If Capitalism is Immoral what System of Economics is Moral?

[Mentat]

Moving away from the absurdities of plywood, let's look instead at school placements. In the UK at the moment, social mobility is really being hampered by the fact that richer parents can afford to live within the catchment areas of the best schools, so the kids of poor parents will inevitably get a worse education and therefore dimmer prospects, making a vicious circle. Now, in Brighton, they've recently started a system where school places are no longer allocated by area of residence, but by lottery, meaning that poorer kids can get into better schools without their parents needing to own a £500k house. Lots of parents were in uproar about this, but I am all in favour, cos I think the practice was disgusting, but it goes entirely against the supposed "free choice" of capitalism...

Edit: note: this is public education I'm talking here, private is a whole different kettle of fish

The lottery of being born into a wealthy family isn't really much different in terms of fairness from an actual lottery.

The goal of the state in this issue should be to provide a quality education for all rather than a select few, not to change the method with which we select those few.

The system you describe will also devaluate the real estate close to those schools. While I'm sure some of those are disgustingly rich people who haven't done an honest day's work in their life, some of them probably worked hard to earn the money they decided to invest in a better education for their offspring. It probably also creates problems for parents who have to take their children to a school far from where they live.

To me it's only trading a system which is admittedly unfair for another one which is also unfair but less efficient.

[Shryke]

Yeah, there are a lot of left-leaning people on this board who will always side with each other. So what? Does it make you feel better that you are siding with the crowd? I have rebutted every single argument thrown against me, even the strawmen that you so love to employ. You claim that everyone who has even remotest risk of suffering wind damage will want to spend the money and effort to buy plywood and cover their windows with it. But we all know this is not true. The price of plywood does play a role in weeding out a group of people whose assumed risk of damage is smaller than the certain cost of plywood. You have no arguments which I have not debunked.

It's like you haven't even read this thread at all. Not even your own posts (which you have contradicted a few times).

Your example still fails because it does not allocate the resources efficiently like you claim because it completely ignores the ABILITY of someone to pay as a factor. Several people have pointed this out already. Multiple times.

This oversight makes the example useless. It's like saying "Yes, this car works perfectly so long as you don't expect it to drive you anywhere".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

Oh, come on, Scot! (and we're still on the damn plywood!) I would hope that the official in charge of emergency plywood-distribution would be looking at the projected path of the hurricane, and dishing out the plywood supplies based on which homes were most at risk. If he's after powerful sponsors or acting out of fear, he is either corrupt or incompetent, but that does not mean the system is at fault.

Also, this:

You are assuming the person selling plywood will jack the price meaning only the wealthy can buy. That's not guranteed.

This goes to my point the Capitalism is amoral, not immoral. The seller may simple sell first come first serve or the seller may consider the same factors you are assuming a government offical will consider. Heck, the "seller" may simply give the plywood away if they feel really bad for the person attempting to buy but comes up short. It all depends upon that individuals moral precepts.

Usotsuki,

I'm not aruging for pure capitalism. In certian circumstances, emergency situations among them, Government should be involved in allocation of recources. I simply don't know, given human nature, whether that will always result in more efficient allocation of reasources.

[Shryke]

The lottery of being born into a wealthy family isn't really much different in terms of fairness from an actual lottery.

The goal of the state in this issue should be to provide a quality education for all rather than a select few, not to change the method with which we select those few.

The system you describe will also devaluate the real estate close to those schools. While I'm sure some of those are disgustingly rich people who haven't done an honest day's work in their life, some of them probably worked hard to earn the money they decided to invest in a better education for their offspring. It probably also creates problems for parents who have to take their children to a school far from where they live.

To me it's only trading a system which is admittedly unfair for another one which is also unfair but less efficient.

Actually "the lottery of being born into a wealthy family" is much WORSE all around because it inhibits social mobility, creates class stagnation and ghettoization and various other problems.

[SergioCQH]

It's like you haven't even read this thread at all. Not even your own posts (which you have contradicted a few times).

Your example still fails because it does not allocate the resources efficiently like you claim because it completely ignores the ABILITY of someone to pay as a factor. Several people have pointed this out already. Multiple times.

This oversight makes the example useless. It's like saying "Yes, this car works perfectly so long as you don't expect it to drive you anywhere".

Your rebuttal fails because ABILITY TO PAY IS NOT a factor. Only WILLINGNESS is. Do you seriously want to argue that, in the United States, someone who can afford a house or a business will be unable to afford plywood in the rare case of a hurricane which might come once every few decades? That's absurd. Of course the example ignores ability to pay as a factor, because it isn't one.

[Stego]

The goal of capitalism is always profit. Profit always comes at a cost to someone else. As such, the goal of capitalism can be seen as a struggle for monetary dominance. I believe that attempting to set oneself over others is immoral.

Now morality is certainly a personal decision. No two peoples moral code is the same. For instance, Scot, I believe your moral compass has been sitting on a magnet for a long, long time. But that does not mean you are not a moral person. By your own standards, I truly believe you are.

As such, though, this entire topic is moot.

[Shryke]

Your rebuttal fails because ABILITY TO PAY IS NOT a factor. Only WILLINGNESS is. Do you seriously want to argue that, in the United States, someone who can afford a house or a business will be unable to afford plywood in the rare case of a hurricane which might come once every few decades? That's absurd. Of course the example ignores ability to pay as a factor, because it isn't one.

So, again, your point about "The Advantage of the Free Market" only applies when ability to pay is not a factor. So it only applies in a very small, narrow number of cases.

Your example, then, is pointless because it's not an example of much of anything, it's just a specific outlier case.

It's like you are reading what everyone has been telling you, but you can't actually understand it. It's kinda funny.

PS - It also assumes rational informed actors. :lol:

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stego,

There is nothing intrinsic to capitalism that says profit must be maximized. Individual's morals apply to those who are working within a capitalist economy. Captialism is amoral, not immoral.

[Stego]

Do you seriously want to argue that, in the United States, someone who can afford a house or a business will be unable to afford plywood

Wow.

Sergio, you live in a bubble.

Have you never heard of people on a fixed income who live by severe budgetary constraints? The elderly. The disabled. They may own a house that was fully paid for in their youth, but they may be struggling to eat more than ramen noodles today.

What about folks who are unemployed due to this economic collapse? They bought houses when they could afford them and now they can barely keep up with the payments and feed themselves. A few hundred dollars for lumber is a luxury they do not have.

How can a thinking human being not be aware that such a large percentage of human beings live below the poverty line?

[SergioCQH]

The goal of capitalism is always profit. Profit always comes at a cost to someone else. As such, the goal of capitalism can be seen as a struggle for monetary dominance. I believe that attempting to set oneself over others is immoral.

This zero-sum view of free market economics is one of the biggest misunderstandings of economics out there. Perhaps the biggest. In the vast majority of cases, profit (or the more technical term of consumer and producer surplus), is created through the mutual satisfaction of wants and needs between producers and consumers. Stego, capitalism provides you with the books, gyms, and professional football teams you enjoy so much. In a classless society, you would be working on a communal farm from sunup to sundown and then you have to share your crops with the party members.

[Stego]

Stego,

There is nothing intrinsic to capitalism that says profit must be maximized. Individual's morals apply to those who are working within a capitalist economy. Captialism is amoral, not immoral.

Actually, Scot, there are laws that state (and a lawyer should know this) that a corporations priority is to profit at the cost of all else.

And you ignored my point about morality being a personal ideal.

[Shryke]

Min,

You are assuming the person selling plywood will jack the price meaning only the wealthy can buy. That's not guranteed.

This goes to my point the Capitalism is amoral, not immoral. The seller may simple sell first come first serve or the seller may consider the same factors you are assuming a government offical will consider. Heck, the "seller" may simply give the plywood away if they feel really bad for the person attempting to buy but comes up short. It all depends upon that individuals moral precepts.

So your suggesting that amoral actions cannot lead to immoral outcomes?

[Stego]

In a classless society, you would be working on a communal farm from sunup to sundown and then you have to share your crops with the party members.

Nice theory, but as a classless society has never existed, I have a hard time believing your view of science fiction.

[Mentat]

Actually "the lottery of being born into a wealthy family" is much WORSE all around because it inhibits social mobility, creates class stagnation and ghettoization and various other problems.

Worse than what? Social mobility is good, but it should either be for all alike or be based on some kind of merit or rationale, not blind luck. Class stagnation is bad, but the poor person who magically gets access to a good education, success and a career can suddendly find that his children can't go to good schools because of the lottery. Your system, while not as stagnant, is very unstable and random. The other problems you describe will continue to exist as long as some people are denied a good education while others have access to it.

Pure randomness is a lazy and ineffective policy. If there are limited resources and you consider it unfair they be distributed based on wealth alone then choose a different criteria, but at least base your distribution on one.

[Stego]

Refuse to limit your resources.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

So your suggesting that amoral actions cannot lead to immoral outcomes?

Absolutely not. Amoral actions can lead to both moral and immoral outcomes.

Stego,

Corporations are a different animal. I was really thinking of individuals. You are correct when you are talking about large corps with numerous stockholders. However, when you are talking about the majority of corporations that's simply not the case. The goals of those corps are the goals the small number of stock holders thus they can be whatever they agree upon. Profit maximization is only a priority if someone wants to make a stink.

Yes, to a large extent morals are personal ideals. Which, in a system like captialism which makes no moral representations, means that personal morals are what are applied to people working in captialist economies.

[SergioCQH]

Nice theory, but as a classless society has never existed, I have a hard time believing your view of science fiction.

So do you deny that the books, the Internet, gyms, restaurants, WoW, the New England Patriots, and pretty much everything that you clearly seem to enjoy and take for granted was created by a capitalistic society?

Oh, and by the way, many classless societies have existed. Granted, they were small and quickly failed, but they nevertheless existed.

[Stego]

So do you deny that the books, the Internet, gyms, restaurants, WoW, the New England Patriots, and pretty much everything that you clearly seem to enjoy and take for granted was created by a capitalistic society?

Oh, and by the way, many classless societies have existed. Granted, they were small and quickly failed, but they nevertheless existed.

Absolutely. Everything that has been created by the society that I live in was created by a capitalist society. Because the society I live in is a capitalist society. What does that prove?

[MinDonner]

In a classless society, you would be working on a communal farm from sunup to sundown and then you have to share your crops with the party members.

Um, a lot of people have to do thankless manual labour from sunup to sundown under capitalism, too, with the added joy of seeing their wealthier cousins laze around next door, feasting on finest plywood or somesuch. Why do we all suddenly have to become farm labourers, again? Is a classless society also devoid of farm machinery? If that's the case then I don't think Hereward will be on board. :unsure:

[SergioCQH]

Absolutely. Everything that has been created by the society that I live in was created by a capitalist society. Because the society I live in is a capitalist society. What does that prove?

Are you acting immorally by continuing to live in this capitalistic society?