How To Justify Capitalism?

[bave]

In fact, it holds it value well which is why leasing them makes sense. I dont buy cars. I only buy things that appreciate. I lease things that depreciate.

This is objectively and consistently shown to be false. The two cars which are consistently neck and neck for fastest depreciating vehicles are the BMW 7 series and Mercedes S class. The brands as a whole are consistently ranked in the top 3 fastest depreciating brands. The reason is precisely what I outlined above. Once these cars are out of warranty they are extremely expensive to own. With very few rare exceptions all cars depreciate.

The thing about Asians is, they take forever to grow up. They kids stay tied to their families financially. And maybe look at the 30 and younger Asians. Not industrious as previous generations.

Holy wtf. I am not sure what you define as "growing up" however it is extremely common both today and historically for immigrant families to live together for longer as it is something extremely common globally. Your comments read like someone who is trying to say something clever but doesn't even know how to come off as clever but instead simply comes off as tangential, ignorant, and racist.

You mentioned JPM. My wife worked there many years. They tore down headquarters and are now building anew on the same footprint.

For the third time, are you ok? What in the holy hell are you talking about? I don't care about your wife, where she worked, or JPM. I am simply pointing out that while you are trying to flex it is coming off as the opposite.

I guess it depends where you live, how you live, and what you started with.

No, no it doesn't. For someone who claims to have a finance/economics education you would have to be drunk to say something this incredibly unintelligent.

Globally a $250k income is incredibly rich. Nationally it puts you in the top 2%. In Manhattan it puts you as middle class. In NYC finance in mid 40's? Ok, there you are well below average.

 

[Peacenik]

I understand where you are coming from but its not that I have an old world mind set . I am very progressive on such matters.
The problem with this template jumped out at me.
Elections are popularity contests. They are based on personalities and images.

Its highly unlikely you'd get the best manager by voting. Managing is differant skill set.

Most bosses are not very good at being leaders. They do not make their workers feel very good about what they are doing, nor do they empower them with confidence. It's more like if you don't do X then X happens.

Most workers work hard not because they are inspired by good leadership; nor because they think it will get them a raise or more profits for themselves. They work hard out of fear of losing their job, their income, and and their health care. And they are frequently over-extended in their own personal budgets, so they cannot tolerate any down time between jobs or gaps in regular income, which is mostly already spent by the time it is received.

Many workers live paycheck to paycheck because capitalism is very good at exploiting their weakness for impulse buying.

 

[bave]

Capitalism exploited our pristine environment to make a few people rich. Was it worth it? Is strip mining a legacy we are proud of?

It *vastly* improved the lives of billions of people. Without capitalism and the innovations it drove, how many people die in six months? Without environmentally damaging practices, how many people would have died?

 

[Peacenik]

Can I hire people to build and run my factory? Or would that make it "their" factory?

I think I'm going to move to a country that respects property rights to make my widgets. I'm not doing all this work to give it all away. I'm doing this so I can get rich.

The rest of you can all be equally destitute together.

The notion that sharing equal destitution is inherent in an unfounded belief that people are inherently lazy. Laziness leads to poor health and eventually death. Working, applying oneself to a goal leads to acquisition of possessions, security and a longer healthier happier life.

People who set out to do nothing are left with nothing but idle thoughts.

People who set goals and strive to achieve them are the beneficiaries of the sense of accomplishment and empowerment. Most people work and work hard. The difference between wealth and poverty is this: Wealth is the result of working hard at something very lucrative. Poverty is the result of working hard at something that doesn't pay very well.

Consider all that humanity has created in the thousands of years of existence. It's pretty impressive. Cities, engineering, modes of travel, tools, toys, art.
Fields of grain. Dams. The great Wall of China. Pyramids. Machu Picchu. Been to the moon. Pretty impressive. Not all of that was built by capitalism, either. If all that has ever been built were equally distributed among all the humans on Earth, it would not result in destitution at all.

Capitalism has resulted in a very skewed wealth distribution. A few at the top have way more than they could ever enjoy during their lives. Some have all they need. Most get by on very little because they are the ones most exploited by capitalism.

Humans working together produce more than the sum of humans working solo. Humans all over the planet are perfectly capable of producing everything they need to live a secure life with all their needs met. The only thing standing between that and what we have now is capitalism. The will to work is there. The knowledge is there. The problem is that the powerful exploit the disadvantaged to take their productivity so that the ones on top can have extravagant lifstyles of excess as they pretend it is somehow justified to do so.

 

[bave]

Most bosses are not very good at being leaders. They do not make their workers feel very good about what they are doing, nor do they empower them with confidence. It's more like if you don't do X then X happens.

Most workers work hard not because they are inspired by good leadership; nor because they think it will get them a raise or more profits for themselves. They work hard out of fear of losing their job, their income, and and their health care. And they are frequently over-extended in their own personal budgets, so they cannot tolerate any down time between jobs or gaps in regular income, which is mostly already spent by the time it is received.

Many workers live paycheck to paycheck because capitalism is very good at exploiting their weakness for impulse buying.

I disagree.

People don't go to work to be inspired 95% of the time. They go to work to make a living and they weigh their options in terms of employment against happiness in that employment (and comp). There is no scenario in the world where you are going to meaningfully inspire and motivate someone who is working at an Amazon warehouse. They are making $20/hr in a mindless job.

I do agree you have a few different types of workers. Some do so out of fear of punishment, those are generally pretty bad workers. Good workers never really worry about their jobs because they know they will likely be fine no matter what happens. When I worked in finance I could care less if I got fired any given day. I could have a new job by lunch the following day and get a fortune in the process of simply changing jobs. Why? Because I could concretely quantify my value.

Workers live paycheck to paycheck mostly because of bad planning and decisions. The US has the highest median household income of any major nation and yet people are still broke all the time. It isn't a lack of money, it is a lack of brains and responsibility.

 

[bave]

Consider all that humanity has created in the thousands of years of existence. It's pretty impressive. Cities, engineering, modes of travel, tools, toys, art.
Fields of grain. Dams. The great Wall of China. Pyramids. Machu Picchu. Been to the moon. Pretty impressive. Not all of that was built by capitalism, either. If all that has ever been built were equally distributed among all the humans on Earth, it would not result in destitution at all.

You don't think the Apollo project had a ton to do with capitalism? All your other projects were effectively done with slave labor and mass suffering. Probably wouldn't want to highlight a wall that used human bodies as mortar as a great example of societal constructs.

Capitalism has resulted in a very skewed wealth distribution. A few at the top have way more than they could ever enjoy during their lives. Some have all they need. Most get by on very little because they are the ones most exploited by capitalism.

Patently false. Want to live in a capitalism free world? You can. Go move to Sudan. It's gonna suck, but you can do it. Moreover, the *median* American family has wealth, comfort, and sustenance that has never been seen in the world before. That's not a debatable point.

Humans working together produce more than the sum of humans working solo. Humans all over the planet are perfectly capable of producing everything they need to live a secure life with all their needs met. The only thing standing between that and what we have now is capitalism.

Then 'splain why it has *never* worked in history. This has been tried many a time, the result has been catastrophic human suffering on each go. Why? Human nature.

The will to work is there. The knowledge is there. The problem is that the powerful exploit the disadvantaged to take their productivity so that the ones on top can have extravagant lifstyles of excess as they pretend it is somehow justified to do so.

The will to work is not there. Look at the entitlement in American society today. Almost no one born in America is willing to work outside or in a trade anymore. They all want a soft job making tons of money without any real effort or sacrifice.

Let me ask a simple question.

What is the root cause of the massive productivity growth we have seen in the last 40-50 years? Was it workers working harder or better or was it investment and advancement?

 

[Nickyjo]

I justify it with the knowledge that, when combined with democracy, free market capitalism has done more to improve the human condition world wide than any other invention of man, and there isn't a close second.

“Greed is good,” as Gordon Gekko reminded us in “Wall Street.” But unrestrained, unregulated free market capitalism has been catastrophic, from slavery to sweatshops. When capitalism was combined with US imperialism, it has produced horrors in some countries, comparable to what Soviet imperialism produced.

The key words in your post are “when combined with democracy,” because democracy enabled us become aware of and to reform the abuses capitalism can bring.

 

[NatMorton]

“Greed is good,” as Gordon Gekko reminded us in “Wall Street.” But unrestrained, unregulated free market capitalism has been catastrophic, from slavery to sweatshops. When capitalism was combined with US imperialism, it has produced horrors in some countries, comparable to what Soviet imperialism produced.

The key words in your post are “when combined with democracy,” because democracy enabled us become aware of and to reform the abuses capitalism can bring.

Hollywood is not reality. But to your point, when not combined with democracy, capitalism is bad compared to what?

Or perhaps rephrased, over the past 200 or so years, which has caused more human suffering and death, unrestrained capitalism or unrestrained governments?

 

[Peacenik]

Capitalism has been the fairest economic system yet contrived. Though it's still prone to human greed and manipulation by the powerful. The problem with it is it has no compassion for providing the bare essentials to the impoverished and no ceiling on the hoarding of wealth. Once a corporation or individual attains a billion+, the leverage they can apply to the system to make more increases exponentially.

Corporations also have the advantage of immortality. A human only has so many years to earn wealth.

In most cases a human never achieves the level of wealth which allows that individual to have a comfortable life from investment interest. Actual work is required to generate a livable income. If a human achieves that magic level of wealth when the wealth itself will generate sufficient income it usually takes most of the individual's life to achieve that level.

Corporations have no such constraints. They outlive humans, and continue generating wealth and power as long as they exist. Large corporations have become so powerful that practically no human can match their power.

Mega corporations can now dictate their terms to humans. Consumers are told they must accept huge legal documents called 'user agreements' which are so massive most people never even bother to read them. (This is done on purpose. Humans are trained to do this as children so that when they become adults they think nothing of it.) They just click the box to get access to the product they want. And with that click, they give away their rights of privacy and ability to seek retribution in a court of law. They agree to have their lives surveilled and stored on corporate servers for use against them, because they do not believe they have a choice. That is capitalist exploitation through unchecked massive corporate power.

 

[Nickyjo]

Hollywood is not reality. But to your point, when not combined with democracy, capitalism is bad compared to what?

Or perhaps rephrased, over the past 200 or so years, which has caused more human suffering and death, unrestrained capitalism or unrestrained governments?

Sort of depends on how broadly one defines either capitalism or unrestrained. If one views the settlement of the Americas and the colonization of Africa as prompted by economic self interest without democracy for the original inhabitants of the three continents, then it’s hard to top capitalism as a cause of human suffering. On the other hand, people have presented both Stalin and FDR examples of unrestrained governments. So I would need to know your definition.

 

[Questerr]

Why are you trying to pretend the native Americans were some homogeneous group. They weren’t. One tribe stole land from another who had that land stolen from them. We were just better at it.


You will pretty much not find a piece of land anywhere that is still controlled by its original inhabitants.


It is what it is.

So have you given your house back to the Native Americans who used to live in that area

So it is okay to own stolen property if you are really good at stealing it?

 

[braindrain]

So it is okay to own stolen property if you are really good at stealing it?

The fact that you can’t point to any land that is still owned by the people who were the original owners of that land showed just how stupid of a talking point you have going here.

 

[noonereal]

What is the root cause of the massive productivity growth we have seen in the last 40-50 years? Was it workers working harder or better or was it investment and advancement?

Technology. Your posts are very ignorant of basic facts.
Shocking really.
It's as if they are completely absent of real world experience.

 

[Questerr]

The fact that you can’t point to any land that is still owned by the people who were the original owners of that land showed just how stupid of a talking point you have going here.

Why is it okay to steal property if you use the PC term “conquest”?

 

[bave]

Technology. Your posts are very ignorant of basic facts.
Shocking really.
It's as if they are completely absent of real world experience.

Your posts are more confusing with each posts. You make one mistake after another, from basic facts to elementary spelling and grammar.

Takes a rather hefty set of brass balls to criticize others and complain of their ignorance while you stumble from one obviously inaccurate statement to another.

But hey, keep flexing that $250k income in Manhattan, in finance, in your 40's like that is a success story. Anyone with any finance experience realizes how bad of a failure it really is.

Keep your chin up sport, there is a slim chance things will improve for you.

 

[braindrain]

Why is it okay to steal property if you use the PC term “conquest”?

What’s the matter. Don’t have any other irrelevant talking points

The fact that you can’t point to any inhabited land that want conquered at some point just showed how dumb you whining is.

You understand your little co-ops would be in conquered land as well right.

 

[RedAkston]

Moderator's Warning:

@bave @noonereal knock it off.

 

[eman623]

Makes sense to me. There's got to be give and take but capitalism only wants to take from the environment and the habitat we require to sustain our lives and that of our descendants. It falls upon government to take responsible action to preserve what capitalism would trash.

It did not appear to be a wise decision to become a disposable product society. It was a capitalistic decision with no regard for our environment. People in their 70's today were born in a world largely bereft of litter. That's not the case any more. The seas are so full of trash it's difficult to walk on a beach anywhere in the world and not encounter some plastic trash. Indeed, how far can a human walk anywhere without encountering someone's trash? Not a glowing reflection of capitalism.

Capitalism exploited our pristine environment to make a few people rich. Was it worth it? Is strip mining a legacy we are proud of?

Capitalism needs to be made to clean up after itself, but don't pretend that only Capitalism ruins pristine environments.

Some of the worst and most toxic environmentally ruined places on the planet occurred in places where private property was banned. In fact, because there was no private ownership, there was literally no one around to advocate for not ruining the land. Because it wasn't their land. It wasn't anyone's land.

 

[Peacenik]

Capitalism needs to be made to clean up after itself, but don't pretend that only Capitalism ruins pristine environments.

Some of the worst and most toxic environmentally ruined places on the planet occurred in places where private property was banned. In fact, because there was no private ownership, there was literally no one around to advocate for not ruining the land. Because it wasn't their land. It wasn't anyone's land.

Only government can force capitalists to preserve the Earth. The problem in the USA is big money government corruption is legal.

 

[eman623]

The notion that sharing equal destitution is inherent in an unfounded belief that people are inherently lazy. Laziness leads to poor health and eventually death. Working, applying oneself to a goal leads to acquisition of possessions, security and a longer healthier happier life.

People who set out to do nothing are left with nothing but idle thoughts.

People who set goals and strive to achieve them are the beneficiaries of the sense of accomplishment and empowerment. Most people work and work hard. The difference between wealth and poverty is this: Wealth is the result of working hard at something very lucrative. Poverty is the result of working hard at something that doesn't pay very well.

Consider all that humanity has created in the thousands of years of existence. It's pretty impressive. Cities, engineering, modes of travel, tools, toys, art.
Fields of grain. Dams. The great Wall of China. Pyramids. Machu Picchu. Been to the moon. Pretty impressive. Not all of that was built by capitalism, either. If all that has ever been built were equally distributed among all the humans on Earth, it would not result in destitution at all.

Capitalism has resulted in a very skewed wealth distribution. A few at the top have way more than they could ever enjoy during their lives. Some have all they need. Most get by on very little because they are the ones most exploited by capitalism.

Humans working together produce more than the sum of humans working solo. Humans all over the planet are perfectly capable of producing everything they need to live a secure life with all their needs met. The only thing standing between that and what we have now is capitalism. The will to work is there. The knowledge is there. The problem is that the powerful exploit the disadvantaged to take their productivity so that the ones on top can have extravagant lifstyles of excess as they pretend it is somehow justified to do so.

People are not lazy. But they are not worker ants either. People have self-interest and if you like, greed.

If you take away the incentive to work hard, no one will work hard.

Given a choice, I won't be opening my widget factory in a place where I won't grow rich. I'll go elsewhere. So will everyone else.

 

[eman623]

Only government can force capitalists to preserve the Earth. The problem in the USA is big money government corruption is legal.

Totally agree that corruption is bad and should be prevented. But don't pretend that corruption is solely a capitalist thing either.

Socialist countries were notoriously corrupt. If you have the right connections, you got a great apartment and got to shop in the fully stocked stores. If not, then you lived 18 to a 2 bedroom walk-up flat and stood in line for 6 hours to get a roll of toilet paper.

Governments and capitalism are 100% compatible. In fact capitalism can only exist where a strong robust government guarantees rights. Including the right to own property and make money.

And it can absolutely put limits on unfettered capitalism for the good of society. It can make laws against monopolies, of child labor, or unsafe working conditions, or more to the point, polluting. And it can fund big projects that promote the general welfare no business would have a profit motive to undertake.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Let's use monetary units:

What are the odds that technology or any other factors in the world may have had an impact on these numbers?

Are we quite sure that the only driver of change was capitalism?

 

[Nickyjo]

Totally agree that corruption is bad and should be prevented. But don't pretend that corruption is solely a capitalist thing either.

Socialist countries were notoriously corrupt. If you have the right connections, you got a great apartment and got to shop in the fully stocked stores. If not, then you lived 18 to a 2 bedroom walk-up flat and stood in line for 6 hours to get a roll of toilet paper.

Governments and capitalism are 100% compatible. In fact capitalism can only exist where a strong robust government guarantees rights. Including the right to own property and make money.

And it can absolutely put limits on unfettered capitalism for the good of society. It can make laws against monopolies, of child labor, or unsafe working conditions, or more to the point, polluting. And it can fund big projects that promote the general welfare no business would have a profit motive to undertake.

Much of what you suggest is appropriate in your last paragraph some call socialist.

 

[Felis Leo]

A better system would be Democratic Socialism with a bigger more powerful government. That would be preferable to poorly regulated exploitative capitalism coupled with a legally corrupted government firmly in the control of big money. There should be good rules and the rules should be well enforced.

First, I fail to see how a bigger more powerful government is any kind of good thing, because a bigger more powerful government is still subject to corruption and regulatory capture by monied interests. Only now the corruption can go further and buys more. Please see the Venezuelan government for a powerful government that claims to act on behalf of the impoverished masses. I believe that what you would call the worst effects of capitalism could largely be laid at the feet of the feet of financial illiteracy, and I think financial education being made a part of the curriculum from elementary school through high school would be a great way of teaching children the benefits of saving, investing and avoiding debt traps.

Good = what is beneficial to society. Bad = what is detrimental to society.

Society must take preference over individual freedom. Without order we are reduced to nothing more than dog eat dog and warlords. We kind of have a lord society as it is. The lords being those with big enough money to corrupt our government and bend it to their will.

That seems to presume individual freedom is somehow at odds with "society". That is a dangerous way of thinking. Most of human history has been majority preference taking precedence over individual freedom. And you would not want to live where that reigns, I daresay. The social mores and religious principles of clerics takes precedence over women's rights in Iran and Afghanistan. And for most of human history, what society thought was normal and proper took precedence over political dissenters, wanting to work and not have children, or being openly gay. I am sure you would not say "Well, sacrifices must be made" when it comes to those individual freedoms.

Now look at us. We've got a billionaire who thinks his money is so powerful and he is so special that the law doesn't even apply to him.

Yes, but in nearly every society in human history up to the present, the elites thought they were above the law, whether that elite status was conferred upon them due to noble birth and title, due to being part of the clergy, being a member of the government, being a member of the ruling party, or simply being extremely wealthy.

 

[eman623]

Much of what you suggest is appropriate in your last paragraph some call socialist.

Then it's a good thing I'm not a supporter of absolute capitalism!

If some say that, then I would say they are not completely wrong. Although I absolutely draw the line at the abolition of private property and a centrally planned economy. I wouldn't even support a so-called "commanding heights" socialism.

Government needs to do the minimum regulating necessary to let the system work for the most people.

Why do I suddenly miss Ronald Reagan?