Well, suddenly I am intrigued by the conversation topic.
Humus said:
As long as you do a good job, you will be awarded.
I believe that this is probably one of the most outstanding characteristics of capitalism. Individual effort when success is met is commonly rewarded. It does not mean however hard work will make you wealthy though but that is also rewarded. It is a powerfully individualistic belief as well. I would at this point suggest that belief in that characteristic of capitalism creates an ethic which might be considered conservative in North America.
On the gap between Europe and North American political stances I have tried to put my finger on it time and time again. I think the best I can do to articulate the matter is to point out that (much like Fred suggested.) things change. I consider much of what a modern conservative in North America to be a kin to what a classical liberal used to be. In Europe though it seems the original context of what a liberal used to be has been retained to a greater degree. Conservatives in North America have adapted the ideals of free market economics even though that is not what we really see coming from the state. Rather the movement is not so extreme in practice as it is in theory and still retains a large degree of social responsibility.(collectivism.) I might be wrong in so many ways and I would except that, but I am not sure if I am totally wrong on this, only that I think that I might have touched on at least on some significant point.
Oi said:
edit: But untill that happens, having strong belief in the market really doesn't instantly turn you into a person who wants to keep old traditions and let society evolve naturally without taking any unecessary chances (although obviously capitalism can be considered a natural development, but going by the book being conservative doesn't require you to believe in the market, which being liberal does, to varying degrees.)
I do think that living in a system that rewards individual efforts creates a set of morals. While capitalism does not come with a set of rule in a pure setting other then supply and demand. Demand is the driving force behind the market. Needs: Food, clothing, housing etc… Wants: Whatever people want… The problem is that people want allot of things that are amoral. Capitalisms supply side very much wants to meet that demand and so often in a moral society black markets are formed, naturally. In other words simply because people want it does not mean it is good or right from a social perspective. Quantifying the effects of meeting the demand of these things can be difficult as well and so people believe what they do based on tradition even trial and error.
Oh what a complex can of worms we are opening here. I do believe you are correct in your statement that to be conservative does not mean that you believe in free market economics. This is where my silly collectivist vs individualist model gets a little goofy. You see that conservatives are often very collectivist particularly when you consider that a great many are religious. (In NA Christian.) But there are some stark differences between collectivists philosophically speaking of course. Some believe in self governance which in turn means they believe in moral agency and individual responsibility this is an individualistic ethic. To act in an amoral manner = sin on an individual bases. Others prefer the deference of individual responsibility so much so that the state becomes responsible for the individual regardless of the individuals actions. Thus the ethic of individuals working and being rewarded in an exceptional manner is degraded. Most everyone is a collectivist of sorts whether they realize it or not same can be said for individualist. There is a lot of confusion in general and people are mostly caught in the grey somewhere trying to sort things out the best they can using the morals from tradition and what is engraved on their soles. I could go on and on here, I would rather not. I am hopeful that I helped in some way though.
Humus said:
Well, capitalism will not solve inequality in a socialistic point of view; it won't give all people equal outcome. It will however remove or at least significantly reduce unfair inequalities due to factors such as sex, race, religion etc. The reason is simple: capitalism is color-blind.
Your right, equal outcome is an egalitarian ethic and it runs contrary to the individual ethic of hard work being rewarded.
Humus said:
When it comes to inequality between classes, data shows that while capitalism initially increases the gap it will shrink as the economy matures and everybody is given an opportunity to grow. The difference between rich and poor is larger in the third world.
I think that you are touching on something that I have been thinking about lately. Over time, if the market is allowed to manage it on a global scale there will be a vastly enlarged middle class. I believe that you will see much of third world poverty reduced greatly. Simply apply the bell curve on a global scale to see what I am talking about. The problem is though this globalization movement greatly devalues the work we do in our countries sense on a global scale we are vastly overpaid for the work we do. For this reason I think globalization should occur but carefully as to not create a drop in standards of living so that we are also forced to compete for work that pays as low as 2 dollars a day not that this would happen of course but I use the extreme example to convey the point.
This brings me to another point about globalization, I think it is in practice very anti inflationary. Which is a great characteristic from a capitalistic perspective. The problem we face though is that we keep inflationary pressures fueled, I think, by increasing minimum wage prerequisites for employers for the sake of social justice. I am of the mind that these increases do little to nothing over time because the cost is in turn past off on the consumer who more often then not someone whom enjoys a higher pay as a result of an increased minimum wage. Minimum wage increases effect other income levels as well. Labor work, for example always pays more then minimum wage by reasoning that it is difficult and strenuous. So if minimum wage is artificially increased to 6 dollars an hour (for example) and labor is paid roughly 7-8 dollars an hour it will be difficult to get people to do hard work for such a lesser degree of income they might as well take a more sedentary job for only slightly less goes the logic. What happens though is that employers are forced to pay more .. for the same work that was done for less before the increase. I only used that as an example but basically the entire market is effected so that everyone gets an increase in pay because the cost of living is more expensive as a result of the increase in min wage.
Heh, where was I. Sorry for the above tangent. But min wage increase also effects us negatively on a global level as well. It increases the disparity between incomes in third and first world economies making globalized efforts, I believe, more painful or taking longer so that a greater equal ground is met. Not in outcomes but rather from a competitive perspective.
Entrophy said:
Capitalism has no morals whatsoever - it's an economic system, period.
It is up to the people within the econmic system to determine the morality of its functioning, or its lack thereof.
I think that in part your assumption of no ethic at all is an oversight to a degree. But generally speaking supply and demand do not have much in the way of morals. It would be hard for capitalism to thrive though if individual effort was not rewarded.
Entrophy said:
The full effects on human morals and psyche from living in a global capaitalistic system will take generations to be fully appreciated.
Absolutely.
Oi said:
But as you said, the problem is that people do care about sex, religion and race. And call me a pessimist, but as the world stands now I don't think that capitalism as a process is enough to remove the prejudice by itself.
Nor would it ever. One has to wonder what the merits are though by replacing one set of ethics with another. Even if you did people would
still care about sex, religion and race.(You forgot, fat, ugly, stupid, smart, attractive... etc.) People differentiate and discern on a private level, always have and always will, it is in our nature to do that. You can use laws to force them too conform but this comes off as a little too authoritarian and I think it is a back door for a rigidly enginered model in favor of social control if you are not careful.
Oi said:
Or that one fifth of the worlds population lives in extreme poverty, and that 70% of those are women. Add to that that the income of the worlds 200 richest people reached 1 trillion USD in 1999, and that the combined income of 582 million people living in the 43 least developed countries was 146 billion USD. And matters such as that since 1980 more than 1.3 trillion USD has been transfered from less developed countries to more developed countries in debt interest payment - without actually decreasing the size of the debt.
Yeah even the most ardent defender of capitalism would find it hard to say that it does not create a concentration of wealth. But in a globalized economy I think that wealth creation will be better spread out. Allowing third world economies to grow and increase their ability to pay down debt more easily with a larger tax base. As it is though interest payments do seem .. unfair and a serious impairment on third world nations to dig themselves out of the hole without strong private economies. The problem is very fundamental though. If I lend you money I want assurances that you will pay it back in the future. Otherwise there is no repercussion of lending the money, in which case I might as well hand you a blank check. I think that might be a mistake. The real ethic is that interest payments suck and as a result so does debt. It keeps fiscal responsibility a priority.
Oi said:
So as I said, I'm sceptical towards that capitalism by itself can solve the inequality, I rather think that some other yet unidentified force is needed to remove or at least decrease inequality before capitalism can do it's job as was intended in theory.
There is good reason to believe that it won't. However I think that the best we can do in terms of creating equality is articulated in the bell curve. A total level field is quiet nearly impossible and is diametrically opposed to the nature of capitalism in general. I think however what globalization will do is extend the life of capitalism quite substantially. Much in the way redistributionist economics saved capitalism from failing and society from slipping into an even more collectivist model. Globalization will inject life back into the market for a long time coming. The question is for people living in first world economies would be is this something we are prepared to deal with? Globalization is the proverbial taking of the silver spoon out of our mouths. But it will increase the standard of living for people living in third world economies over the very long term. Private (not public) enterprise in third world countries will begin to thrive. It is important that they do not start off with a centrally planed economy sense that is too advanced IMO. You have to have a foundation to work from in the first place. I suppose that is a matter of contention..
