Is capitalism fair? Should it be? (1 Viewer)

[Hatuey]

Well the way I see it. Capitalism is fair and at the same time it isn't. If you're one of the best you can be very successful or you can be in a sea of equally talented people looking for income and never get noticed. You can get away with doing and saying incredible things(Ann Coulter) and be applauded by the consumer and at the same time be screwed over by that very consumer(Imus). Is it fair? Of course it isn't but who ever said Capitalism was supposed to be fair? I could be wrong though. Your thoughts?

 

[DeeJayH]

life isnt fair
why should capitalism be fair?

 

[Cephus]

Capitalism puts everyone in the same situation: rely on your own talents and skills to survive and thrive. If you don't have marketable talents and skills, that isn't the fault of capitalism, that's reality. You shouldn't be blaming capitalism for it.

 

[bigsmitty]

The system is based on equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Fair? Maybe. Should it be? No- that would make it a self-defeating system.

 

[Diuretic]

"Fair" implies morality but capitalism isn't about morality.

 

[Iriemon]

Well the way I see it. Capitalism is fair and at the same time it isn't. If you're one of the best you can be very successful or you can be in a sea of equally talented people looking for income and never get noticed. You can get away with doing and saying incredible things(Ann Coulter) and be applauded by the consumer and at the same time be screwed over by that very consumer(Imus). Is it fair? Of course it isn't but who ever said Capitalism was supposed to be fair? I could be wrong though. Your thoughts?

This is an ambiguous and vague question. What does "fair" mean? Everyone receives the same benefits? Everyone plays by the same rules? The rules are set to ensure competition? Should be the latter, which is why government regulation is necessary. Should not be the former, though I support some regulation and rules to provide some degree of safety nets to the losers.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

If by capitalism you mean market control over the economical distrubition in a society. Then it first of all would never work with a true capitalistic country and it would be extremly unfair. Because it would mean that healthcare schools food and access to all service and goods would depended on how much economical resources each individual had compared to the price set by supply and demand. Meaning that kids with poor parents would maybee never go to school and people starving to death.

Therefor both social and govermental intervention is needed for an economy and society to work. What you can discuse is how much the govermental should be for an efficient economy and good society. There you can have diffrent ideas about the priority in the concept of efficiency (maximum value) and fairness (can be same changes and/or equality) there this to concept can coexist and work againt eachoter.

There are diffrent problem with market economy.

First how to treat children of "succesful"/"failed" parents. Because a kid from a failde parent can be as smart and efficient or in many case more then a kid from a succesful parent. But in capitalist countries in most cases are the changes of getting a good carrier and also wealth is depentent on having a "sucesfull" parents. Of course a child wiht "failed" parents also have a change but it's smaller. This is problematic from a fairness but also efficient that alot of talented is overlocked. So here alot of govermental influence is needed.

Another is that in many capitalistic society you only get one change. That if you don't get a good eductaion then you are around twenty years old you can have hard time to make a carrier. It can be many good or bad reason that stop an individual like lack of motivation slow maturity process, sickness, unwanted/wanted pregnacy. Of course you can say that it's the individuals fault (even if you should have a real hard time coming to sicknes). And yes people can educated themself later or make a carrier without an education but in many cases that is rare and also very hard. This can also be an efficient problem because in this group of "loosers" you can have alot of smart people. That if they get a good change to further eductation then they are older they can be a good resource for society.

A third is power both over economy and goverment. That in a capitalistic country more wealth useally means alot more power. Just a basic example if you own a factory and get pissed of the goverment you can move it to another country but as a grunt you change to influence is mostly through you vote. Also wealthy person as a group have much easier to voice their influence and also make it heard. This can be seen as bad both from a fairness perspective but also democratic and efficient. Becuase in democracy is it bad if some people have alot more influence and it's not certainly that the rich people have the best ideas and opinions.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Don't remember if I put yes/yes or no/no, but they are interchangeable here.
I know, some people are going to be saying old LMR lost it on this one, here goes a decent shot at an explanation.
Capitalism is fair in that everyone has the choice of the path that they will take and starts out with the same 50/50 chance of success or failure, you will either nail it or fail and try a new direction. So technically the system is fair because some will win some will lose but it's like throwing darts blindfolded to figure out who's idea will win out, thus it's risky. And sure it should be fair under these circumstances.
Here is where a no/no could be interpreted. Life isn't by it's very nature fair, the weak live and the strong die under natural law, and systems always find a way to weed out the weaker from the stronger, economics run by natural laws even though we tinker with supply and demand by consuming goods and services, those who are weaker will be conquered by those who were stronger, it's just natural law which is inherently unfair. Under this premise capitalism shouldn't be fair because that would mean creating sub-rules in an attempt to negate natural laws which would basically strip the strong of their advantage and give to those who are weaker to hopefully create an equitable playing field. The problem is, that is not capitalism, it's socialism, when you take from the strong they will underproduce, because the outcome becomes the same regardless of how efficiently or effectively they use their talents, and, ironically, the weaker in the market starts to underproduce as well, since the bar continually lowers to meet the weaker competitors standards. So, in a longwinded way y/y and n/n both work.

 

[nkgupta80]

Capitalism is not a system that the conventionally moral person would call fair.


The claim is that capitalism allows everyone to start on equal ground. In that sense it is fair. There are, however, a few problems that may keep this from happening. One obvious one is that the rich child will have more opportunities than the poor child. This is the so called class problem with capitalism. The second more pervasive problem is the problem of asymmetric information. FOr example, just because one is talented or skilled doesn't necessarily mean that he/she will be able to get the job over someone that is less qualified.

 

[rivrrat]

It's completely "fair" in the sense that you get back what you put into it in effort. Everyone has equal opportunity to succeed or fail.

 

[Stinger]

Fair compared to what else? It's all relative.

 

[Stinger]

Capitalism is not a system that the conventionally moral person would call fair.

Why not? I have something of value, you have something I would like. You say you will give it to me if I give so much of the thing of value I have. I can either choose to give it to you or not. If I choose not to you can ask for less of it to see if I will then value your product as much as you do.

What's not "moral" about that?

 

[Iriemon]

It's completely "fair" in the sense that you get back what you put into it in effort. Everyone has equal opportunity to succeed or fail.

I might agree that everyone has an opportunity, but to call it an "equal" opportunity is not accurate IMO. Those born into wealth, whose parents can afford to send them to the best schools and who have contacts in the communities that control wealth and power have more opportunity that someone born into poverty.

 

[rivrrat]

I might agree that everyone has an opportunity, but to call it an "equal" opportunity is not accurate IMO. Those born into wealth, whose parents can afford to send them to the best schools and who have contacts in the communities that control wealth and power have more opportunity that someone born into poverty.

The opportunity to succeed is equal. The means necessary to succeed are not given equally at birth. Some do have to work harder than others, for sure. The opportunity to succeed is equal for us all by virtue of being equally available to us all.

I'm not saying that it isn't harder for some, I'm just saying that the road to success is open to everyone. Some may just have slower cars, or sputtering engines. The road, however, is equally accessible.

 

[SgtRock]

It works, the cream rises to the top and the bums stay at the bottom. Its not a craddle to grave system of government that removes all the motivation to succeed from its citizens resulting in a society of lazy people with there hand out. Although there are those in our government that believe the government should take care of us all.

What Happened in New Orleans during Katrina is a perfect example of what Im talking about. You had many people living in the city on wellfare. Many of them never worked a day in there life. These people are a result of socialist programs that do not work. You create a society of lazy bums. Help yourself, don't wait for uncle sam to come to your rescue. A great President once said it best.

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." ~JFK

So if you think capitalism is unfair tell that to those Americans that have stepped up to the plate, pulled themselfs up by there boot staps and made somthing of themselfs. ~ Sgt Rock

 

[Iriemon]

The opportunity to succeed is equal. The means necessary to succeed are not given equally at birth. Some do have to work harder than others, for sure. The opportunity to succeed is equal for us all by virtue of being equally available to us all.

Disagree for reasons stated. There is an opportunity to succeed for all, I believe that, but the opportunity to succeed is not equal. The schools you can go to, the health care you get, the nutrition you receive, the influence of your parents, the college you attend, the contacts your parents and peers can provide to you all make a huge difference in your chances of succeeding and these opportunities are not the same for all or even close.

I'm not saying that it isn't harder for some,

Then you are not saying the opportunity is equal.

I'm just saying that the road to success is open to everyone. Some may just have slower cars, or sputtering engines. The road, however, is equally accessible.

If you can't afford the toll, you can't use the better roads. And if you don't have a car, the road doesn't help much.

 

[Iriemon]

It works, the cream rises to the top and the bums stay at the bottom. Its not a craddle to grave system of government that removes all the motivation to succeed from its citizens resulting in a society of lazy people with there hand out. Although there are those in our government that believe the government should take care of us all.

What Happened in New Orleans during Katrina is a perfect example of what Im talking about. You had many people living in the city on wellfare. Many of them never worked a day in there life. These people are a result of socialist programs that do not work. You create a society of lazy bums. Help yourself, don't wait for uncle sam to come to your rescue. A great President once said it best.

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." ~JFK

So if you think capitalism is unfair tell that to those Americans that have stepped up to the plate, pulled themselfs up by there boot staps and made somthing of themselfs. ~ Sgt Rock

Just out of curiosity, what statistics or data do you have to show that folks in New Orleans received a higher proportion of welfare than other urban areas, and what percentage of the people there relied upon welfare for their means of support?

 

[Stinger]

What Happened in New Orleans during Katrina is a perfect example of what Im talking about. You had many people living in the city on wellfare. Many of them never worked a day in there life. These people are a result of socialist programs that do not work. You create a society of lazy bums. Help yourself, don't wait for uncle sam to come to your rescue. A great President once said it best.

Yep, and recent articles here indicating that LA has used the federal money they received to reimburse homeowners for wind damage. These homeowners had no insurance on their homes. Now the state has used the money they were given to reimburse those who did not have flood insurance to also make whole those who had NO insurance.

So why should I carry insurance at all if I can just go to the government, demand that make me whole again at the taxpayer expense?

Along the same lines a local city is going to build several hundred houses and sell them cheap to "hurricane victims", once again using money taken from someone else by forced taxation to build homes that others can live in them for up to two years rent free, then they can start paying rent and apply it to ownership.

Hey my wife and I want to move to a new house, how about some taxpayer money to subsudize us?

In both cases the free market should apply. Those in New Orleans should have taken the care and concern to protect their investment. Those in the town here should simply be buying a new house like everyone else does.

 

[nkgupta80]

The opportunity to succeed is equal. The means necessary to succeed are not given equally at birth. Some do have to work harder than others, for sure. The opportunity to succeed is equal for us all by virtue of being equally available to us all.

I'm not saying that it isn't harder for some, I'm just saying that the road to success is open to everyone. Some may just have slower cars, or sputtering engines. The road, however, is equally accessible.

From a moral point of view, your claim doesn't work. Lets say a poor person works really hard, has two kids to take care of. Now we can place all the blame on that poor person, and say that he shouldn't have had kids, or should have worked harder. But IN the time it takes for him to work harder, the kids get screwed. This time factor is pretty important because markets do take time to stabilize, and if the certain products have a great need, a lot of people could get screwed waiting for them to be efficiently accessible.

Also, the wealth issue does create problems because capitalism by nature is competitive. Just because you work hard doesn't mean you'll get it. There are dumb rich people who will be able to stay at the top due to connections, and keep the more qualified people down due to competitive struggle.

 

[SgtRock]

Just out of curiosity, what statistics or data do you have to show that folks in New Orleans received a higher proportion of welfare than other urban areas, and what percentage of the people there relied upon welfare for their means of support?

I never said New Orleans had a higher proportion of people on wellfare as compared to other urban areas of the country.

 

[Iriemon]

I never said New Orleans had a higher proportion of people on wellfare as compared to other urban areas of the country.

Fair enough -- I had wrongly inferred that you were using New Orleans as an example of a failure because more were on welfare.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Yep, and recent articles here indicating that LA has used the federal money they received to reimburse homeowners for wind damage. These homeowners had no insurance on their homes. Now the state has used the money they were given to reimburse those who did not have flood insurance to also make whole those who had NO insurance.

So why should I carry insurance at all if I can just go to the government, demand that make me whole again at the taxpayer expense?

Along the same lines a local city is going to build several hundred houses and sell them cheap to "hurricane victims", once again using money taken from someone else by forced taxation to build homes that others can live in them for up to two years rent free, then they can start paying rent and apply it to ownership.

Hey my wife and I want to move to a new house, how about some taxpayer money to subsudize us?

In both cases the free market should apply. Those in New Orleans should have taken the care and concern to protect their investment. Those in the town here should simply be buying a new house like everyone else does.

You have no idea just how bad it is with the recovery money thing. I get to read alot more of the articles, being local. The worst part is, I forgot half of the things that would make all in the U.S. sick.

 

[Stinger]

You have no idea just how bad it is with the recovery money thing. I get to read alot more of the articles, being local. The worst part is, I forgot half of the things that would make all in the U.S. sick.

I know exactly how bad the Louisiana and NOLA governments are handling the recovery and the fact they are giving money for people to build replacement homes when those homes were destroyed by wind damage. I'm local Gulf Coast too, I am in south Louisiana often, be going to Garyville in the morning. My brother lives in Covington having moved there from Meterie 5 years ago. I lived in Lafayette and Duson in the 80's. I know the area well.

My house was damaged in Ivan (new roof and other property damage), I had insurance, it made me whole. Katrina, I absorbed what cost I had rather than file a claim. I did not petition the federal government demanding they pay for a new home for me.

But tell me why should I have insurance if the federal government will come in and rebuild me for free?

 

[rivrrat]

I know exactly how bad the Louisiana and NOLA governments are handling the recovery and the fact they are giving money for people to build replacement homes when those homes were destroyed by wind damage. I'm local Gulf Coast too, I am in south Louisiana often, be going to Garyville in the morning. My brother lives in Covington having moved there from Meterie 5 years ago. I lived in Lafayette and Duson in the 80's. I know the area well.

My house was damaged in Ivan (new roof and other property damage), I had insurance, it made me whole. Katrina, I absorbed what cost I had rather than file a claim. I did not petition the federal government demanding they pay for a new home for me.

But tell me why should I have insurance if the federal government will come in and rebuild me for free?

Though I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, FEMA doesn't just give anyone money who asks for it. And, only up to $5000 is actually given (and that's money for serious needs). Loans are offered to individuals and temporary housing can be supplied.

Primarily this is done for the health and prosperity of a local community, not specifically for individuals. Individuals may be helped, but they are helped not just because they need it, but because their lack of housing and/or poor health, or dangerous/unhealthy living conditions are a hazard/burden to everyone else in the community. It's more for social health than individual.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I know exactly how bad the Louisiana and NOLA governments are handling the recovery and the fact they are giving money for people to build replacement homes when those homes were destroyed by wind damage. I'm local Gulf Coast too, I am in south Louisiana often, be going to Garyville in the morning. My brother lives in Covington having moved there from Meterie 5 years ago. I lived in Lafayette and Duson in the 80's. I know the area well.

Cool, I'm in Lafayette currently, absolutely love it. The problem here isn't the people, we have a bunch of losers in elected office who keep buying their way in with tax dollars, this time they just have a bigger pot to dip into.

My house was damaged in Ivan (new roof and other property damage), I had insurance, it made me whole. Katrina, I absorbed what cost I had rather than file a claim. I did not petition the federal government demanding they pay for a new home for me.

Insurance is a great thing, too bad more people don't realize it.

But tell me why should I have insurance if the federal government will come in and rebuild me for free?

Can't because the answer wouldn't make sense.