Is Capitalism Moral?

[polar]

Well, this is just my opinion, but it seems that any form of leadership or government is open to corruption and immoral behaviour. It is easy for immoral behaviour to occur in a capitalist society. It's just as likely to happen in a communist society as demonstrated in the USSR.

totally agree with every thing you typed here

It is immoral, but then again so is every other type of society. It's human nature to exploit others.

i totally agree that every institution is trying to exploit everyone else.  every business is trying to exploit whoever it can to make a buck, every govt institution is trying to exploit and bend ever rule and citizen for the sake of social justice or power.

that's why i'm in favor of never ever mingling business and govt, they end up teaming up to form a voltron of corruption (i'm coining and copyrighting that phrase don't steal it, i love voltron)

there must be separation of govt and economy/business.  we've never had it, i wish the US was still the "experiment" it was intended to be

Thus, those at the top benefit, while those at the bottom are usually the ones who line the pockets of the rich with their hard work. Capitalism is structured in such a way that money flows disproportionately to the top of the system, benefitting a small minority. Moral capitalism is possible, and it's one where money is shared more equally.

as long as the guy on the top of the totem pole and the bottom both have a choice to make and both are NOT co-erced, i would say that many are ecstatic to have a job on the bottom of the totem pole.  if they weren't getting something from it, they wouldn't agree to work there under certian conditions.  if there is no govt to block the entry way into an industry through high regulations or conditions, bad companies would not be able to exist or prosper. 

[polar]

totally agree with every thing you typed here

i totally agree that every institution is trying to exploit everyone else.  every business is trying to exploit whoever it can to make a buck, every govt institution is trying to exploit and bend ever rule and citizen for the sake of social justice or power.

that's why i'm in favor of never ever mingling business and govt, they end up teaming up to form a voltron of corruption (i'm coining and copyrighting that phrase don't steal it, i love voltron)

there must be separation of govt and economy/business.  we've never had it, i wish the US was still the "experiment" it was intended to be

as long as the guy on the top of the totem pole and the bottom both have a choice to make and both are NOT co-erced, i would say that many are ecstatic to have a job on the bottom of the totem pole.  if they weren't getting something from it, they wouldn't agree to work there under certian conditions.  if there is no govt to block the entry way into an industry through high regulations or conditions, bad companies would not be able to exist or prosper. 

exploit is a strong word.  i think in many cases it's applicable, and many cases not so much.  many businessmen are certainly out to exploit for a buck.  i can list several by name.  however, the ones trying to build a real business would never sacrifice their business ethics for a dollar, and i know way more of those types, i'm one.  you won't last very long in any industry if you fuck over or "exploit" a client/ consumer.

i guess i'm parroting / echoing the original post, but never the less...

[sunnyp]

I honestly believe that capitalism is in decline (Western capitalism, at least). I knew that the concept of capitalism is all based on numbers floating around in cyberspace, and that one day the system was going to crumble. I thought it was going to be a wonderful day when we freed ourselves from the chains of financial slavery.

In fact, the economic crisis has been anything but wonderful. It's caused misery and suffering for millions of people around the world. Now that the gulf between rich and poor is increasing globally, I believe the next form of political science will be based on elitism. The role of money, celebrity and status will come together to form respect, which in turn generates more money, status and a celebrity cult. The internet will be the medium.

Again, this is just my opinion.

[polar]

I honestly believe that capitalism is in decline (Western capitalism, at least). I knew that the concept of capitalism is all based on numbers floating around in cyberspace, and that one day the system was going to crumble. I thought it was going to be a wonderful day when we freed ourselves from the chains of financial slavery.

this isn't capitalism.  not even close.  common misconception about it since ppl think the US is a capitalist country when it's not.  what you are describing is call fractional reserve banking.  but yeah, totally, it's based on financial slavery.  if a person, like myself, wanted a truly free system that inspired growth, we'd end the federal reserve and abolish the govt intrusion that legislated things like derivatives into existence. 

In fact, the economic crisis has been anything but wonderful. It's caused misery and suffering for millions of people around the world. Now that the gulf between rich and poor is increasing globally, I believe the next form of political science will be based on elitism. The role of money, celebrity and status will come together to form respect, which in turn generates more money, status and a celebrity cult. The internet will be the medium.

Again, this is just my opinion.

if a govt wants to honestly help the poor, they eliminate any regulations or restrictions placed upon them by legislation and govt policy.  and if you REALLY want to help the poor, along with everyone else, you give them a stable currency, look at how well QE1 and QE2 (and soon to come, QE3) have helped the poor.  THANKS OBAMA, love our gas and food prices.  that REALLY helps the poor...

[sunnyp]

this isn't capitalism.  not even close.  common misconception about it since ppl think the US is a capitalist country when it's not.  what you are describing is call fractional reserve banking.  but yeah, totally, it's based on financial slavery.  if a person, like myself, wanted a truly free system that inspired growth, we'd end the federal reserve and abolish the govt intrusion that legislated things like derivatives into existence. 

if a govt wants to honestly help the poor, they eliminate any regulations or restrictions placed upon them by legislation and govt policy.  and if you REALLY want to help the poor, along with everyone else, you give them a stable currency, look at how well QE1 and QE2 (and soon to come, QE3) have helped the poor.  THANKS OBAMA, love our gas and food prices.  that REALLY helps the poor...

But stock markets, trading, banking and all types of finance are based around numbers on a computer. The realisation of bank accounts around the world would cause financial meltdown because there isn't enough tangible money in circulation. I don't know if it's the same in the US, but in the UK, if we all emptied our bank accounts and converted the numbers into actual cash, the system would collapse. Banks and government pension funds work on the principle that governments write legislation which forces the public into storing their money in accounts. The bankers and fund managers then invest OUR money to make more for themselves.

If you deposit a large sum of money into an account, they never ask any questions. If you try to withdraw a large sum of money, they get very shitty. Why? Because they need your money to make billions for themselves, which is, for me, immoral.

Anyway, I stand by my observations.

[sunnyp]

^^ I didn't know what QE1 etc meant until I guessed it meant "quantitative easing", right?

For English people, it means a "big cruise ship", so I was like "what?"

[polar]

But stock markets, trading, banking and all types of finance are based around numbers on a computer. The realisation of bank accounts around the world would cause financial meltdown because there isn't enough tangible money in circulation. I don't know if it's the same in the US, but in the UK, if we all emptied our bank accounts and converted the numbers into actual cash, the system would collapse. Banks and government pension funds work on the principle that governments write legislation which forces the public into storing their money in accounts. The bankers and fund managers then invest OUR money to make more for themselves.

If you deposit a large sum of money into an account, they never ask any questions. If you try to withdraw a large sum of money, they get very shitty. Why? Because they need your money to make billions for themselves, which is, for me, immoral.

Anyway, I stand by my observations.

none of this has anything to do with capitalism.  sounds like you are against corporatism, which i am too.  but don't start confusing any of what you described with free market capitalism

[stelter]

Debating First Principles: Is Capitalism Moral?
Sunday, April 24, 2011


The America we live in today is not a capitalist country. For more than a century, we have lived in a mixed economy - a mixture of capitalism and socialism - in which the government interferes in more and more of our decisions, and takes away more and more of our wealth.

Genuine capitalism is based on the principle of individual liberty--the inalienable right to follow your own dreams and act according to your own judgment. It means the right to start a hair salon without seeking a government license, or the right to take a drug your doctor thinks could save your life, regardless of what some FDA bureaucrat thinks.

Genuine capitalism is based on the principle of inviolate private property - including the inalienable right to the product of your own work. It means the right to spend your money on expanding your business rather than on someone else’s retirement, or on a family vacation instead of your neighbor’s tonsillectomy.

Genuine capitalism is based on the principle of voluntary association - individuals deal with one another by persuasion and trade rather than physical force. It means that no matter how noble someone thinks his goals are--whether it’s building wind farms or sending other people’s children to college or erecting a bridge to nowhere--he has no right to force them on you. And it means that no matter how misguided someone thinks your goals are, so long as you are peaceful he has no power to stop you from living the kind of life you want to live.

Capitalism is the system where there is no government manipulation and distortion of the market (e.g., the Federal Reserve and Freddie and Fannie’s affordable housing policy that created the financial crisis), no alphabet regulatory agencies dictating and overseeing your every action, no wealth redistribution schemes to give your hard-earned income to causes someone else thinks are worthy.

Capitalism, in brief, is the system where you’re free to set your own goals and make your own choices, to find a career you love and rise as high as your ability and ambition will take you, to deal with others through win-win trades, and to keep the fruits of your labor.

I believe that this is the moral system. But the supporters of the mixed economy disagree. They call it selfish, greedy, heartless, immoral--and righteously claim the power to use force to get you to obey their vision of the “common good.” They hold that a society based on voluntary association is “exploitive”--and have replaced it with a dog-eat-dog system of pressure group warfare, where your freedom and wealth are at the mercy of how much political influence you can muster.

But capitalism is not exploitative. I spent nearly twenty years as the CEO of one of America’s largest financial institutions, BB&T, and one of the things I saw again and again was that a businessman who abandons principle and tries to make money at the expense of others, although he may succeed in the short run, is doomed in the long run. Taking advantage of people is not truly selfish, it is self-defeating: people will not trust you. You might fool Fred and Suzie, but they will tell Tom, Dick, and Harry and no one will trust you. Being untrustworthy will put you out of business.

The reason BB&T has been so successful is because we help our clients achieve economic success and financial security. They voluntarily pay us for this service, allowing us to make a profit. Both BB&T and our customers are better off from this win-win relationship. On a free market, where you can’t seek favors or bailouts from Washington, business is about creating these types of win-win relationships--by figuring out ways to benefit your clients while making a profit doing so. (And, if you do defraud your customers or engage in some other crime, the government in a free market is there to put a stop to it.)

But, you may be thinking, isn’t pursuing profit and your own self-interest wrong? Don’t we have a moral obligation to altruistically put the needs of others above our own? That is what we’re taught--but why is it true? Why is it moral to serve other people’s happiness, but not your own? Why is it wrong to try to make the most of your own life, neither sacrificing yourself to others nor others to yourself? Don’t you have as much right to your life as anyone else has to his?

You may have detected a theme running through the arguments made by the Ayn Rand Center representatives over the course of the debates. Underlying all of our arguments is a single basic principle: that you should be free to live your own life, and that no one--not the government, not your neighbors--should be able to force you to live the way he thinks you ought to. Our view, in other words, is that you have an inalienable right to pursue your own happiness. What could be more moral than that?

---John Allison is chairman of the board of BB&T Corporation. He began his service with BB&T in 1971, became president in 1987 and was elected chairman and CEO in 1989 (serving as CEO until the end of 2008). During Mr. Allison’s tenure, BB&T has grown from $4.5 billion to $137 billion in assets.

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2011/apr/24/debating-first-principles-capitalism-moral/

i rly enjoy reading these arguments, sounds like something i'd say almost verbatim

Real Capitalism (Libertarianism) is very moral.  What we have now is Corporatism, or sometimes called Fascism.  What we have now is not moral.  It's very difficult to make it when Big Government helps Big Corporatism and the businesses become "too big to fail."  When this occurs, the bad companies aren't punished for being bad and the good ones don't have as good as a chance to make it. 

In reality, the free market can handle itself on it's own.  There doesn't have to be all these tax and regulation policies to "help the little guy."  When the public finds out that "Company A" is putting poison in their food (will never happen) the people will find out very quickly and never buy anything from that business ever again, then the company fails on its own. 

In "real Capitalism" only moral companies will thrive over time.  They will take care of their customers because that's the only way they can stay in business. 

Plus, capitalism creates wealth....It's not a "zero-sum game."

[polar]

Real Capitalism (Libertarianism) is very moral.  What we have now is Corporatism, or sometimes called Fascism.  What we have now is not moral.  It's very difficult to make it when Big Government helps Big Corporatism and the businesses become "too big to fail."  When this occurs, the bad companies aren't punished for being bad and the good ones don't have as good as a chance to make it. 

In reality, the free market can handle itself on it's own.  There doesn't have to be all these tax and regulation policies to "help the little guy."  When the public finds out that "Company A" is putting poison in their food (will never happen) the people will find out very quickly and never buy anything from that business ever again, then the company fails on its own. 

In "real Capitalism" only moral companies will thrive over time.  They will take care of their customers because that's the only way they can stay in business. 

Plus, capitalism creates wealth....It's not a "zero-sum game."

whoa slow down, you're obviously trying to attack poor people.  who will protect the helpless?