Why the Way in Which Capitalism Creates Winners and Losers is Wrong

[Sunstone]

One thing all sides to a debate on the merits of capitalism can on occasion agree to is that "capitalism creates (or at least sorts out) winners and losers".

Proponents and opponents typically cast that principle in different lights, but often agree on that much, if nothing else.

Under capitalism, proponents often argue, the hardest working members of society receive their just reward by achieving prosperity, etc, while those who fail to work as hard in turn get what they deserve -- relative poverty. Thus, it is concluded, capitalism is a fair and just system since it is a system under which people chose what they get.

Now, as anyone who really studies these things knows, that argument is often attacked on the grounds that it is naively based on idealism and ideology, rather than on empirical science, because empirical science tells us that in a capitalist system, the predominant factor in determining where you end up is often enough how wealthy your parents were. And that is especially true in America these days. Any more, hard work doesn't even come close to determining where you end up as does how rich your parents were. That's a common enough criticism of capitalism, but it is NOT the criticism I wish to examine here today.

What I wish to point out is that, even if the proponents of capitalism were correct in assuming that it is a "system under which people chose what they get", pure unregulated and unrestricted capitalism would not be the optimal system for human well-being because it selects "winners and losers" on much too narrow of a basis.

Put as briefly as possible, capitalism does not select for many human traits that most us who are not psychopaths might find it valuable for a social/economic system to promote. Traits such as compassion, kindness, cooperation, generosity, community-mindedness, consideration for the well-being of others, etc.

At best, I think, it is arguable that capitalism does not actually prevent anyone from being those things, or from cultivating those things in themselves. But even there, I think one is on thin ice. For example, the corporation that lays off three thousand workers by offshoring their jobs to a nation with much lower wages and fewer environmental and work regulations is certainly displaying none of those traits -- and yet it is to be praised, by the logic of capitalism, for increasing its economic efficiency by reducing costs and thus increasing its value to shareholders in the form of profits -- to say nothing of the praise it might also deserve for increasing its competitiveness.

In sum, I think the commonsense question to ask whenever some proponent of capitalism claims it is an especially moral system because it picks winners and losers who should or ought to be winners or losers -- the commonsense question to ask is "Moral for whom?"

Pics of kittens? Brief, but poignant accounts of loves lost? Tearful and/or mouth frothing denials that there's even a little truth to the OP? Legitimate questions and/or comments?




______________
Sadly Necessary Footnote: None of the above should be taken as proof that I am anti-capitalist. I am not. I am just anti-unregulated, unrestricted capitalism, such as we seem to have increasingly turned to over the past 40 or more years in America.

 

[Stevicus]

One thing all sides to a debate on the merits of capitalism can on occasion agree to is that "capitalism creates (or at least sorts out) winners and losers".

Proponents and opponents typically cast that principle in different lights, but often agree on that much, if nothing else.

Under capitalism, proponents often argue, the hardest working members of society receive their just reward by achieving prosperity, etc, while those who fail to work as hard in turn get what they deserve -- relative poverty. Thus, it is concluded, capitalism is a fair and just system since it is a system under which people chose what they get.

Now, as anyone who really studies these things knows, that argument is often attacked on the grounds that it is naively based on idealism and ideology, rather than on empirical science, because empirical science tells us that in a capitalist system, the predominant factor in determining where you end up is often enough how wealthy your parents were. And that is especially true in America these days. Any more, hard work doesn't even come close to determining where you end up as does how rich your parents were. That's a common enough criticism of capitalism, but it is NOT the criticism I wish to examine here today.

What I wish to point out is that, even if the proponents of capitalism were correct in assuming that it is a "system under which people chose what they get", pure unregulated and unrestricted capitalism would not be the optimal system for human well-being because it selects "winners and losers" on much too narrow of a basis.

Put as briefly as possible, capitalism does not select for many human traits that most us who are not psychopaths might find it valuable for a social/economic system to promote. Traits such as compassion, kindness, cooperation, generosity, community-mindedness, consideration for the well-being of others, etc.

At best, I think, it is arguable that capitalism does not actually prevent anyone from being those things, or from cultivating those things in themselves. But even there, I think one is on thin ice. For example, the corporation that lays off three thousand workers by offshoring their jobs to a nation with much lower wages and fewer environmental and work regulations is certainly displaying none of those traits -- and yet it is to be praised, by the logic of capitalism, for increasing its economic efficiency by reducing costs and thus increasing its value to shareholders in the form of profits -- to say nothing of the praise it might also deserve for increasing its competitiveness.

In sum, I think the commonsense question to ask whenever some proponent of capitalism claims it is an especially moral system because it picks winners and losers who should or ought to be winners or losers -- the commonsense question to ask is "Moral for whom?"

Pics of kittens? Brief, but poignant accounts of loves lost? Tearful and/or mouth frothing denials that there's even a little truth to the OP? Legitimate questions and/or comments?




______________
Sadly Necessary Footnote: None of the above should be taken as proof that I am anti-capitalist. I am not. I am just anti-unregulated, unrestricted capitalism, such as we seem to have increasingly turned to over the past 40 or more years in America.

Excellent summary, so here are your pics of kittens:

As to the concepts you raised regarding capitalism and the "morality" behind it, I think you're spot on.

To me, there are different ways of looking at the world.

We can take the idea of "survival of the fittest" and let nature take its course. Predators and prey. The strong prey on the weak, and that's just the way of nature. We can do that, if that's the kind of world we want, but it would be a lawless, Mad Max kind of world.

Some here might see me as "anti-capitalist," and I wouldn't entirely object to that categorization. I wasn't always as anti-capitalist as I am now. I think it was during the Reagan era when capitalists became so brazen and unreasonable in their approach, and that's when I became far more anti-capitalist. I'm not so much against "capitalism" as I am against the tenets of their religion - which essentially amount to jingoism, propaganda, and lies.

I mean, if someone wants to bask in their wealth, that's their business not mine. If they want to pat themselves on the back, pound their chest, or otherwise credit themselves as some of great "success," I won't stand in the way. But when they want to give some kind of moral justification after the fact regarding the disparities between rich and poor and say that it's because of some great capitalist system or some imaginary abstract concept known as "freedom," then I start to call BS on that pablum.

 

[PureX]

Capitalism rewards money with money. The more you have of it, the more it will enable you to get more of it. And the giant flaw in that system is that it does not care about the character of the person being rewarded. In fact, capitalism tends to reward people of dubious character because it rewards greed and cunning, and the willingness to do whatever it takes to whomever gets in the way of profits. Capitalism is fundamentally a parasitical economic system, that inevitably creates a parasitical "investor class". And worse then that, it continually rewards the investor class amorally and anti-socially until it becomes the most powerful force within (and against) the society it inhabits. The more the wealth piles up in the hands of the parasitical investor class, the more able they are to corrupt social and governmental systems to gain further control and advantage. And because they are rewarded amorally by the capitalist system, they behave amorally when they gain in wealth and power.

 

[Stevicus]

Under capitalism, proponents often argue, the hardest working members of society receive their just reward by achieving prosperity, etc, while those who fail to work as hard in turn get what they deserve -- relative poverty. Thus, it is concluded, capitalism is a fair and just system since it is a system under which people chose what they get.

I forgot to address the point about "hard work." That's another part of the capitalist mantra, that those who are wealthy got there because of hard work, while those who are poor are nothing more than lazy, shiftless bums. I often get these kinds of arguments from Little Rascals and Scottish groundskeepers.

But really, where is the logic in making such assumptions? A person can work hard in the fields for 8-10 hours a day in the hot sun and still not be any better off than they were. Then there are others who can sit at a desk and make a few phone calls to their stockbroker and become a million dollars richer. That's what passes for "hard work" these days?

Or take this line from the movie Wall Street. This pretty much sums up capitalism in a nutshell.

Gordon Gekko: The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bullsh*t. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you buddy? It's the free market. And you're a part of it. You've got that killer instinct. Stick around pal, I've still got a lot to teach you.

The key part of this is in Gekko's admission that "I create nothing." It's true. Capitalists create nothing, they invent nothing, they do...nothing.

But to listen to ideological capitalists talk about, they think capitalists are absolutely indispensable. The argument implies that capitalists deserve all the wealth and power because they're somehow "magical people." This is the kind of BS propaganda which capitalists have been feeding people since the Reagan era.

Even those who consider themselves "good" capitalists, who may very well be honest and ethical - they're still running interference and justifying the positions of the bad ones among them. They're still defending the same system which creates these inequities and disparities.

 

[joe1776]

One thing all sides to a debate on the merits of capitalism can on occasion agree to is that "capitalism creates (or at least sorts out) winners and losers".

Proponents and opponents typically cast that principle in different lights, but often agree on that much, if nothing else.

Under capitalism, proponents often argue, the hardest working members of society receive their just reward by achieving prosperity, etc, while those who fail to work as hard in turn get what they deserve -- relative poverty. Thus, it is concluded, capitalism is a fair and just system since it is a system under which people chose what they get.

Now, as anyone who really studies these things knows, that argument is often attacked on the grounds that it is naively based on idealism and ideology, rather than on empirical science, because empirical science tells us that in a capitalist system, the predominant factor in determining where you end up is often enough how wealthy your parents were. And that is especially true in America these days. Any more, hard work doesn't even come close to determining where you end up as does how rich your parents were. That's a common enough criticism of capitalism, but it is NOT the criticism I wish to examine here today.

What I wish to point out is that, even if the proponents of capitalism were correct in assuming that it is a "system under which people chose what they get", pure unregulated and unrestricted capitalism would not be the optimal system for human well-being because it selects "winners and losers" on much too narrow of a basis.

Put as briefly as possible, capitalism does not select for many human traits that most us who are not psychopaths might find it valuable for a social/economic system to promote. Traits such as compassion, kindness, cooperation, generosity, community-mindedness, consideration for the well-being of others, etc.

At best, I think, it is arguable that capitalism does not actually prevent anyone from being those things, or from cultivating those things in themselves. But even there, I think one is on thin ice. For example, the corporation that lays off three thousand workers by offshoring their jobs to a nation with much lower wages and fewer environmental and work regulations is certainly displaying none of those traits -- and yet it is to be praised, by the logic of capitalism, for increasing its economic efficiency by reducing costs and thus increasing its value to shareholders in the form of profits -- to say nothing of the praise it might also deserve for increasing its competitiveness.

In sum, I think the commonsense question to ask whenever some proponent of capitalism claims it is an especially moral system because it picks winners and losers who should or ought to be winners or losers -- the commonsense question to ask is "Moral for whom?"

Pics of kittens? Brief, but poignant accounts of loves lost? Tearful and/or mouth frothing denials that there's even a little truth to the OP? Legitimate questions and/or comments?




______________
Sadly Necessary Footnote: None of the above should be taken as proof that I am anti-capitalist. I am not. I am just anti-unregulated, unrestricted capitalism, such as we seem to have increasingly turned to over the past 40 or more years in America.

Society is essentially a cooperative endeavor which asks that each member contributes a fair share of time and effort and receives a fair share of the benefits in return. Using a competitive economic system to do that is a truly dumb idea. However, a completely cooperative system would require a competent government, free of corruption, to manage it -- and we humans have yet to invent such a system. So, until we have one, the so-called mixed economies work best.

The competitive free market works okay on products that informed consumers, spending their own money, can shop and compare. But services, especially financial services and insured health care have to be regulated because otherwise fraud will prevail -- and even poor regulation is better than none.

 

[WalterTrull]

There are interesting controls coming to light in our capitalist republican democracy. Take the Roseanne thing (please). She got too big for her britches, offended a lot of people, and ABC responded by losing 60 million dollars (I'm told). Just another checks and balances quirk. Fun!

 

[icehorse]

All systems of government and economies are complex machines. As such, they ALL need periodic (if not constant), tweaking and fine tuning. So unchecked capitalism has many of the problems you've all agreed to.

But with the proper checks and balances in place, cooperation and compassion can be some of the results of good capitalistic systems. And further, the only alternative I'm aware of is a totalitarian, big-brother sort of system, and those seem far more problematic.

 

[PureX]

Society is essentially a cooperative endeavor which asks that each member contributes a fair share of time and effort and receives a fair share of the benefits in return. Using a competitive economic system to do that is a truly dumb idea. However, a completely cooperative system would require a competent government, free of corruption, to manage it -- and we humans have yet to invent such a system. So, until we have one, the so-called mixed economies work best.

The competitive free market works okay on products that informed consumers, spending their own money, can shop and compare. But services, especially financial services and insured health care have to be regulated because otherwise fraud will prevail -- and even poor regulation is better than none.

We have to distinguish between a free market and a captive market. The difference being that in a free market the buyer can simply refuse to buy when the sellers become greedy and exploitive. But in a captive market, which a great many of them have become in a modern inter-dependent society like our own, the buyer has to buy from someone. And the sellers all know it. So they don't have to meet in back rooms to price-fix (which is illegal), to exploit the buyers. They can do it via their universal desire to gain as much profit from as little expenditure as possible. So that in a captive market, the prices rise (through greed) until they become unsustainable, rather than falling (through competition) until they become unsustainable. Mislabeling captive markets as free markets is the biggest lie the capitalists tell us, so that they can create the illusion that they are competing with each other for the biggest market share, when they are really only competing for highest profit share. Everyone of them would rather sell 1 gallon of product for $10 per gallon then sell 10 gallons of product for $1 each. They don't want market share, what they want is a monopoly so they can price-gouge and sell 1 gallon for $10, or whatever the top-most sustainable price will be. And all they need to get that is a buyer that has to buy from someone. As we do with our place to live, with all forms of home energy, with health care, with pharmaceuticals, with food, with communications and transportation, and with everything else that is no longer a luxury in a modern society, but a necessity, and that we cannot obtain on our own. Which is nearly everything we buy these days.

We keep glorifying the righteousness of free markets, but we are living almost exclusively in a captive market economy.

 

[PureX]

All systems of government and economies are complex machines. As such, they ALL need periodic (if not constant), tweaking and fine tuning. So unchecked capitalism has many of the problems you've all agreed to.

But with the proper checks and balances in place, cooperation and compassion can be some of the results of good capitalistic systems. And further, the only alternative I'm aware of is a totalitarian, big-brother sort of system, and those seem far more problematic.

The proper checks and balances invalidate the label "capitalism". Just as the fact that we are living in a captive market invalidates our labeling it a "free market economy". By definition, capitalism is an economic system in which the capital investor controls the commercial enterprise in which his capital is invested. If we have to install checks and limits on the capitalist's control (for the good of society as whole) then we are no longer defining capitalism, but rather socialism with capitalist allowances and tendencies. It doesn't really work the other way round, though: 'capitalism with socialist tendencies'. Because capitalism has no socialist tendencies. That's why they have to be imposed, and enforced.

 

[BSM1]

I forgot to address the point about "hard work." That's another part of the capitalist mantra, that those who are wealthy got there because of hard work, while those who are poor are nothing more than lazy, shiftless bums. I often get these kinds of arguments from Little Rascals and Scottish groundskeepers.

But really, where is the logic in making such assumptions? A person can work hard in the fields for 8-10 hours a day in the hot sun and still not be any better off than they were. Then there are others who can sit at a desk and make a few phone calls to their stockbroker and become a million dollars richer. That's what passes for "hard work" these days?

Or take this line from the movie Wall Street. This pretty much sums up capitalism in a nutshell.



The key part of this is in Gekko's admission that "I create nothing." It's true. Capitalists create nothing, they invent nothing, they do...nothing.

But to listen to ideological capitalists talk about, they think capitalists are absolutely indispensable. The argument implies that capitalists deserve all the wealth and power because they're somehow "magical people." This is the kind of BS propaganda which capitalists have been feeding people since the Reagan era.

Even those who consider themselves "good" capitalists, who may very well be honest and ethical - they're still running interference and justifying the positions of the bad ones among them. They're still defending the same system which creates these inequities and disparities.

I know of no Little Rascal or Scottish Ground Keeper that ever said anything close to what you just made up. What they are more likely to say is that capitalism offers common folks a chance to work toward a reward that most of the rest of the world can only dream about (or condemn). They also would have said that there are absolutely no guarantees of achieving those goals, but left alone they have produced some of the greatest boons to mankind (you can thank someone working out of their garage, BTW, every time you pound that keyboard in your righteous socialistic frustration).

 

[BSM1]

All systems of government and economies are complex machines. As such, they ALL need periodic (if not constant), tweaking and fine tuning. So unchecked capitalism has many of the problems you've all agreed to.

But with the proper checks and balances in place, cooperation and compassion can be some of the results of good capitalistic systems. And further, the only alternative I'm aware of is a totalitarian, big-brother sort of system, and those seem far more problematic.

WTH is "unchecked capitalism"?

 

[Sanzbir]

Put as briefly as possible, capitalism does not select for many human traits that most us who are not psychopaths might find it valuable for a social/economic system to promote. Traits such as compassion, kindness, cooperation, generosity, community-mindedness, consideration for the well-being of others, etc.

This one statement stands out to my "devil's advocate senses" as something to examine.

Let's take the traits one-at-a-time, and try to see if capitalism selects for or against these traits. In order of "most obviously for" to "least".

Cooperation. Obviously capitalism selects for this. Anti-trust laws would surely be unneeded if cooperation was not beneficial under the capitalist system, correct?? We wouldn't need laws to address the risks of big businesses cooperating if cooperation was devalued in the system. Additionally, the stereotypical image of a corporation is a board of individuals cooperating, not a single salesman dominating a whole industry alone.

Consideration for the well-being of others. Which of the following two does better: A business that considers the needs of the customer, or the business that tries to sell something no-one wants?? Thus consideration must a necessary trait for business. I guess you could argue that "the desires of others" might not line up with "the well-being of others", but in general, you have to have consideration for others if you want to sell anything.

Compassion, kindness. Sorta the same thing so I'll tackle the two at once. Imagine two restaurants. One has polite, respectful, kind, and compassionate staff members. Their motto is "thank you, have a nice day". The other restaurant has surly, disgruntled staff members that end every sentence with "and f*** you". Which business succeeds?? So kindness seems necessary for business.

Community-mindedness. One business sells things the community wants and needs. Another sells something no one needs. Which one succeeds??

Generosity. Probably the most counter-intuitive, but here's a try for the sake of Devil's Advocacy: One business sells their product at four times the cost of production, the other sells the same product at 1.4 times the cost of production, which business gets more customers?? The person who people offers more for less wins the larger share of the market. Now I suppose this could be said to be not generosity, since the reason the business is acting "generous" is to make more money. So their generosity is actually greed, which is why I rank this one lowest on the list here.

 

[Lyndon]

Capitalism rewards greed and dishonesty, hard work only gets you a minimum wage job if you're lucky!!

 

[WalterTrull]

Capitalism rewards greed and dishonesty, hard work only gets you a minimum wage job if you're lucky!!

Well... not saying it's wrong, but... Our morality infused capitalism gives out a lot of free lunches.

 

[icehorse]

The proper checks and balances invalidate the label "capitalism". Just as the fact that we are living in a captive market invalidates our labeling it a "free market economy". By definition, capitalism is an economic system in which the capital investor controls the commercial enterprise in which his capital is invested. If we have to install checks and limits on the capitalist's control (for the good of society as whole) then we are no longer defining capitalism, but rather socialism with capitalist allowances and tendencies. It doesn't really work the other way round, though: 'capitalism with socialist tendencies'. Because capitalism has no socialist tendencies. That's why they have to be imposed, and enforced.

I'm not attached to specific labels. If we want to define terms like "pure capitalism" or "90/10 capitalism" or whatever, that sounds useful.

But I'm not sure I understand why you say "capitalism with socialist tendencies" doesn't work. Isn't that just semantics?

 

[sayak83]

One thing all sides to a debate on the merits of capitalism can on occasion agree to is that "capitalism creates (or at least sorts out) winners and losers".

Proponents and opponents typically cast that principle in different lights, but often agree on that much, if nothing else.

Under capitalism, proponents often argue, the hardest working members of society receive their just reward by achieving prosperity, etc, while those who fail to work as hard in turn get what they deserve -- relative poverty. Thus, it is concluded, capitalism is a fair and just system since it is a system under which people chose what they get.

Now, as anyone who really studies these things knows, that argument is often attacked on the grounds that it is naively based on idealism and ideology, rather than on empirical science, because empirical science tells us that in a capitalist system, the predominant factor in determining where you end up is often enough how wealthy your parents were. And that is especially true in America these days. Any more, hard work doesn't even come close to determining where you end up as does how rich your parents were. That's a common enough criticism of capitalism, but it is NOT the criticism I wish to examine here today.

What I wish to point out is that, even if the proponents of capitalism were correct in assuming that it is a "system under which people chose what they get", pure unregulated and unrestricted capitalism would not be the optimal system for human well-being because it selects "winners and losers" on much too narrow of a basis.

Put as briefly as possible, capitalism does not select for many human traits that most us who are not psychopaths might find it valuable for a social/economic system to promote. Traits such as compassion, kindness, cooperation, generosity, community-mindedness, consideration for the well-being of others, etc.

At best, I think, it is arguable that capitalism does not actually prevent anyone from being those things, or from cultivating those things in themselves. But even there, I think one is on thin ice. For example, the corporation that lays off three thousand workers by offshoring their jobs to a nation with much lower wages and fewer environmental and work regulations is certainly displaying none of those traits -- and yet it is to be praised, by the logic of capitalism, for increasing its economic efficiency by reducing costs and thus increasing its value to shareholders in the form of profits -- to say nothing of the praise it might also deserve for increasing its competitiveness.

In sum, I think the commonsense question to ask whenever some proponent of capitalism claims it is an especially moral system because it picks winners and losers who should or ought to be winners or losers -- the commonsense question to ask is "Moral for whom?"

Pics of kittens? Brief, but poignant accounts of loves lost? Tearful and/or mouth frothing denials that there's even a little truth to the OP? Legitimate questions and/or comments?




______________
Sadly Necessary Footnote: None of the above should be taken as proof that I am anti-capitalist. I am not. I am just anti-unregulated, unrestricted capitalism, such as we seem to have increasingly turned to over the past 40 or more years in America.

There exists two alternative currencies of value apart from money that works well. One is valor in the millitary and the other is citations in science. Both bestow high value to those who gain them. So, its theoretically possible to have a currencies that measures qualities other than material wealth. How to extend them societiwise and create a new system out of it that complements the $ needs to be thought of.

 

[Stevicus]

I know of no Little Rascal or Scottish Ground Keeper that ever said anything close to what you just made up.

I'm not making it up, but I don't feel like being an archivist and digging out old quotes. Without mentioning Little Rascals or Scottish groundskeepers, I'll simply say that it's a commonly used argument by ideological capitalists who attempt to explain why there are such gross disparities between the rich and poor.

What they are more likely to say is that capitalism offers common folks a chance to work toward a reward that most of the rest of the world can only dream about (or condemn).

This is generally the context in which these discussions occur. It's done in comparison to other systems, which may not necessarily be accurate descriptions of what "the rest of the world" actually is.

I would consider an argument based in jingoism and American exceptionalism, which is all well and good, but then it's no longer an argument extolling the supposed virtues of capitalism. It's just saying that America is great, not capitalism.

Still, one could do relatively well in the rest of the world, too. There are people in socialist countries - even those in authoritarian countries - who work hard, go to school, and make something of themselves. They've gotten rewards and perks for their hard work, just as capitalists might argue about the capitalist system.

The only real difference is that it may not be as luxurious or soft as we've grown accustomed to in America. But that, I think, cuts to the heart of the issue. People don't really need multiple luxury mansions, yachts, or private airplanes. They don't need such HUGE rewards, no matter what they do that makes them think they deserve it. The working class has to take less and pay higher prices just so the fat cats can remain in luxury.

The only thing socialists are really saying is this: Yes, you can earn your rewards for your hard work and ingenuity, but only to a reasonable level. Sure, a doctor can and should earn more than a janitor, but if the doctor takes a little bit less so that the janitor can live relatively better, what is so wrong with that? Why do so many capitalists pop a cork at even the thought of the idea? Don't they have enough money already? Seriously, what is their problem with this? I'd really like an honest answer without a lot of political grandstanding or posturing.

Tell me from your heart, BSM1, what is the problem with giving a little bit more to the poor, even if it means the rich have to take a little bit less? Is the idea of giving fair wages for a fair day's work really so offensive to capitalists that they have to start Cold Wars and go on massive crusades against Communism just to prevent that from happening?

They also would have said that there are absolutely no guarantees of achieving those goals, but left alone they have produced some of the greatest boons to mankind (you can thank someone working out of their garage, BTW, every time you pound that keyboard in your righteous socialistic frustration).

I paid for my keyboard out of my own pocket. As a matter of courtesy, I always thank the store clerks at every transaction, and oftentimes, they thank me. But my view is that, as long they got paid, I owe them nothing more.

 

[Lyndon]

Fact is most of those right wing arguing for capitalism don't have any money, they're just dreaming of the day they MAY get it, and supporting the system that will help them when they get there, in the mean time they suffer like everyone else towards the bottom.

 

[icehorse]

WTH is "unchecked capitalism"?

What we're headed towards now, with the impending oligarchy?

 

[PureX]

I'm not attached to specific labels. If we want to define terms like "pure capitalism" or "90/10 capitalism" or whatever, that sounds useful.

But I'm not sure I understand why you say "capitalism with socialist tendencies" doesn't work. Isn't that just semantics?

Capitalism, by definition, places the maximum return on the minimum capital invested as the singular goal of the endeavor. And it thereby ignores and even opposes social values, all together, unless they increase the return on the capital invested. As such, capitalism is antithetical to socialism. It is money being used to capture more money by controlling every aspect of how that money is being used. If we usurp that control in favor of social values, through representational governments, labor unions, boycotts, and so on, we are no longer engaged in capitalism. We are engaged in socialism that allows for capital investment, but is not subjugated by it, as we are in our current capitalist system.