Why? If you can't even understand the real meaning of what Adam Smith meant by invisible hand then it is clear you lack basic comprehension.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Unbridled Capitalism is self-destructive
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
I understand it perfectly.
But since we are all unique and different, we all use our own free will differently.
So there is no such a thing as providence, because free will impedes it.
Audie
Veteran Member
Why argue against something that does not and could not exist?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Novel length non sequitur.
Audie
Veteran Member
As you think " invisible hand" is
providence, it's clear you don't understand it at all
How are you defining "capitalism" in the above statement, though? I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree because I don't know the exact definition you have in mind.
I think the flaw in your argument here is that you're basing it all on the assumption that "capitalism creates wealth," which has never been true. One can say that industrialism has created a certain degree of value in that humans have developed machines which enhance life and make human existence easier, more efficient, and more abundant.
A craftsman or inventor might come up with an idea but may not have the means or resources to implement it on industrial scale and therefore might need capital investment to put it in motion. Of course, that capital can come from different sources, including government or possibly a wealthy family-owned enterprise. In the US, it was done primarily through establishing private corporations and trusts in which the owners were neither the creators, managers, or workers - who were all merely employees, yet under extreme pressure to exact as much profit as possible while expending as little as possible. The owners were detached and indifferent to the processes taking place, giving rise to the term "soulless corporation," since it was more cold and machine-like, adding to the mystique.
Of course, that's not to deny that there was a free-flow of information among craftsmen, scientists, inventors, engineers, etc. who studied each other's ideas and tried to build upon and improve the work of others. Open communication, sharing of knowledge, and a certain degree of democratic transparency can help facilitate the flow of ideas and information, which can act as a catalyst to the creative processes which lead to good ideas and inventions of machines which have enhanced our lives. But that's not really "capitalism" which does it; capitalism is the beneficiary of that process, not the initiator of it.
Moreover, it's also helped that improvements in navigation on the high seas helped bring about exploration which opened up new and fertile lands across the oceans to European settlement and exploitation. Capitalists didn't actually "create" new land and resources, but they managed to luck into it and find a whole wealth of resources that they didn't know existed previously. It's easy to "create wealth" when it just sort of falls right into your lap, so to speak.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Do you view regulations that protect workers, consumers, or the environment as attacks on capitalism?
Enlighten me, then.
One question:
Hypothetical scenario: your daughter comes back home and tells you that her teacher hit her with a stick. In fact, her little arms are filled with bruises.
What will you do?
You will tell the teacher off?
Thank you.
Capitalism either does not work or works quite badly for at least half (or thereabouts) of the global population. To say that capitalism, at least in its current state, "works" seems to me to overlook or be unaware of the catastrophic effects that capitalist exploitation has had on billions of people, especially in Africa, South and Central America, and Asia.
The forgotten 3 billion
Wolfgang Fengler, Homi Kharas, and Juan Caballero discuss the vulnerable 3.4 billion people who are not extremely poor, but not yet part of the middle class.
www.brookings.edu
Western capitalism in particular has frequently led to imperialism, exploitation, and abusive interventionism. Its unsustainability is coming to a head now that climate change is worsening and reaching a point where even wealthy countries can no longer afford to ignore it.
Capitalism is the economic system where the economy itself is largely driven by private enterprise and the free market, including the laws of supply and demand. That is the essential component for the creation of wealth.
That being said, as with all other broad definitions, there are nuances. We have "free speech" but can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, for example. That broad freedom is constrained for some clearly identifiable good reason. Thus, most nations in which capitalism prevails engage in some market regulation. The more regulation, which can include some state-owned enterprises, the further the economy moves away from strict capitalism. Canada, which has more state-owned enterprises than the U.S., is less capitalist as a consequence.
Classical economics - Wikipedia
Classical economics, classical political economy, or Smithian economics is a school of thought in political economy that flourished, primarily in Britain, in the late 18th and early-to-mid 19th century. Its main thinkers are held to be Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo, Thomas Robert Malthus, and John Stuart Mill. These economists produced a theory of market economies as largely self-regulating systems, governed by natural laws of production and exchange (famously captured by Adam Smith's metaphor of the invisible hand).
Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations in 1776 is usually considered to mark the beginning of classical economics.[1] The fundamental message in Smith's book was that the wealth of any nation was determined not by the gold in the monarch's coffers, but by its national income. This income was in turn based on the labor of its inhabitants, organized efficiently by the division of labour and the use of accumulated capital, which became one of classical economics' central concepts.[2]
In terms of economic policy, the classical economists were pragmatic liberals, advocating the freedom of the market, though they saw a role for the state in providing for the common good. Smith acknowledged that there were areas where the market is not the best way to serve the common interest, and he took it as a given that the greater proportion of the costs supporting the common good should be borne by those best able to afford them. He warned repeatedly of the dangers of monopoly, and stressed the importance of competition.[1] In terms of international trade, the classical economists were advocates of free trade, which distinguishes them from their mercantilist predecessors, who advocated protectionism.
The designation of Smith, Ricardo and some earlier economists as "classical" is due to a canonization which stems from Karl Marx's critique of political economy, where he critiqued those that he at least perceived as worthy of dealing with, as opposed to their "vulgar" successors. There is some debate about what is covered by the term classical economics, particularly when dealing with the period from 1830 to 1875, and how classical economics relates to neoclassical economics.
...
A key consideration regarding the classical economists, who were primarily liberals but also nationalists, which was considered far more benign and beneficial in that period than the more malignant forms it took post-1871. The title of Smith's book was The Wealth of Nations. The "unseen hand," is just more of a metaphor, but it largely assumes (based on the state of the world in Smith's time) that there would be an activist government out exploring new territories, claiming new lands for the Empire, thus expanding opportunities for its inhabitants.
Thanks. I agree that a market is necessary for generation of wealth, but I also believe cooperatives and public ownership of certain utilities and facilities in a democracy would be significantly better than private ownership and control thereof. Two examples of this are health insurance and much of the energy sector. When private enterprise controls health insurance, it usually results in extortionate costs for necessary medical care. When it controls the energy sector, ecologically disastrous lobbying usually ensues.
I do believe that economic systems can be a spectrum rather than strictly binary—so, as you pointed out, Canada would be less capitalist than the US but still capitalist nonetheless. Likewise, different countries may employ different levels of socialism or socialist principles in their regulations and economic systems without being fully socialist (or fully capitalist).
Capitalism does not equate with exploitation. Just the opposite. Capitalism requires a mutually beneficial exchange. Nor does Capitalism equate with imperialism. Au contrare, Capitalism is the antidote of imperialism. You are arguing against a straw man.Capitalism either does not work or works quite badly for at least half (or thereabouts) of the global population. To say that capitalism, at least in its current state, "works" seems to me to overlook or be unaware of the catastrophic effects that capitalist exploitation has had on billions of people, especially in Africa, South and Central America, and Asia.
The forgotten 3 billion
Wolfgang Fengler, Homi Kharas, and Juan Caballero discuss the vulnerable 3.4 billion people who are not extremely poor, but not yet part of the middle class.
Western capitalism in particular has frequently led to imperialism, exploitation, and abusive interventionism. Its unsustainability is coming to a head now that climate change is worsening and reaching a point where even wealthy countries can no longer afford to ignore it.
What are your thoughts on the link and excerpts I posted? The global system of trade is currently capitalist, and about half of the planet live in poverty or economic hardship, while the richest 1% contribute more to climate change than billions of poor people. Are these indicators of a system that works well?
I don't think much of them nor the argument. The world en masse is progressing towards the elimination of poverty. Both the percentages and absolute levels of poverty have dropped incredibly over the past century and the future portents to be one of plenty never seen before by humanity. We are on the cusp of coming new golden age.
I am neo-Keynesian.Classical economics - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Classical economics, classical political economy, or Smithian economics is a school of thought in political economy that flourished, primarily in Britain, in the late 18th and early-to-mid 19th century. Its main thinkers are held to be Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo, Thomas Robert Malthus, and John Stuart Mill. These economists produced a theory of market economies as largely self-regulating systems, governed by natural laws of production and exchange (famously captured by Adam Smith's metaphor of the invisible hand).
Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations in 1776 is usually considered to mark the beginning of classical economics.[1] The fundamental message in Smith's book was that the wealth of any nation was determined not by the gold in the monarch's coffers, but by its national income. This income was in turn based on the labor of its inhabitants, organized efficiently by the division of labour and the use of accumulated capital, which became one of classical economics' central concepts.[2]
In terms of economic policy, the classical economists were pragmatic liberals, advocating the freedom of the market, though they saw a role for the state in providing for the common good. Smith acknowledged that there were areas where the market is not the best way to serve the common interest, and he took it as a given that the greater proportion of the costs supporting the common good should be borne by those best able to afford them. He warned repeatedly of the dangers of monopoly, and stressed the importance of competition.[1] In terms of international trade, the classical economists were advocates of free trade, which distinguishes them from their mercantilist predecessors, who advocated protectionism.
The designation of Smith, Ricardo and some earlier economists as "classical" is due to a canonization which stems from Karl Marx's critique of political economy, where he critiqued those that he at least perceived as worthy of dealing with, as opposed to their "vulgar" successors. There is some debate about what is covered by the term classical economics, particularly when dealing with the period from 1830 to 1875, and how classical economics relates to neoclassical economics.
...
A key consideration regarding the classical economists, who were primarily liberals but also nationalists, which was considered far more benign and beneficial in that period than the more malignant forms it took post-1871. The title of Smith's book was The Wealth of Nations. The "unseen hand," is just more of a metaphor, but it largely assumes (based on the state of the world in Smith's time) that there would be an activist government out exploring new territories, claiming new lands for the Empire, thus expanding opportunities for its inhabitants.
If population had been 6 billion less...yes...world poverty would have been solved.