Capitalism

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Is it acceptable, under even the most lenient of ethical standards, to allow the upper class live in upmost luxury while millions people all over the globe continue to die of malnutrition?





Coming from an upper middle class family, I have always led a pretty easy and pampered life. Recently however I have starting having second thoughts on whether I or anyone else has the right to live such a life, while others are unable to sustain themselves. Under the economic system of capitalism the less fortunate are more or less exploited by the privileged, resulting in a large economic status gap. This injustice continues in the current administration, as the rich are being granted further privileges, and as a result the weight is thrusted upon the lower and middle classes.

Can any of us possibly justify this grievance whilst retaining good moral convictions?

I much favor socialism over our current system, though admittedly, a pure social order typically fails in a greedy self-centered culture such as our own. I would like to see, at the very least, more socialistic practices in America's free market. Perhaps a taxing of the upper class and a redistribution of the wealth would be the first step to a fairer structure. Ideally, we would place the entire world under a united social structure, granting at the very least the bare necessities to all, but that may just be another unattainable utopian ideal of mine.

You would think human beings, a so called "civilized race" might find a way to cooperate towards the greater good, rather than compete for life. Surely intelligent life forms such as ourselves may find a way to put ourselves above petty 'survival of the fittest' philosophies. There is something for all to gain in a revised economic structure. And yet, we continue to fight.



Capitalism is said to invite prosperity. In reality, the only people that truly prosper are those that receive the luck of the draw. What kind of democracy is that?

[MagusYanam]

So, what are you saying, the U.S. is the only non-socialist country in the world? The reason I selected a billionaire criteria is that billionaires will reside where they can protect their money. Since those countries are havens for billionaires, it becomes a potential criteria to divide the socialists from the capitalists. If you have a simple criteria, then I'd like to hear it. But, I think it is exaggerating to put the U.S. as the sole capitalist country in the world.

And I think it's ludicrous to try and impose some kind of objective scale on the countries of the world and say, 'the ones on this side are capitalist and the ones on this side are socialist'. I think you were closer to the truth when you compared the capitalist/socialist dichotomy to a continuum - an idea I thought was so good I used it in my own argument. I'm not saying anything like 'the U.S. is the only non-socialist country in the world', only that Germany and Canada are more socialistic in their governance of their own respective economies than we are.

My criterion is relative - you compare the laws governing domestic land use and environmental protection, worker protection, banking systems, social security, medical care, taxation, education, et cetera. The less stringent the regulations or the fewer there are, the more 'capitalist' the country is. The more regulatory the laws are, the more 'socialist' the country is.

As it is, thanks largely to the Reaganites, our country has one of the most regressive domestic policies in the world. There are very few legal safeguards on the use of federal and private lands (and even those are being hacked at by California Rep. Pombo and his cronies), minimum wage on one job still won't pay the bills, our social security system was under some fire for awhile, we still don't have a universal health care policy, we pay relatively little in taxes on property or income but we fill out a lot of paperwork to do them and you've said as much that our educational system is a joke and we still don't know what to do with it. I think a few well-placed leaves taken out of Germany's or Canada's books could help to streamline our economy a mite or two.

[melikio]

The limitations and weaknesses of most EVERY SYSTEM mentioned here, are in large part metered/gauged by the extent to which the good and bad aspects of HUMAN NATURE affect them.

I think the Bible (and other religions/philosophies) point out to a significant degree, what I'm emphasizing from my personal views.

Capitalism nor Socialism get a "halo"; corruption and other negative aspects of HUMAN nature makes them both "imperfect".

One system may be better than others in different times, places and situations. In any case, it's not so hard to begin sensing when people are screwed-over by any of these political or economic systems. I know the Bible addresses the morality of considering the needs of others, so for many "Christians"...it is believed that PEOPLE are more important than THINGS (money, possessions, status and power).

And I'm near certain, that most who have little more than a quest to gain wealth or power guiding them, tend to end up being more of the PROBLEMS in this world, than part of the solution/s for what ails us (as a race).

-Mel-

[harvey1]

I think a few well-placed leaves taken out of Germany's or Canada's books could help to streamline our economy a mite or two.

I would think we could learn from any country. However, I would say capitalism created wealth for the world, and I would look to increase its implementation in more creative ways. My experience with people in government jobs is that it becomes like an entitlement program. To me, it would be a recipe for disaster. Afterall, what do you think keeps our nation from becoming the next France? I would say our more capitalist economy prevents that from happening. Now we just have to implement that in ways to benefit our ecology and education system.

[harvey1]

And I'm near certain, that most who have little more than a quest to gain wealth or power guiding them, tend to end up being more of the PROBLEMS in this world, than part of the solution/s for what ails us (as a race).

I would tend to agree with that. That's why you have to increase market competition by bringing in grass root organizations to bring wealth to the lower classes. In my view, the reason this isn't done is because the wealthy and powers that be do not want it. That's what prevents capitalism from reaching these suffering sectors of the economy.

[melikio]

I would tend to agree with that. That's why you have to increase market competition by bringing in grass root organizations to bring wealth to the lower classes. In my view, the reason this isn't done is because the wealthy and powers that be do not want it. That's what prevents capitalism from reaching these suffering sectors of the economy.

It should be evident to many human beings, that to continually TAKE will not lead to anything good.

For those who CAN give, it is better for a society that they DO give. This lines up with the Golden Rule and love overall. And when that idea is disregarded or fought against overall, it typically leads to negatives within the system in question.

There are ways in which most every person can give back to society; some can give more than others, simply because they have more than others. But the main thing to note here, is that Capitalism nor Socialism need be converted one to the other...etc. What needs to be promoted is basic awareness/understanding that laws of reciprocity DO apply, whether one is on the giving or receiving end of the system in place.

So, the burden to be "concerned" about these things rests upon and adds to a given society that acknowledges them; it is beneficial. And ANY society which disregards the ACTUAL well-being of its PEOPLE...is headed for real, significant troubles.

Not everyone will be Jesus-like in their thinking; even so, His principles apply and would benefit any society regarding them to even the most basic level.

-Mel-

[Curious]

The Matthew 25 verse, as I see it, has very little to do with economics. It is a parody pertaining to heaven. The servants that invested their money are compared to people that invest their lives in God. When the master came back (the return of Jesus) the servants received more responsibility and money (eternal life). The servant who didn't invest his money is like a person that tries to preserve his life on earth, only to end up losing it in hell.

I would describe this parable as an analogy rather than a parody. As I said earlier, this illustration does not refer specifically to capitalism or to investment but the use of investment as being analogous to "spiritual advancement" or faithfulness to God would be inconsistent if, in itself, capitalism was wrong. If capitalism was inherently bad, then the parable by relation would imply that this was also bad.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I would describe this parable as an analogy rather than a parody. As I said earlier, this illustration does not refer specifically to capitalism or to investment but the use of investment as being analogous to "spiritual advancement" or faithfulness to God would be inconsistent if, in itself, capitalism was wrong. If capitalism was inherently bad, then the parable by relation would imply that this was also bad.

Tying that verse together with capitalism in the first place is a bit of a stretch IMO. They are analogous in some respects, sure, but it doesn't seem to provide enough description in order to directly relate one to the other.

Regardless, I agree the scripture does not imply that this form of handling money is (necessarily) bad. Likewise, I wouldn't say that capitalism is all bad, even if I appeared to entail that. Capitalism in the hands of the unselfish is perfectly acceptable. It's only when the greedy and ambitious take advantage of it that derive the problems.

[Curious]

Tying that verse together with capitalism in the first place is a bit of a stretch IMO. They are analogous in some respects, sure, but it doesn't seem to provide enough description in order to directly relate one to the other.
Regardless, I agree the scripture does not imply that this form of handling money is (necessarily) bad. Likewise, I wouldn't say that capitalism is all bad, even if I appeared to entail that. Capitalism in the hands of the unselfish is perfectly acceptable. It's only when the greedy and ambitious take advantage of it that derive the problems.

I do not attempt to tie it in to capitalism, it makes direct reference to it. The act of giving money to a bank to earn interest IS capitalism.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Bank interest is not exclusive to capitalism, if I'm not mistaken.



But I could be wrong.

[Dark Haibane]

Intrest has been pretty much a general banking practice, since the bank is investing and spending the money you give to them for safe keeping you should receive a portion of what your money allowed them to gain...