Tweet
Lots of interesting discussion here. Let my add my two cents. These two comments may seem contradictory, and in fact there has been a good deal of arguing over which one is true, but I will attempt to show that they are both true. I firmly believe in each of the following statements:
Let´s consider a concrete example: sweatshops. I fully agree that they are miserable, hellish places, and that the people who run them routinely commit atrocities. I also believe that these sweatshops are a good thing for the people who work in them. This may seem utterly illogical, but it makes perfect sense. The people who work thee are not bond-slaves, they can leave whenever they want to. But they do not leave, because if they left they would starve. The owners of these shops can use this threat of starvation to abuse the workers. Logically, then, these workers would have starved if the sweat shop was not there. This is obvious from the fact that if they had any other alternative, they would not be in the sweat shop.
So a greedy, evil capitalist employing 100 people in a miserable, filthy sweatshop has saved 100 people from starvation. Even if they are treated so badly that they only die a little slower, they are still being saved from death. How many good, altruistic people can honestly say that they have saved 100 people from starvation and death?
Obviously I am not defending the people who run these places. We need to provide better alternatives for the people who have to work in them, and we need to apply consumer pressure to get the owners to change their act. But the fact remains that opening such a factory gives a better life to everyone who works in that factory.
Charity is a very good thing, and we need more of it. But it isn´t enough. People need jobs, and they need ot be productive, or they will never be able to sustain themselves. Capitalists provide those jobs, and globalization and free trade mean more jobs and more opportunities for the undeveloped and developing world.
In short, sweatshops may be a crime, but condemming an entire nation to subsistence farming and reliance on handouts is an even worse crime. Yes, we should put effort into getting people jobs and opportunities that are better than what corporations are giving them. But capitalism, globalizaion, and free trade are excellent tools because they create conditions that allow evil people to create these jobs and opportunities even if they are motivated by nothing more than self-interest.
Many people have portrayed big capitalists as predators. This is not true. They are, in fact, scavengers. They did not create the problems of poverty and corruption that hound the third world. They simply profit from them. And as they profit, they help these countries, by easing unemployment and paying wages to people who would otehrwise have nothing to do.
But how does this benefit us, in rich places like America and Europe? Most leftists firmly believe that we are imperialists, dominating these people for our own gain. It is obvious to them that our country profits by this trade. Right-wing opponents to globalization, on the oterh hand, believe that Americans suffer when jobs move overseas, and this is what I will address.
History and logic both show undeniably that, on average, and over the long term, any increase in productivity and efficiency helps everybody. This is because more output is being produced for less input, so there is more to go around. Even if most of the profits initially go into the pockets of the rich, they will be spread around eventually. Nobody has a money vault like Scrooge McDuck, where they stuff away all their cash and let it sit around. Either they invest it, causing economic growth and more jobs, or they spend it, giving the money to whoever they paid. More output for less input means a higher standard of living, so anything that increases productivity will be good. Capitalists, through their own self-interest, are constantly trying to increase the efficiency of their operations.
Of course, that leaves the question of whether hiring 10 third world workers for a dollar an hour is more efficient than hiring one first world worker for 15 dollars an hour. It would seem to be an enormous waste to have ten people do what one person could do. Is money spent really equivalent to resources consumed?
The short answer is, yes. When hiring a rich world worker, companies are subsidizing a rich world lifestyle. Every resource that the rich worker consumes can be considered an input into the production process. When paying a rich world worker, companies are paying for all of the cars and stereos and computers and entertainment that those workers are consuming. Environmentalists love to point out that the lifestyles of rich world people take up something like 20 times the natural resources of third world people. So if a production process uses 10 third world people instead of one rich world person, the earth suffers half as much, and the same output has been produced using fewer inputs.
Next there is the question of why consumers have not experienced the benefits of this productivity gain. The short answer is, we have. It may be true that the inflation-adjusted proce of a car is not any lower than it was thirty years ago. But as Ralph Nader will gladly tell you, cars today are far superior to cars thirty years ago. Safety features and quality have inproved dramatically, and air pollution per car has been greatly decreased. Consumers may not be paying less, but they are getting much better value for their money. This increase in quality and safety of products have soaked up many of the productivity gains of globalization and new technology, but since such things are hard to quantify they are often overlooked. And nobody can deny that the lifestyle of the average American today is much richer and more ostentatious than the lifestyle of Americans in the past. The money for this increased consumption has all come from productivity gains, and many of these productivity gains are due to moving factories and services overseas.
The only thing that capitalism does not handle properly is externalities. If the company does not have to pay for an inefficiency such as pollution or injuries to workers, then that company´s activities will not tend toward more outputs for less inputs. This is the proper role of government: to make sure that all companies pay for the externalities that they impose on the rest of us. When that happens, such externalities are reduced because they become inputs that the company must pay for.
In short, globalization and free trade must continue but companies must be made to pay for all the damage they do. Note that I said pay for the damage, not prevent it. If a company can generate 200 million of profits by with a process that generates pollution that would cost 100 million to clean up, then they should be allowed to pollute, taxed for the cost, and thus be allowed to keep 100 million in profits, since they have generated 100 million dollars of wealth.
- Most capitalists, like most humans, are evil.
- Capitalism is a very good thing for all countries.
Let´s consider a concrete example: sweatshops. I fully agree that they are miserable, hellish places, and that the people who run them routinely commit atrocities. I also believe that these sweatshops are a good thing for the people who work in them. This may seem utterly illogical, but it makes perfect sense. The people who work thee are not bond-slaves, they can leave whenever they want to. But they do not leave, because if they left they would starve. The owners of these shops can use this threat of starvation to abuse the workers. Logically, then, these workers would have starved if the sweat shop was not there. This is obvious from the fact that if they had any other alternative, they would not be in the sweat shop.
So a greedy, evil capitalist employing 100 people in a miserable, filthy sweatshop has saved 100 people from starvation. Even if they are treated so badly that they only die a little slower, they are still being saved from death. How many good, altruistic people can honestly say that they have saved 100 people from starvation and death?
Obviously I am not defending the people who run these places. We need to provide better alternatives for the people who have to work in them, and we need to apply consumer pressure to get the owners to change their act. But the fact remains that opening such a factory gives a better life to everyone who works in that factory.
Charity is a very good thing, and we need more of it. But it isn´t enough. People need jobs, and they need ot be productive, or they will never be able to sustain themselves. Capitalists provide those jobs, and globalization and free trade mean more jobs and more opportunities for the undeveloped and developing world.
In short, sweatshops may be a crime, but condemming an entire nation to subsistence farming and reliance on handouts is an even worse crime. Yes, we should put effort into getting people jobs and opportunities that are better than what corporations are giving them. But capitalism, globalizaion, and free trade are excellent tools because they create conditions that allow evil people to create these jobs and opportunities even if they are motivated by nothing more than self-interest.
Many people have portrayed big capitalists as predators. This is not true. They are, in fact, scavengers. They did not create the problems of poverty and corruption that hound the third world. They simply profit from them. And as they profit, they help these countries, by easing unemployment and paying wages to people who would otehrwise have nothing to do.
But how does this benefit us, in rich places like America and Europe? Most leftists firmly believe that we are imperialists, dominating these people for our own gain. It is obvious to them that our country profits by this trade. Right-wing opponents to globalization, on the oterh hand, believe that Americans suffer when jobs move overseas, and this is what I will address.
History and logic both show undeniably that, on average, and over the long term, any increase in productivity and efficiency helps everybody. This is because more output is being produced for less input, so there is more to go around. Even if most of the profits initially go into the pockets of the rich, they will be spread around eventually. Nobody has a money vault like Scrooge McDuck, where they stuff away all their cash and let it sit around. Either they invest it, causing economic growth and more jobs, or they spend it, giving the money to whoever they paid. More output for less input means a higher standard of living, so anything that increases productivity will be good. Capitalists, through their own self-interest, are constantly trying to increase the efficiency of their operations.
Of course, that leaves the question of whether hiring 10 third world workers for a dollar an hour is more efficient than hiring one first world worker for 15 dollars an hour. It would seem to be an enormous waste to have ten people do what one person could do. Is money spent really equivalent to resources consumed?
The short answer is, yes. When hiring a rich world worker, companies are subsidizing a rich world lifestyle. Every resource that the rich worker consumes can be considered an input into the production process. When paying a rich world worker, companies are paying for all of the cars and stereos and computers and entertainment that those workers are consuming. Environmentalists love to point out that the lifestyles of rich world people take up something like 20 times the natural resources of third world people. So if a production process uses 10 third world people instead of one rich world person, the earth suffers half as much, and the same output has been produced using fewer inputs.
Next there is the question of why consumers have not experienced the benefits of this productivity gain. The short answer is, we have. It may be true that the inflation-adjusted proce of a car is not any lower than it was thirty years ago. But as Ralph Nader will gladly tell you, cars today are far superior to cars thirty years ago. Safety features and quality have inproved dramatically, and air pollution per car has been greatly decreased. Consumers may not be paying less, but they are getting much better value for their money. This increase in quality and safety of products have soaked up many of the productivity gains of globalization and new technology, but since such things are hard to quantify they are often overlooked. And nobody can deny that the lifestyle of the average American today is much richer and more ostentatious than the lifestyle of Americans in the past. The money for this increased consumption has all come from productivity gains, and many of these productivity gains are due to moving factories and services overseas.
The only thing that capitalism does not handle properly is externalities. If the company does not have to pay for an inefficiency such as pollution or injuries to workers, then that company´s activities will not tend toward more outputs for less inputs. This is the proper role of government: to make sure that all companies pay for the externalities that they impose on the rest of us. When that happens, such externalities are reduced because they become inputs that the company must pay for.
In short, globalization and free trade must continue but companies must be made to pay for all the damage they do. Note that I said pay for the damage, not prevent it. If a company can generate 200 million of profits by with a process that generates pollution that would cost 100 million to clean up, then they should be allowed to pollute, taxed for the cost, and thus be allowed to keep 100 million in profits, since they have generated 100 million dollars of wealth.
) made off like bandits.
.
.
Comment