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?

[harvey1]

Capitalism certainly works, but it's not perfect by any means...and the same goes for 99.9999% of things which human beings have their hands into. Care should be taken in any case, to consider the kinds of things that edify and benefit all; not all of those things necessarily pertain to wealth and power exclusively.

Well, I certainly agree that people are what systems such as capitalism are all about. However, the problem I have with adjustments to a system is that they usually don't work. People meddling with a piece of equipment they don't understand often break the equipment.

I would prefer that any changes to a capitalist system be made in the context of a capitalist approach. Placing socialist structures on capitalist ones doesn't serve people in the long run. I would rather see capitalist sub-structures used to rectify any problem affecting a capitalist economy.

Name a deficit of capitalism, and I think there is a capitalist solution to that deficit. For example, educational systems are sometimes seen as contrary to capitalist systems. I would say that competition within educational systems can improve the system. The problem with this though, is that republicans tend to hand out kick-backs to the rich, and this is why many republican ideas with voucher programs, and the like, are bad. They would leave public schools without funding as rich kids and well-to-do kids are pulled out of classrooms along with their voucher monies. That's a bad idea. But, the concept is good. Why not put market restrictions on vouchers where every qualified education system must maintain an equal distribution of racial, ethnic, and class distribution as is reflected in the community in order to be qualifiable? So, if Microsoft decided to start a school in some urban area, they couldn't just swoop in and take only the rich city kids out of the class room (of course those kids go to private schools anyway), rather they'd have to take a wide diversity of kids. If they think they can still compete against a public school based on those rules, then what is wrong in letting the market improve the educational system? We know from experience that government controlled businesses don't usually work very well, so why would anyone think that government controlled schools function any better?

[melikio]

Well, I certainly agree that people are what systems such as capitalism are all about. However, the problem I have with adjustments to a system is that they usually don't work. People meddling with a piece of equipment they don't understand often break the equipment.

Yeah.

I certainly don't know the specific answers to existing problems; I do sense (based upon study and experience), that ANY system that diminishes opportunities or witholds compassion from the masses supporting it, will likely fail.

I know there are solutions, but I'm pretty keen on seeing injustices (and simple unfairness) as well. We can all help by applying regard and charity toward others as we go. I entertain no illuisions that the big-minded, big-money, or the powerful, would naturally adhere to my views (even if I were heard).

People like to say, "Life isn't fair." But I have found that to be the mantra of many who should really say, "I don't care."

I wouldn't say that any of the REAL solutions are simple, but the social principles applied typically are (and will be). I'm not sure what getting "screwed" means to you (per se), but I know if you do get screwed...it will cause an effect that goes beyond the mere economic theories many tend to entertain. The "experts" tend to lag, as it pertains to the REAL effects of those who control the wealth and power. And that is a problem in any system that listens to the theories/systems...more than they do to the people which make up the real structure of those systems.

"Keeping it REAL", is not just a cute cliche'...but a casual admonition for valuing truth. I admit the real solutions are tough and complex, but require sacrifices from people at ALL levels within civilization itself (not merely the "worker-bees").

-Mel-

[McCulloch]

Given Jesus' very plain unambiguous teachings about wealth, I would have expected the christians to unequivocally come down on the side of the poor in society. I guess that they have drifted a long way from the teachings of their Lord. Did Jesus teach capitalism? Can any of Jesus teachings be at all interpreted as supporting capitalism (especially the extreme capitalism promoted by the far right)?

[harvey1]

Given Jesus' very plain unambiguous teachings about wealth, I would have expected the christians to unequivocally come down on the side of the poor in society. I guess that they have drifted a long way from the teachings of their Lord. Did Jesus teach capitalism? Can any of Jesus teachings be at all interpreted as supporting capitalism (especially the extreme capitalism promoted by the far right)?

Well, from my perspective, Jesus wasn't trying to eliminate the poor since he said the poor will always be with us. What Jesus sought was a fair world where the downtrodden would have opportunities in life. I see that as a capitalist society since you do have opportunities. And, when you think of it, where are poorest people in the world? They are in socialist nations. And, where do those people want to go, mainly to the West where they'll have opportunities to be able to support their families. This is what capitalism provides.

On the other hand, Melikio has a good point. You can't so much lock into a system that you ignore the plight of individuals. Sure, the majority might be doing well, but you still have to look out for one's fellow neighbor. This is not a fault of capitalism as it is of the individuals in society. Just taxing their incomes doesn't fix the problem since those nations that do rely heavily on richer markets to sell their goods and services. If we completely did away with those markets and replaced them with socialist markets, over time those markets would dry up and then everybody would have 10% unemployment and you'd still have inequality and poor people. So, the answer on an economic level is to produce wealth while at the same time trying to gear capitalist structures toward helping those people who need it most. It's not always an economic solution. It might mean enacting civil rights laws, or persuing affirmative action policies, etc..

The important point though, is that capitalism works as well as it can be expected, so it isn't a matter of retreating to some kind of socialist state, it's a matter of finding new ways to implement capitalist strategies to help the poor. This, I think, Jesus would definitely want.

[Curious]

It is all very well saying that capitalism has been shown to work while socialism frequently appears to fail but this ignores the fact that capitalism has failed many times and it is only through the loss of the many that the main money holders have been able to survive. To suggest that capitalism offers the only opportunity of advancement through hard work is nonsense. Capitalism is based on the principle that if you have money ( ie. capital) you don't have to work. This capital is sourced out to those who have no option but to work for less than the worth of their labour so that the profit can be used to fund the capital holder. Admittedly, greed can be a great incentive when building an efficient business but in theory at least there is no reason why a public service cannot be run just as effectively as a privately run business. It just so happens that private business thrives only after the less successful businesses fail. If 10 private businesses fail and 1 succeeds it is thought of as a success by capitalism yet if 10 public services fail and 1 succeeds it is thought of as failure when applied to socialism. If a fraction of the effort was taken to make socialism work as has been applied to capitalism then there is no doubt that socialism would work as long as the present condition of capitalist states actively destabilising socialist states could be prevented.

Given Jesus' very plain unambiguous teachings about wealth, I would have expected the christians to unequivocally come down on the side of the poor in society. I guess that they have drifted a long way from the teachings of their Lord. Did Jesus teach capitalism? Can any of Jesus teachings be at all interpreted as supporting capitalism (especially the extreme capitalism promoted by the far right)?

Matthew 25:14-30. Obviously it would be a mistake to suggest that this means we should all become capitalists as the meaning is clear to see but it would be unlikely that such an illustration would be used if such action was deemed unacceptable.

[sukotto]

I think that it is incredibly absurd that you are debating this topic on this forum: I am convinced that it has plenty to do with it, but no-one involved in this debate as yet has indicated how it pertains to "Debating Christianity and Religion"...

[Q]

This particular section of debatingchristianity.com is titled "Right and Wrong", more specifically it is for issues related to "Ethics, Morality, and Sin."
harvey1:

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?

The question seems to be appropriate for this section unless I'm missing something...

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Matthew 25:14-30. Obviously it would be a mistake to suggest that this means we should all become capitalists as the meaning is clear to see but it would be unlikely that such an illustration would be used if such action was deemed unacceptable.

Acts 2: 42-47

"(42)And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
(43)And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
(44)And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
(45)And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.
(46)And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
(47)Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

Paints a pretty clear picture of a socialist-esque environment. Christ's other teachings on wealth follow along these lines as well. Selfishness is GREATLY frowned upon in the Bible, but is embraced by capitalism. The rich hoard money. Companies monopolize businesses. Where in the Bible are we told to do such things?

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.

And, when you think of it, where are poorest people in the world? They are in socialist nations. And, where do those people want to go, mainly to the West where they'll have opportunities to be able to support their families. This is what capitalism provides.

I don't think that this is a fair analogy. The poor socialist nations that you refer to don't actually act in the people's best interest as a proper socialist government should. The leaders act in their own best interest, by oppressing the people they control.

A well structured socialist government provides some sort of an incentive. The only poor will be those that neglect to serve their purpose in society.

I'm all in favor of adding more competition. However, socialism is state controlled which often means less competition and more corruption. The state officials can be bribed and competition is eliminated by their self-interests of friends and career ambitions after they leave their government job.

Yes, state controlled markets can cause corruption. But is that government corruption really any worse than corruption of common men in a a free enterprise? Both seem to do their fair share of manipulating. Could there be a way to impose a system of checks and balances on socialist governments that prevents them from oppressing the consumers? Do socialist governments today have any such system in place?


But even in saying all of this I would not suggest socialism as our solution- it just wouldn't go over in a selfish society like ours. I merely intend to point out the flaws of capitalism. I do believe however that certain socialist philosopies may be the solution to the unequalities in capitalism. Ideally, I would like to see the abolishment of the upper class until all people (INCLUDING those in other nations) have access to basic human needs. There is no earthly reason for people to own mansions, ridiculous amenities, million dollar cars, and yachts while there are still those out there suffering. I don't care how much money Bill Gates supposedly gives to charity. I still think he is a horrible person for hoarding all that unnecessary wealth.

[MagusYanam]

Whoa, away for a few days and look how far the conversation's progressed. Please excuse me for backtracking, but...

I don't think it serves our purpose to look for exceptions, especially small nations whom Silicon Valley could employ and still need lack workers. Nations that are large cannot depend on the labor shortages of a Silicon Valley or of a cell phone industry (etc.) to meet their needs. They must generate wealth from inside the country or they won't be able to survive. Countries the size of France and larger suffer a great deal of difficulty in doing this. The United States has one of the poorest educational systems in the industrialized world, it has one of the worst racial and ethnic difficulties facing it, not to mention it has had to spend a considerable amount of its GNP on military spending. Yet, despite all these disadvantages, the U.S. produces a very high GNP per capita and low unemployment than many of the small populated socialist countries with a much higher educated populace.

However, keep in mind the GNP/c is $40K for the U.S. and only 28K for Sweden. So, there is more wealth to share in the U.S. than there is in Sweden. Also, I would ask that we compare the same educational level between the U.S. and Sweden based on actual test scores. That would surely benefit the U.S. since if you compare education level to education level between both countries, I think you would naturally find the higher earners in the U.S. making a significantly higher income than their Swedish counterparts.

The U.S. has a severe education situation, however you can't blame capitalism on poor education. Education is the result of political conditions that exist in poor urban areas that have a plethora of problems (gangs, drugs, violence, the effects of secularism, etc.).

Okay, first off - thank you for clarifying that the CIA's GNP/c figures were means. Secondly, I'll show you what I mean when I say they are pure, grade-A statistical cowpies when gauging the wealth of a country's inhabitants.

Suppose you have a country with 20 people (call it a), one of whom makes $400,000 a year and the rest of whom make $200. The CIA would give country a a GDP/c rating of $20,190. Now suppose you had a different country (b) of the same size with three people making $21,000 a year, four people making $20,200 a year and the rest making $20,000. The CIA would give them the same mean GDP/c, even though country b's inhabitants are clearly better off overall than country a's, because mean figures are where you add up all of the wealth total and divide it by the number of people holding it, regardless of distribution.

Now suppose the GDP/c were a median figure. The CIA would give country a a GDP/c of $200 and country b a GDP/c of $20,000. A little closer to the facts, wouldn't you agree?

Of course, this is a very drastic example and it gets more difficult with larger countries where the median may not be representative of the country as a whole, but most countries' wealth scales are skewed enough statistically that a median figure is far more useful than just the mean in gauging the citizens' overall financial state. The best statistics for a country's finances would have the mean and the standard deviance which would account for the middle 2/3 of the population.

So, in terms of the GDP/c figures you gave, that means that there may be more wealth total per caput, but it doesn't give the facts as to which capita it primarily belongs. Because we have so many social problems, we could have a tremendous wealth gap and still have a relatively large GDP/c (for which the standard deviance would be incredibly high), whereas another country that doesn't have as many social problems may have a lower GDP/c but have a populace that is financially better off overall (in other words, the standard deviance would be relatively low).

As far as education goes, I think you have a point about education level and wealth. Comparing the USA and Sweden, I would expect to see that high-school graduates make more in Sweden on average than they do here, whereas people with degrees in business here would make more.

However, when it comes to comparing the two countries' middle-class professionals with college degrees or graduate degrees, I think you may have a comparable mean here with a far larger standard deviance. Our family is about as middle-class as you can get, and we are likely to stay that way in terms of real wealth. But some of my father's colleagues have the same education as he does, but make less and are getting progressively poorer. Others with his same degree are making more and getting progressively richer.

Also, I don't think it's constructive to simplify the argument over education down that far. Quality of education has a number of factors, including standards in curricula, standards set for receiving a teachers' degree, amount of funding for public education on a municipal / district level, availability of public transportation, success rate of anti-drug and sex education programmes, availability of government services such as police and hospitals, strength of the community as a whole et cetera.

What I'm not seeing is how secularism fits in. This country is actually quite comparable with Europe in terms of secularisation of public education - most secondary (and primary, for that matter) institutions started off as religious schools but gradually disassociated themselves from their parent denominations. The only difference is that in Europe, most of the schools are quite old and have roots in the Catholic tradition, while here most schools are relatively new with roots in the Calvinist tradition.

I would propose that an easily identifiable list of capitalist nations are those top 5 countries having the most billionaires. Obviously, if they tax billionaires heavily to support the socialist programs, the billionaires won't be the richest in the world. The top 5 countries with the most billionaires are:

United States 269
Japan 29
Germany 28
Italy 17
Canada 16

Personally, I don't think that's a very good proposal for gauging the relative capitalism or socialism of a country. Capitalism as opposed to socialism I would define as the dearth (as opposed to presence) of legal regulation of economic structures. And you don't measure a country's laws regarding the economy by how many people with assets over $1,000,000,000 it has. Both Germany and Canada have economic regulations on scopes that far exceed those in this country, and so would fall on the 'socialist' side of the continuum in my view.

China will eventually pass up all three, but China is also quickly becoming the most capitalistic country in the world too.

You can say that again. Having just returned last month it appears they are trying to out-capitalise us (pardon the odd usage).

However, economic prosperity is not always consistent with economic programming (or lack thereof). The Industrial Revolution and the first economic takeoffs to sustained growth took place in a country with very tight legal regulations on industry (Great Britain). Things you have to look for in a takeoff to sustained growth are the markets that are expected to boom and stay stable within the next fifty years or so and centres of industry that are capable of filling those markets. For the first Industrial Revolution's takeoff to sustained growth, it was textiles. Then steel. More recently, aerospace technologies and computers have filled the void and led to a takeoff to sustained growth. Next is probably going to be the service industry or bioengineering (who knows?).

I would put caveats on education. No blank checks. If the taxpayer has to pay for someone else's education, then darn it, why should they pay for the kid to take art classes? I think if the education serves a vital interest for industry, then it is good to finance.

Okay, good idea. But I would take out sports before art classes - art classes at least have applications (in concert with physics) in engineering, architecture and other forms of practical design, which is more useful than kicking some ball around. But then again, this is coming from a humanities nerd, so don't ask me to understand the logic for having Providence public schools pay for their football teams rather than for AP arts and math courses.

I agree with you there. There needs to be reform on this issue, just like there needed to be reform on the junk bonds issue in the late 80's. But, you don't step back from capitalism because of these issues. The U.S. is so inefficient and wasteful that if it didn't have a capitalist economy I see nothing that would prevent us from becoming a Spanish or Franco economy. A very bad move. If anything, we should look for ways to expand free enterprise without leading to a shift of more wealth to the rich.

Unfortunately, historical precedent would seem to dictate that the moneyed interests will take miles if you give them inches (think rampant speculation in the early 1800's, the Gilded Age and the Republican Age of the 1920's), which is why I think that this reform has to take the form of regulation if we want our economy to survive the long haul. I realise all the libertarians will be baying for my blood for saying this, but deregulation hasn't worked in the past, so there's no reason to think that it's going to start now.

What Jesus sought was a fair world where the downtrodden would have opportunities in life. I see that as a capitalist society since you do have opportunities. And, when you think of it, where are poorest people in the world? They are in socialist nations. And, where do those people want to go, mainly to the West where they'll have opportunities to be able to support their families.

You're picking up some disagreement on this end. In a purelycapitalist society, by definition, the amount of 'opportunity' you have is directly proportional to the amount of capital you have; hence, capitalism. If you don't got it, you can't get it.

As to the last part, I'm afraid it's a bit outdated. Many Western countries are indeed socialist, and there is a lot of immigration even to countries further up the socialist continuum than we are. Many Turks are finding ample work opportunities in, for example, northern and Western Europe (particularly Germany, France and Denmark) and have been immigrating accordingly.

The world's poorest people, if you want to look at it that way, will be in countries with long histories of foreign (mainly European and American) occupation and imperial exploitation - namely Africa (Western Europe), Indochina (Western Europe and America) and Central Asia (Russia and America) - all in the name of 'opportunity'. So you'll pardon my cynicism about the beneficence of the systems which propagated said imperialism.

[harvey1]

Both Germany and Canada have economic regulations on scopes that far exceed those in this country, and so would fall on the 'socialist' side of the continuum in my view.

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.