Why has Capitalism failed to produce optimal value everywhere?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kidicious
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.

Which is why we have a fundamental disagreement on what is fair. Just because the victim thinks differently doesn't make the deal unfair - we can have a fair legal system where the victim feels they've got a hard deal, but it can still be fair. Indeed, I'd say it's not a fair system, because someone can decide, consciously to gamble everything they own, lose and then use government money to live. They knew the risks of that venture, but yet they went ahead and leave the government to foot the bill for their gamble. It's not fair, IMHO, however it is a far better system than without a safety net.

What "kinds" of fairness is there? I think we just fundamentally disagaree on what is fair.

[Last Conformist]

I'll note it as Kid who painted me in the role as the price gouger in his example. I suppose he'd simply say I'm lying if I said my judgement of fairness were the same if I were the price gouged, but that's nonetheless the case.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Drogue
What "kinds" of fairness is there? I think we just fundamentally disagaree on what is fair.

I think there is only one kind of fair, but people use the word like they use the word freedom - for their own purposes. Fairness defined for your own purposes is not real fairness. That being said we have to either debate what true fairness is or we have to accept one definition. I don't really think that we disagree about what is fair. We may, however, disagree on what is moral. I do not interchange the terms. You can believe that it's moral to be unfair for example if you believe in freedom from constraint more than fairness.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
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.

I will decide what conversation I want to be part of . . .

and I do care very much about history and the way things have actually worked in the past. No variation of communism has done well by that test . . well ever.

What I don't care much about are very abstract theoretical arguments couched in communist terminology such that the way you define words predetermine the conclusion . The early theories of capitalsim are interesting but the reality is that very few people ( maybe the fringe righties) advocate anything close to unrestricted capitalism. So the theoretical justifications of that are merely interesting but hardly that crucial. If you want to discredit some theoretician, go ahead but since no one seems to be supporting capitalism based on said theoretician, I fail to see the point.

[Flubber]

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 not? Thats like saying that anyone that doesn't believe democracy is perfect should not speak to support it.

[Flubber]

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.

What drogue said

[Flubber]

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.

So you have to adopt a framework of whatever the Marxist says it is in order to debate a Marxist?? ITs funny . .. I thought that challenging those definitions was what a good debate was about.

Otehrwise why can't all the pro-capitalists say that to debate us, you must talk about x and y and of course must talk about them in the way we define them.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
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.

Maybe it is or maybe it isn't . .. I'm not sure what you mean by get what you deserve.

Most people do see benefit from their own efforts and labours and when they buy sonething , get exactly what they agreed to purchase.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


I will decide what conversation I want to be part of . . .

and I do care very much about history and the way things have actually worked in the past. No variation of communism has done well by that test . . well ever.

What I don't care much about are very abstract theoretical arguments couched in communist terminology such that the way you define words predetermine the conclusion . The early theories of capitalsim are interesting but the reality is that very few people ( maybe the fringe righties) advocate anything close to unrestricted capitalism. So the theoretical justifications of that are merely interesting but hardly that crucial. If you want to discredit some theoretician, go ahead but since no one seems to be supporting capitalism based on said theoretician, I fail to see the point.

If you want to have conversations with people you should make yourself knowledgable about subject matter.

Maybe it is or maybe it isn't . .. I'm not sure what you mean by get what you deserve.

Most people do see benefit from their own efforts and labours and when they buy sonething , get exactly what they agreed to purchase.

Most people you know. We should be objective about it.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious




Most people you know. We should be objective about it.

Fine-- but my subjective view comes from growing up in newfoundland which by every measure is in probably the worst economic shape of any Canadian province. So using deduction I would say that people in richer provinces with less unemployment should have even more opportunity .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Fine-- but my subjective view comes from growing up in newfoundland which by every measure is in probably the worst economic shape of any Canadian province. So using deduction I would say that people in richer provinces with less unemployment should have even more opportunity .

I'm not refering to taking anyones word for it. Let's analyse the situation. That's what Marxism does.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


If you want to have conversations with people you should make yourself knowledgable about subject matter.

I agree since you really should learn more about how business works. In particular your knowledge of how a business makes an investment decision was woeful.

The difference is that I will admit the areas I am not knowledgeable about. I will then either read up or state pretty bluntly why I don't give a flying fig.

By contrast , you never seem to acknowledge any areas where your knowledge may be deficient and instead look quite silly to any informed observer when you start lecturing people on how they don't understand things that are in their area of expertise. Five people with impeccable credentials in a field could line up against you but you would claim that they just don't understand how things really work since that has only been imparted on you with your economics degree and a hatful of communist catchphrases.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm not refering to taking anyones word for it. Let's analyse the situation. That's what Marxism does.

Go ahead but it seems you are saying you wish to ignore the real world. All I am saying is that I grew up in a "disadvantaged " or "poor" region so this is not theoretical to me.

I saw lots of people so accustomed to government handouts that it was a way of life. Welfare begats welfare. To some the concept of personal responsibility becomes foreign since it is the government's fault.

I see you proposing a centralized welfare state on a massive scale and justifying it in ways that deny personal responibility for an individual's condition. I fear that since I have seen how welfare can stunt initiative and drive in some people.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


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.

Kid, just for the record, I know that free enterprise can be abused. That is where law steps in -- to protect business and consumers through anti-trust laws, workers through labor laws, security buyers through disclosure and rules against insider trading, etc., etc., etc. The existence of abuse justifies such laws. It does not justify communism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


I agree since you really should learn more about how business works. In particular your knowledge of how a business makes an investment decision was woeful.

The difference is that I will admit the areas I am not knowledgeable about. I will then either read up or state pretty bluntly why I don't give a flying fig.

By contrast , you never seem to acknowledge any areas where your knowledge may be deficient and instead look quite silly to any informed observer when you start lecturing people on how they don't understand things that are in their area of expertise. Five people with impeccable credentials in a field could line up against you but you would claim that they just don't understand how things really work since that has only been imparted on you with your economics degree and a hatful of communist catchphrases.

You do know that I'm getting a business degree, don't you?

It's one thing to say that you don't know about something. It's another thing to say that what you don't know about it irrelevent.