• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Misunderstanding Capitalism

There isn't some magic walmart employee getting paid $1000/hr messing the average up. The max hourly salary is like $25/hr

And if you look at the study the % of employees is very low and in the case of Massachusetts the leading employer of employees that need medicare benefits is the state itself.
$21,200,000.00 per year impacts averages.
"Of this total $1,272,000 was received as a salary, $3,816,000 was received as a bonus, $0 was received in stock options, $15,827,794 was awarded as stock and $282,984 came from other types of compensation. This information is according to proxy statements filed for the 2021 fiscal year."

 
The other day I was watching a YouTube video discussing a TV show. They claimed the show was anti-capitalism because it showed the government tricking/forcing some local people out of their land in order to hand it over to a company who would presumably strip mine it. That's not capitalism. Capitalism would be the company offering money for the land, and if the locals reject the offer, then that's the end of the story.

It seems people associate capitalism with any economic activity and with any private individual or firm making a profit. This is not so. Capitalism is simply when property is held and controlled in private hands. If I start a charity, solicit donations and then use the money to buy food and medicine for the poor, that's capitalism. If I own a piece of land and I make it a nature preserve, that's capitalism.

I often see criticisms of capitalism regarding crimes committed by wealthy people or firms to advance their interests. That's not capitalism, that's just a crime. If a company decides to cut costs so they can lower their prices below the competition that's capitalism. If a company decides to burn down the factory of their competition, that's a crime.

The latest academic trend is to say that slavery is somehow a part of capitalism. They talk about how slaves were considered "property" and were bought and sold and used to make the slave owner a profit. These superficial terms give the impression that slavery is akin to a free market firm doing business, but this is the opposite of the truth. The ultimate in private property is ownership of your own person. You cannot alienate (transfer control of) your body, so no one other than you can own yourself. Thus slavery is a violation of private property rights and not at all compatible with capitalism.

What other ways is capitalism mischaracterized?
Slavery is still legal as punishment for crime. Including using their labor for profit.
 
$21,200,000.00 per year impacts averages.
"Of this total $1,272,000 was received as a salary, $3,816,000 was received as a bonus, $0 was received in stock options, $15,827,794 was awarded as stock and $282,984 came from other types of compensation. This information is according to proxy statements filed for the 2021 fiscal year."
Walmart has approximately 1.7 million associates (employees) in the U.S. 550,000 of whom are "minimum wage" employees (Walmart's AVERAGE is $17). "Walmart's minimum starting wage will rise to $12 an hour from $11..." WTLF? Each hour he earns $10,192. Each day of the CEO's wages is over $80,000 - enough to pay for the annual pay of the 2 average workers, and 3 1/2 minimum wage workers. What's wrong with this picture? Is his work really worth 600 times that of the average employee?
 
The essence of this thread, if unintentional, is highlighting the difference between abstract capitalist theorizing, and the reality of capitalism as it operates in the real world. Pretty notions of purity don't address the grubby realities of daily living.

Austrian economists lost valence in the 1930s because their notions simply fall apart when applied in the real world. Still, they have their adherents. In the 1970s Milton Friedman was the god of supply-side economics, and even won a Nobel in 1976. But, that didn't prevent him from doing some really stupid things that destroyed economies and giving economic education an infection of it's still fighting off.

I agree with the OP notion that capitalism begins with private ownership, but libertarian notions of how that should apply in the real world don't survive first contact, and never have. Even Adam Smith understood that and wrote about it.
 
$21,200,000.00 per year impacts averages.

No it doesn't the CEO is a salaried employee.

The HOURLY average is $16.40 that only includes HOURLY employees
 
Walmart has approximately 1.7 million associates (employees) in the U.S. 550,000 of whom are "minimum wage" employees (Walmart's AVERAGE is $17). "Walmart's minimum starting wage will rise to $12 an hour from $11..." WTLF? Each hour he earns $10,192. Each day of the CEO's wages is over $80,000 - enough to pay for the annual pay of the 2 average workers, and 3 1/2 minimum wage workers. What's wrong with this picture? Is his work really worth 600 times that of the average employee?

Dwayne Johnson makes 20 million per movie for play acting (something even a small child can do), and a typical movie takes about 4 months to shoot. It's not even work. Why don't you have a problem with him making millions, but you have a big problem with someone who runs one of the largest companies in the world?
 
Walmart’s U.S. average hourly wage is now $16.40



Paying an entry level worker $16.40 is "fascist"?

What is the correct hourly wage for a job that requires no education or experience?
Does it need to be done? Does somebody need to do it full time?

Then it should pay a living wage.

Lots of things don’t require a degree and need to be done by a person. And people gotta eat and not freeze to death.

The real problem is business models that rely on low wages for profits. They are a recipe for exploitation by definition. And it’s a great introduction to the workforce. Bust your ass for peanuts. It’s Considered perfectly ok in our system. And I don’t think it is.
 
Dwayne Johnson makes 20 million per movie for play acting (something even a small child can do), and a typical movie takes about 4 months to shoot. It's not even work. Why don't you have a problem with him making millions, but you have a big problem with someone who runs one of the largest companies in the world?

If the walmart CEO gave his full salary divided between all the employees they would each get $10 extra PER YEAR or roughly a 0.4 cent per hour raise. If that would fix a large chunk of societies problems I would say go for it however i don't less than a half cent per hour raise would do a damn thing
 
No it doesn't the CEO is a salaried employee.

The HOURLY average is $16.40 that only includes HOURLY employees
Source for your claim (because that is not what I posted).
 
The other day I was watching a YouTube video discussing a TV show. They claimed the show was anti-capitalism because it showed the government tricking/forcing some local people out of their land in order to hand it over to a company who would presumably strip mine it. That's not capitalism. Capitalism would be the company offering money for the land, and if the locals reject the offer, then that's the end of the story.

It seems people associate capitalism with any economic activity and with any private individual or firm making a profit. This is not so. Capitalism is simply when property is held and controlled in private hands. If I start a charity, solicit donations and then use the money to buy food and medicine for the poor, that's capitalism. If I own a piece of land and I make it a nature preserve, that's capitalism.

I often see criticisms of capitalism regarding crimes committed by wealthy people or firms to advance their interests. That's not capitalism, that's just a crime. If a company decides to cut costs so they can lower their prices below the competition that's capitalism. If a company decides to burn down the factory of their competition, that's a crime.

The latest academic trend is to say that slavery is somehow a part of capitalism. They talk about how slaves were considered "property" and were bought and sold and used to make the slave owner a profit. These superficial terms give the impression that slavery is akin to a free market firm doing business, but this is the opposite of the truth. The ultimate in private property is ownership of your own person. You cannot alienate (transfer control of) your body, so no one other than you can own yourself. Thus slavery is a violation of private property rights and not at all compatible with capitalism.

What other ways is capitalism mischaracterized?
Capitalism is the government pushing people off land for someone else. It is the basis of the existence of the United States. White Christians define capitalism.

 
The profit motive works both ways--employees seek to maximize their wages.
But only a fool would claim that employees individually have the power to sway someone who owns the means of production. With thousands of employees, you think they care about one individual?
The power imbalance is real. That's why labor unions are a thing, and why we use government to regulate the worst offenders. It's also why we have a...or at least some of us try to have...a progressive tax system to counter-balance the relatively free economy.
Most people are workers, and workers often times have almost no bargaining power individually. Also, those workers who are weakest at competition, run the risk of being extremely poor and needing assitance...assistance which we can afford (in our weathliest of economies of the world), to give them.

Your OP premise is mostly true though, that we mischaracterize capitalism...but we also mischaracterize Democrats and progressive policy ideas too...misinformation abounds in our society.
Far worse than capitalism, would be a system that put for example, Republican political appointees in charge of our means of production. Can any Democrat/Liberal imagine life like that? Of course not, it would destroy the nation.
Same if it was a political Democrat in charge. In fact, politics right now is not nearly separated from business, as it should be. Look at our news media, its become political to the point of absurdity. Look at citizens united, ensuring that the biggest powers of our nation can dramatically influences politics in ways that your average voter cannot (with just a vote). Look at how both sides, but especially Republicans, buy corporate sponsorship by reducing corporate/wealthy taxes....

I think capitalism has proven to be a bigger driver economically, and technologically, than most other ideas.
But we've also seen that certain areas like healthcare, seem to provide better outcomes AND lower prices, when government has a bigger role.
And we obviously need safety nets...we could be doing more there with education, healthcare, and minimum wage....and higher taxes on the biggest earners.

Capitalism is a great engine...and supporting it should be good regulations that limit the extremes, limits on political influence, taxes that allow for the basics like healthcare and education.

We could also do with a smarter American culture...we suffer from political misinformation and distortion to the degree that it makes it harder for our society to function that it should be, compared to our peer nations.
It's not a contradiction to both support capitalism and social safety nets, higher taxes, etc. It's sensible IMO. And none of that is "communist", like the morons often claim.
 
The other day I was watching a YouTube video discussing a TV show. They claimed the show was anti-capitalism because it showed the government tricking/forcing some local people out of their land in order to hand it over to a company who would presumably strip mine it. That's not capitalism. Capitalism would be the company offering money for the land, and if the locals reject the offer, then that's the end of the story.

It seems people associate capitalism with any economic activity and with any private individual or firm making a profit. This is not so. Capitalism is simply when property is held and controlled in private hands. If I start a charity, solicit donations and then use the money to buy food and medicine for the poor, that's capitalism. If I own a piece of land and I make it a nature preserve, that's capitalism.

I often see criticisms of capitalism regarding crimes committed by wealthy people or firms to advance their interests. That's not capitalism, that's just a crime. If a company decides to cut costs so they can lower their prices below the competition that's capitalism. If a company decides to burn down the factory of their competition, that's a crime.

The latest academic trend is to say that slavery is somehow a part of capitalism. They talk about how slaves were considered "property" and were bought and sold and used to make the slave owner a profit. These superficial terms give the impression that slavery is akin to a free market firm doing business, but this is the opposite of the truth. The ultimate in private property is ownership of your own person. You cannot alienate (transfer control of) your body, so no one other than you can own yourself. Thus slavery is a violation of private property rights and not at all compatible with capitalism.

What other ways is capitalism mischaracterized?

Is this really a mischaracterization of capitalism? As the name clearly implies, capitalism is all about using capital to generate more capital. The definition doesn't really hinge on whether or not you deem that capital formation "fair," as in your eminent domain example.

I would argue that your definition of capitalism is overly generous. If something strikes you as morally wrong (e.g. slavery), it couldn't be compatible with capitalism. Well, that's wrong, and not even close to reality. Capitalism certainly isn't an inherently benevolent force that only looks bad when it is corrupted by bad people; capitalism is morally ambiguous. There is absolutely nothing about capitalism that is designed to help anybody but the capitalist who is investing his/her money.
 
Why does a job that is easily attainable by a 16 year old need to provide a basic standard of living? I'm all for people being able to live and live comfortably but people as a society need to understand that if all jobs pay a standard of living wage then only jobs that are of that value will be offered and people will have to use self checkouts and push their own shopping buggies from the parking lot.
There are plenty of times where thats the only thing available. Its a usual problem of the owner wanting to squeeze everything out of a worker because there is no responsibility towards those who make the product and most responsibility towards people that never step foot into the factory or store (shareholders)
 
I haven't read every economist, but of the most free-market kind, I've read works by Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Bob Murphy, Tom DiLorenzo, Fredrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises. Not a single one has ever claimed that slavery was compatible with capitalism--quite the opposite. Slavery clearly is a violation of private property rights. They have even tackled the question of whether someone could voluntarily sell themselves into slavery and the answer is no. Since you cannot alienate control over your body you cannot sell yourself into slavery. So I think it's pretty clear that you are trying to define capitalism in a way that is comfortable to your worldview, and not me. I think you fit pretty well the point of my post in that you misunderstand capitalism. The idea that slavery is somehow compatible with capitalism, as I pointed out, requires ignoring all economic thought on the issue and relying solely on surface comparisons, like using the term "property" to describe a slave. Basically this is a child's argument and belies and complete lack of understanding of the issues at hand, or a willingness to prevaricate to an absurd degree.
I used to read those folks often.
 
There are plenty of times where thats the only thing available. Its a usual problem of the owner wanting to squeeze everything out of a worker because there is no responsibility towards those who make the product and most responsibility towards people that never step foot into the factory or store (shareholders)
Since I like facts in discussions, here's the Bureau of Labor Statistics' description of minimum wage workers. 56% over 25, twice as likely to be women, and more likely in the South than anywhere else. I just don't like "arguments by stereotype", a penchant of your correspondent.
 
Yeah ive changed a good bit since then.
Most of us have. It's called maturity.

I admit, I read Ayn Rand in HS (started me on the path to Enlightenment... as I couldn't believe people actually liked that shit). Then I got an education.

I actually started by reading "Wealth of Nations", which is not light reading, but very understandable. I actually read a lot of economics material, from Friedman to Piketty.
 
Most of us have. It's called maturity.

I admit, I read Ayn Rand in HS (started me in the path to Enlightenment... as I couldn't believe people actually liked that shit). Then I got an education.

I actually started by reading "Wealth of Nations", which is not light reading, but very understandable. I actually read a lot of economics material, from Friedman to Piketty.
Adam Smith is a very misunderstood figure especially in right wing circles.
 
Sometime back, I posed these questions:
How do natural resources fit into your conception? Externalities? How about alienation of property? Relationship to government? Labor? How do markets operate? Regulation? Capitalism, as I noted, does not end at "private ownership". Even your objection modifies that concept.
I did not get a response. I think that is very informative.
 
Yes. It is. If we want to start arbitrarily demarcating what can't be considered property I'm going with all natural resources including land, air, and water.
Of those I would agree with water and air.

Maybe even land but that would create a whole host of issues to deal with.
 
A working understanding of Capital, by Karl Marx, would also inform this discussion. Think we can expect that?
 
I mean if Paul Ryan actually read the wealth of nations, he would be praising the working class for the value they create, promoting progressive tax rates and scorning landlords as parasites who only earn passive incomes instead of calling poor people parasites.
 
Back
Top Bottom