Why has Capitalism failed to produce optimal value everywhere?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kidicious
They clearly do.

They clearly don't. You keep mentioning fairness, not us. It's like presuming we said value = price. We didn't. Please don't presume what we think.

[Kidlicious]

I don't have to presume anything. I have a BA in economics. Look, I know Flubber doesn't care about the historical arguments. And since he doesn't he shouldn't make himself part of the conversation. But when you look at the historical arguments, you definitely see much talk about fairness. Marshall's argument is that consumer surplus makes capitalism fair. That's obvious and it's what I was taught in my Intro to Macroeconomics. I remember my professor saying, "Consumer is King, that's what makes capitalism the best system." Of course economics is about fairness. I don't see how you (being trained in the discipline), can say otherwise.

[Kidlicious]

btw, anyone who doesn't think that capitalism is fair really should either be arguing from this side or not participating at all.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Of course economics is about fairness. I don't see how you (being trained in the discipline), can say otherwise.

Easily. Historically it may have been argued that fairness was key. The reason we avoid it in this argument is because we disagree on what it is. Is having the same rule for everyone fair? Is making everyone have exactly the same fair? Is making everyone equally happy fair? Economics can be about fairness, if you're arguing fairness. Throughout history people have, but none of us have, and fewer do now. I'm not saying it's not about fairness, I'm just saying it doesn't have to be. If maximum economic growth is your aim, it doesn't matter whether it's fair or not. You can study economics with the sole aim of maximising economic growth.

The presumption was they you seemed to be claiming that *we* claimed capitalism was fair. We didn't.

Originally posted by Kidicious
btw, anyone who doesn't think that capitalism is fair really should either be arguing from this side or not participating at all.

Why? Fair doesn't necessarily mean good. I don't think capitalism is always fair, I think having higher taxes (% wise) for the rich isn't fair, however I do think it's the best way to do it. I'd take a good system, one that increases utility as much as possible, over a fair one anyday. Equality is good, and thus sacrificing some economic growth for it is justified, IMHO. However it begins to come at too high a price, and total equality is way to far, IMHO.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Drogue

Easily. Historically it may have been argued that fairness was key. The reason we avoid it in this argument is because we disagree on what it is. Is having the same rule for everyone fair? Is making everyone have exactly the same fair? Is making everyone equally happy fair? Economics can be about fairness, if you're arguing fairness. Throughout history people have, but none of us have, and fewer do now. I'm not saying it's not about fairness, I'm just saying it doesn't have to be. If maximum economic growth is your aim, it doesn't matter whether it's fair or not. You can study economics with the sole aim of maximising economic growth.

The presumption was they you seemed to be claiming that *we* claimed capitalism was fair. We didn't.


Why? Fair doesn't necessarily mean good. I don't think capitalism is always fair, I think having higher taxes (% wise) for the rich isn't fair, however I do think it's the best way to do it. I'd take a good system, one that increases utility as much as possible, over a fair one anyday. Equality is good, and thus sacrificing some economic growth for it is justified, IMHO. However it begins to come at too high a price, and total equality is way to far, IMHO.

Well you are arguing with a Marxist. So I don't really know what your purposes are. What makes you think that we have been debating economic growth. Marx himself said that the economy grows during capitalist period?

And btw, fairness to a Marxist is equitable-fair. You should know that, and if you want to talk to Marxists about fairness, that is the definition you should be using.

[Berzerker]

Why has Capitalism failed to produce optimal value everywhere?

Because it doesn't exist everywhere?

[Kidlicious]

btw, I do think that capitalism is based on the idea that if you work for something or pay for something that you should get what you deserve. Capitalism just isn't like that in reality.

[Kidlicious]

Ah Berzerker. Now we have someone who believes in the moral value of capitalism. What say you sir?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't lean towards communism. I was quite right wing until about the age of 30. I went through something of a crisis in by belief system.

Oh my. I had so put you down as a teenager.

@Drogue: Actually, I did say that a deal between two competent consenting parties both with all relevant information is necessarily fair. Now, Kid is clearly operating on a concept of "fair" that is quite different from mine ...

[Berzerker]

I don't lean towards communism. I was quite right wing until about the age of 30. I went through something of a crisis in by belief system.

Hmm...sounds like you were born again

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Oh my. I had so put you down as a teenager.

@Drogue: Actually, I did say that a deal between two competent consenting parties both with all relevant information is necessarily fair. Now, Kid is clearly operating on a concept of "fair" that is quite different from mine ...

Honestly I don't believe you. I really don't accept that definition of fair. The reason is that you can think one way when you are on one side of the deal and another when you are on the other side of the deal. Honestly, in my experience, no one likes to be price gouged, for example. I've never known anyone to be the victim of price gouging and turn around and say, "well that was fair." Sorry, I'm not buying it. At any rate, that's not really the kind of fairness we are talking about.

[Berzerker]

Kid is clearly operating on a concept of "fair" that is quite different from mine ...

And he knows if you're being exploited even when you don't.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker


And he knows if you're being exploited even when you don't.

I can't be held responsible for what he knows.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Hmm...sounds like you were born again

Why? Is that how is was when you became a libertarian?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Well you are arguing with a Marxist. So I don't really know what your purposes are. What makes you think that we have been debating economic growth.

Nothing, we weren't. However you said economics was about fairness. I said not necessarily. It doesn't have to be, just because it would be to a Marxist.

Originally posted by Kidicious
And btw, fairness to a Marxist is equitable-fair. You should know that, and if you want to talk to Marxists about fairness, that is the definition you should be using.

I believe that needs to be a source for debate. But as I said, this debate wasn't about fairness, at least not from my side. And if we were arguing about fairness, I wouldn't accept that as the definition of it, thus any debate on fairness is pretty much useless.