105
106

Is Capitalism Moral? (youtube.com)

pipechapLibertarian Conservative が 投稿

全 46 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]im_not 48ポイント49ポイント  (2子コメント)

“Well first of all, tell me: Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us are greedy, it’s only the other fellow who’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. The only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off - worst off - it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.” - Friedman

[–]RebasKradd 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

Exactly. The free market takes human greed and turns it against itself, by making one's success dependent entirely on your own initiative and performance.

[–]GruntledSymbiont 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I like that. Greed is then tasked to serve and satisfy others.

[–]johnyann 39ポイント40ポイント  (15子コメント)

Monopolies are immoral, especially if they are state imposed or protected.

That's about it really.

[–]yourselfiegotleaked 10ポイント11ポイント  (12子コメント)

Yes monopolies were the only thing I could think of that the government should interfere with, nothing else.

[–]Dstrunk 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

What about businesses keeping their manufacturing jobs in the US instead of taking them to places with lower wages and unsafe work environments? We've lost 2.7 million jobs to China alone in the past 15 years. Most of them from the blue collar sector. Jobs that aren't being replaced, and instead are forcing people to work fro a measly hourly wage at McDonald's.

If we aren't going to force businesses to pay their workers an actual living wage, then we should stop them from sending off the jobs that families have relied on for decades.

[–]DranoshSoCon, FinCon, antistatist, anti"equality" 11ポイント12ポイント  (6子コメント)

This will artificially raise the cost of living resulting in even more of a divide between income brackets

[–]Dstrunk 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

What will artificially raise the cost of living? Higher minimum wage, or keeping blue collar jobs local?

[–]prollyjerkingoff 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

I would like to know the answer to this too. I understand that tampering with capitalism/free trade is considered counterintuitive, but shouldn't we cross the line somewhere?

Why should American companies like Ford invest billions of dollars into manufacturing plants in Mexico that would've created thousands of blue collar jobs for Americans? Trump said he'd nail Ford with massive tariffs if Ford goes through with the deal to put the plant in Mexico to entice them to invest in America instead

That sounds like a good idea to me, but I'm no economist. Would that work?

[–]qwertpoi 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Both. The only reason cost of living is low is because the cost of labor is low. ANY action that raises the cost of labor will have ripple effects on the cost of living.

It all falls under the concept of Comparative Advantage.

[–]estate480 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Milton Friedman talks about this, is economics greatest issue. With globalization and trade products are able to trade, but human capital is locked by boarders. When your manufacturing job or software or electronics job whatever moves overseas, you simply cant move because of border laws and politics.

Brings up an issue on international trade laws, basically not everyone is playing by the same rules and is not at the same development point. As free market as I am, we need to fix this issue and punish companies who export labor or services overseas, but should focus on sending finished products or services abroad.

[–]estate480 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sometimes they are good for society. Such as power generation and water sanitation. It wouldn't make sense to have a lot of providers. The only real world monopolies that can exists are ones that are created by government.

And anyone who has studied monopolies realizes that they are no immoral, and they can not charge whatever they want, and charge what the market demands.

Give me an example of an immoral monopoly? Ill give you a hint with this story. Lets say Bill Gates has the worlds only operating system and no competition, what does he price it at? Most would proclaim well a monomply can charge whatever it wants. sure bill could charge $1million per license, but he would only profit for say 10 sales at that demand and price point, obviously he is better off dropping the price and selling more volume x lower price.

[–]theduke9 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Capitalism is moral, rigged capitalism is not. Corporate subsidies are not moral.

[–]Sirisian 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Corporate subsidies are not moral.

Say you're goal of funding nuclear/solar/wind is to remove pollution causing energy sources in a region. Let's say that no matter what it would happen over 100 years, but you could artificially push the transition years ahead of when it would happen. Would a corporate subsidy not be moral to quicken that? Or is using a corporate subsidy to replace one part of capitalism with another immoral no matter what?

[–]Redomoreagain 20ポイント21ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's the only moral economic system ever created.

[–]gotenibehe 10ポイント11ポイント  (7子コメント)

I think people with less empathy can have an advantage in capitalism, but capitalism itself is not immoral.

Capitalism doesn't really deal with the idea of disabled people.

[–]cadencehz 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

But it does actually indirectly. It leads to innovations that better their lives. I was just reading stats about how much spending on disability has grown and the system is going to be broke because so many people are on disability. What makes this even more infuriating is that we've advanced technology so much since it was created that many more people can work via the internet and even at home. You can be wheelchair bound and still make $15 an hour or more. I hire people on elance that could very well be disabled as far as I know.

[–]dawiseguy98Libertarian 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Eh, it's beginning to do well for those with moderate disability, but at a certain point of disability, given our current medical abilities, it breaks down. There are people disabled to the point where their labor is not valued higher than the cost of the labor required to feed them, let alone provide them with medical care or a place to live.

At that point their care comes down to family, charity, or the state.

[–]cadencehz 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes and those with severe disability should be the only ones on disability which should be a fraction of the number enrolled currently. Instead we have system using standards set in the 70's to determine eligibility and a huge percentage increase in numbers and a system borrowing money from social security which is already in trouble.

[–]GruntledSymbiont 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do not people with less empathy have the same advantage under any system? How does government deal with the disabled except by placing greater aggregate hardship on others? It is a mistake to confuse force with charity. Government is far less charitable than capitalism.

[–]Minimum_Use 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

But what is capitalism, other than those enterprising individuals who make up the free market? If WE are greedy, capitalism is greedy.

[–]FreudianSocialist -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Was just about to post this.

[–]jettj14Libertarian Conservative 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ultimately, I think the debate between different economical systems is more of a philosophical debate. What motivates people?

Socialism, defined as the collective ownership of the means of production by the people, sounds great in theory. Essentially, everyone that works on a project should profit equally, since everyone is an owner. For this to work, though, everyone has to have the same level of output for socialism to truly be a fair system. Unfortunately, that is a completely unrealistic assumption. We've all worked on projects where someone isn't pulling their weight, and it is frustrating as a team member. Why should that person profit the same as us? Socialism doesn't really account for this.

Capitalism does. Capitalism, in general, allows for people who work harder to benefit from that work. I'm not saying that every corporate exec worked their ass off to get where they're at, but a lot of them did.

Capitalism is not inherently immoral. Capitalism runs on the idea that if I create a product or service that benefits not only myself but my fellow man, then that is a net benefit to society. What is immoral about that transaction?

Of course, ultimately capitalism is run by humans, and humans can do immoral things. But socialism isn't immune to immoral people. No economic idea is.

[–]NathanDahlin 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

But socialism isn't immune to immoral people. No economic idea is.

That reminds me of a famous Winston Churchill quote about democracy: "No one pre­tends that democ­racy is per­fect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried..." (Source)

[–]Seamus_OReilly 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Child mortality rate, pre-capitalism: 40%

Child mortality rate, currently: 4%

[–]fatbabythompkins 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. There is likely some correlation, but child mortality rates have decreased across the board.

[–]i_blame_reddit 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, next question.

[–]SeyStone 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think capitalism itself is moral, but I think we can - and should - utilise it for moral outcomes. A completely deregulated laissez faire system is not one I could support.

"The free market calls for voluntary actions between individuals, there's no coercion involved."

I think that coercion isn't inherently immoral at all, and voluntary actions aren't more prone to being moral. Voluntarism gives people the liberty to pursue immoral actions.

The point of cash representing you helping your fellow man doesn't really flow. There are many ways of obtaining cash that are not particularly morally right, and you often have to be immoral in order to gain more cash - in this case you've not so much helped your fellow as you have hindered him.

"When you use the government to get a food stamp, farm subsidy or business bailout. Isn't it more moral to require that people serve their fellow man in order to have a claim over what he produces."

I would argue it is actually immoral to not help your fellow man in need out when he needs assistance. We shouldn't require people to do something for us before we do something morally good for them, although that is a lot of how the capitalist system operates, it is an inherently selfish position to take.

"Free market capitalism punishes businesses that fail to satisfy customersor use resources efficiently."

This isn't inherenly morally good. People are often satisfied at cheaper products etc whichay require businesses to lower costs, costs such as wages which may be cut or people who may be fired. In particular look at child labour in the Third World to where this consumer demand can take us.

"When the government interferes in this way, it takes power away from the people, and rewards companies who couldn't compete successfully in the market."

It also often saves jobs, that without people would be unemployed, poorer etc, clearly better than having these people unemployed and slightly lower taxes. Giving power to the people isn't conductive to achieving morally good outcomes any more than government action is.

"Limited government means you and I decide what businesses survive."

Yes, but that is no guarentee to moral goodness. There are many companies that have immoral practices today that are kept up by consumers. The thought that consumer democracy defines what is right seems nothing short of moral relativism to me.

"In a free market, the ambition and voluntary efforts of citizens, by government drives the economy."

I think this summing up easily dispels the notion that free market capitalism is inherently im moral. The ambition that drives capitalism, and is driven by the capitalist system, is a selfish ambition that often acts to the detriment of others. As I've already said, relying on voluntary actions doesn't really seem to tend to moral results a lot of the time.

[–]Ti3fen3 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's neither moral nor immoral. It's ammoral.