, support of Capitalism started with the Pilgrims after their attempt at socialism failed.

IMV, the heart of capitalism needs its foundation to be cemented in scriptures:

I went at your bidding, and passed along their thoroughfares of trade. I ascended their mountains and went down their valleys. I visited their manufactories, their commercial markets, and emporiums of trade. I entered their judicial courts and legislative halls. But I sought everywhere in vain for the secret of their success, until I entered the church. It was there, as I listened to the soul-equalizing and soul-elevating principles of the Gospel of Christ, as they fell from Sabbath to Sabbath upon the masses of the people, that I learned why America was great and free, and why France was a slave. Tocqueville.

Ultimately, I think it's a matter of values and what people proclaim as their moral principles. It doesn't really matter what someone believes, just as long as they're honest about it and practice what they preach. It's when they don't is when problems arise.

Some people might say that there are plenty of good capitalists out there, so they might ask why should the good ones be lumped in with the bad ones? One might hear similar things said about good cops, good lawyers, good Christians - or whatever the case might be. And I have no doubt that there are still some people left with good hearts and are basically good people.

But the question then becomes, what do we do about the bad ones? How do we contend with what they do and the damage they cause? Can the law be strong enough, yet careful enough, to be able to remove the bad ones while leaving the good ones alone?

My opinion is that the law can be made strong enough to prevent capitalists from doing bad things that cause harm to people and society.

 

[Revoltingest]

I went at your bidding, and passed along their thoroughfares of trade. I ascended their mountains and went down their valleys. I visited their manufactories, their commercial markets, and emporiums of trade. I entered their judicial courts and legislative halls. But I sought everywhere in vain for the secret of their success, until I entered the church. It was there, as I listened to the soul-equalizing and soul-elevating principles of the Gospel of Christ, as they fell from Sabbath to Sabbath upon the masses of the people, that I learned why America was great and free, and why France was a slave. Tocqueville.

Christians taking credit for capitalism's successes, eh.
Yet the Pope lambasts market capitalism. Christians
continually clamor for socialism to replace capitalism.

Capitalism succeeds because it empowers individuals
to build, & to cooperate voluntarily. We don't need
Jesus to see the utility of economic liberty. (He has a
poor record with money changers, merchants, & the
wealthy. You know...the vandalism & scourging.)

One Christian's popular view...
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that."

 

[Stevicus]

Wikipedia gets "social darwinism" wrong.
But it also note that the article needs to be re-written.

Social Darwinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Excerpted...
Social Darwinism is the study and implementation of various pseudoscientific theories and societal practices that purport to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology, economics and politics, and which were largely defined by scholars in Western Europe and North America in the 1870s.

There is actually a sound scientific basis, ie, the analog with
biological evolution. Evolution's conditions of individuals
reproducing, random inputs, & fitness functions are met in
free market economics. Business models vary with the individual
creator (random element). Companies arise (reproduction), &
either succeed or fail (fitness function). Successful models are
copied (evolution).

The arguments should arise in deciding on the extent to
which life & death aspects of evolution should apply to
human systems.

Well, then, perhaps you can volunteer to Wikipedia to rewrite the article.

It's not really about the science, but about conflicting values. The underlying questions here are: What kind of society do we want? What kind of society do we claim to have? What kind of society do we actually have?

If we, as a society, wish to live by the precepts of natural law, there's nothing stopping us from doing so, if that's what we want. But we need to be careful about what we wish for. Sometimes nature responds in unpredictable ways.

 

[Kfox]

I don't know how affluent the average RFer is, but I think it's safe to assume that most of us are not in the 1% or even only the 10% wealthiest of our societies. But I have noticed that quite a few defend inadequate taxation of the rich. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome, or of mistreated people who defend their oppressors.
We are tribal in other ways, but in the case of capitalism so many of the have-not betray their tribe and fight for the tribe of the haves.

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth are untouchable?

I remember my uncle telling me about how there were white people marching along next to black people during the Civil Rights demonstrations of the 1960's and racist white people were asking why would these white people fight for an issue that is not in their interest. The reason is if you see something you consider unjust, you fight it even if it doesn't hurt you personally.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, then, perhaps you can volunteer to Wikipedia to rewrite the article.

I've edited a few things on Wikipedia & Conservapedia.
But my work here takes priority.

It's not really about the science, but about conflicting values.

Aye, it's how people want to use the science.
Science itself is neutral.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, it doesn’t. It says they paid some 40% based on the AGI their lawyers cooked up. Don’t be so naive.

Ok, believe what you want.

 

[Altfish]

That's not a common view. Economists
don't treat infrastructure as making a
socialist economy. But even if that were
the common view, there remains a market
economy for goods & services, ie, capitalism.

In a true capitalist society, all services would be built by the private sector, roads, schools, gas supply, etc.
That's why I say that there is a very happy common ground.

 

[Heyo]

This thread is about why we're nuts. Everyone in this thread is being psychoanalyzed by experts.

I'm not an expert - but, yes, I analyse the answers - and the non-answers - to help me understand what's going on.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yes, that is a perennial debate of course.

I think there are also a couple more underlying issues that have not come up.

One is that it has always been traditional, in almost every society since the dawn of time, for the powerful to be seen as having a duty of care towards the powerless. Riches confer power.

Those of us that have grown up in older societies (I am British) are very aware that the wealthy have mostly not got wealthy purely by dint of their own talents and hard work, but at least in part by the luck of birth. In my own case, I had the good fortune to be the son of intellectual parents who valued education - and who had some help with the mortgage on the family house from money inherited from the previous generation. These factors, combined with my own (inherited, by luck) intelligence, got me to a good university, a good job and eventually a clever, industrious, high-flying wife. Et voila, I have been able to retire a fairly wealthy man.

It is part of the (somewhat self-serving) American myth that people generate their own wealth from nothing. In most cases that is untrue. There is a lot of luck, much of it associated with the class into which one is born. That's not to say there are no genuine rags-to-riches cases - of course there are - but when you dig into many wealthy, or comfortably off, people's backgrounds, you find the sort of thing I am describing. In older societies that have, or had, an aristocracy and a landed gentry class, as we have had in Britain, this is well recognised and the more fortunate have by tradition felt an obligation towards the less fortunate. (Christianity of course teaches this too and we are a Christian society by tradition, even if a lot of people no longer subscribe to the religion itself.)

It does not matter to me how people have the wealth they have. It is theirs to do with as they wish as long as it was obtained legally.

One of the purposes of redistributive taxation is to enshrine this obligation of the wealthier and to limit the natural tendency to conserve wealth within a class, so that one does not make social mobility between classes too difficult.

I believe in the US this obligation is enshrined in the tax code as the rich pay most of the income taxes.

The other issue is that it is socially unhealthy to have too wide a disparity in wealth. It breeds envy, resentment and lack of respect, fosters crime and corruption and weakens compliance with the law. This is bad for everyone.

Those things are not the fault of people that have the money.

 

[metis]

I know at least one person here doesn't like this, but I'll post it anyway: "It takes an entire village to raise a child".

Some just don't get why this is the case. Hint: maybe they should study macro-economics.

 

[exchemist]

It does not matter to me how people have the wealth they have. It is theirs to do with as they wish as long as it was obtained legally.

I believe in the US this obligation is enshrined in the tax code as the rich pay most of the income taxes.

Those things are not the fault of people that have the money.

None of this is about fault. I'm not suggesting it's my fault that I am financially comfortable. I'm suggesting it is (partly at least) about good luck and that I should be willing to pay my taxes to share some of my good fortune with my fellow citizens whose luck has not been as good as mine.

It is about maintaining a society that is judged, by most of its citizens, to be sufficiently fair that they can support it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

None of this is about fault. It is about maintaining a society that is judged, by most of its citizens, to be sufficiently fair that they can support it.

Taking money from people simply because they have it is not just nor should it be supported by society.

 

[Koldo]

In terms of the US, my first priority would be universal healthcare, a real overhaul, not just cobbling something out of what currently exists. What would be unique in my plan, is that the national healthcare plan would be funded through a national sales tax. In essence, health insurance premiums would be either partially or wholly covered by the sales tax. The idea here is that the sales tax would vary depending on a products health impact. Alcohol and tobacco would have a higher sales tax. Products with added salt and sugar would have a higher sales tax. In this way, if you consume a lot of things that negatively impact your health, then your higher premiums paid through tax would cover that high risk lifestyle. If there is a larger tax on a 2L bottle of soda, but none on a gallon of milk, the health impact of food choices would be captured in the product pricing. If you are a very moderate soda drinker, you are not going to see much difference in you grocery budget. If all you drink is soda, then you are covering the cost of the increase health risks associated with that behavior. Beyond food, there could be a component attached to gas prices to cover health care costs related to nationwide traffic injuries for example. Each years taxes rates would reflect previous years actuarial and epidemiological data.

Have you gone over the numbers? Health expenses are very high. I sincerely doubt you would be able to fund them through this tax alone.

Minimum wage would be another area to address, but that seems to be going up nationwide now in the US.

The jobs issue would be one of the toughest nuts to crack, and may require permanent depression era work programs to guarantee entry level work opportunities and the ability to build a good work history in disadvantaged communities with high unemployment.

As to housing, perhaps government housing consisting of very small studio apartments that would provide transitional housing for entry level workers that they would eventually transition out of as they gained work experience and skills.

Education would also be a high priority with emphasis on quality preschool programs in poor communities as well as advanced technical training opportunities. Not everyone is suited to going to college nor needs to go to college.

Last, I would make birth control options free of charge. Having children too young or when one is not financially ready can have a tremendous impact on ones financial future.

Those suggestions would, together, require significantly increasing taxes on the most wealthy.

 

[Heyo]

Taking money from people simply because they have it is not just nor should it be supported by society.

Different societies have different opinions about how much money to take away is just. But they all agree that it is just and necessary to take away money from those who have it. It's called taxation, and very few can do without it.

 

[Koldo]

Taking money from people simply because they have it is not just nor should it be supported by society.

What if we collectively judge that the way this money was acquired was not just in the first place?

 

[Koldo]

The success of Capitalism is because it is very similar to evolution and natural selection. Capitalism is modeled on nature. I do not see Liberals being upset when natural selection does not pick everyone. Liberals believe in evolution but do not expect the fittest animals and plants to self amputate and self prune, to give limbs to the mutant plants animals, not selected. However, they want to do it by force for humans, via a wasteful government. That is not how natural selection works. That would make it unnatural selection, which does not align with evolution. Is the Left saying evolution and natural selection are flawed?

Naturallistic fallacy.

 

[Firenze]

Ok, believe what you want.

You too….