Agree MM however without some capitalist values we would have no money to pay for them....all about balance
Why are the left such poe-faced humourless b*ggers?
- Thread starter Mescalito
- Start date
Agree MM however without some capitalist values we would have no money to pay for them....all about balance
Such as? And only values that can be exclusively ascribed to capitalism please.
deanf
pfm Member
Something like the unequal distribution and transfer of wealth to a small number of individuals to serve the interests of the minority, or maybe survival of the fittest. Gotta be honest, I do get a bit poe-faced at that.
TPA
Trade: Tiger Paw
Competition.
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
I don't think anyone thinks you are a pinko-leftie Tony. More a sort of centre right with progressive social views. About what you would expect if you mix small business owner and musician in fact.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
I'm not sure 'values' can be attributed to capitalism, which is not an ideology but an economic system. However, it's arguable that without capitalism the industrial revolution would have stalled (or never started) and Britain would have remained a primarily agricultural economy and thus a much poorer country.
deanf
pfm Member
You mean like when you don't shake properly?
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
The NHS, possibly. I doubt that many of those fighting for extension of the franchise would have regarded themselves as socialists, and most of the basic human rights in this country stem from the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when one bunch of toffs defeated another bunch of toffs.
TPA
Trade: Tiger Paw
I fail to see how you can organise an effective society that does not reward talent and endeavour. The fact that the vast majority of personal wealth is normally created within an individual's lifetime seems reasonable to me. On balance I'd be tempted to ensure that death duties were considerably higher so that wealth could not be passed on.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
Socialism seems to be one of those Humpty Dumpty words that mean whatever the person using the word chooses it to mean. Thus we are told that politicians A, B and C are 'not true Socialists', and that countries D, E and F 'aren't actually Socialist'.
So it becomes one of those 'no true Scotsman' things where the exemplars of 'true Socialism' dwindle down to a tiny handful of people and one small state in Southern India.
gassor
There may be more posts after this.
Fair play to you for coming up with something. There are of course various forms of competition, monopolistic, oligopolistic etc. My understanding is that according to the likes of Adam Smith (hardly a socialist) some of these forms are anathema and actually thwart other forms of competition. The rewards for talent and endeavour, which you fairly note later, go not to the talented and endeavourous under the forms of competition I note above. Rather, the rewards go to those who can corner/fix the market. Check out the problems that the talented and endeavourous have in filing (and more importantly, protecting) patents and copyrights in the USA for example. We are stacking up a few examples of oligopoly over here too. If I wanted a one word answer, I would have asked a one word question.
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
Although it's fairly clear he would have renounced a great deal of what is done in his name these days and been deeply critical of Mick and, especially, Mescalito.
Yes, I'd go along with that.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
Indeed. He wrote, for instance:
'No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.'
and
'To feel much for others and little for ourselves; to restrain our selfishness and exercise our benevolent affections, constitute the perfection of human nature.'
TPA
Trade: Tiger Paw
Molee, I'm not actually sure where I stand these days regarding socialism/capitalism and political grouping. There are huge tracts of capitalism that I find unacceptable, similarly I think that many aspects of socialism are unnatural (as in counter instinctive) and end up throwing out the baby with the baby bath water when adopted. I get frustrated that govt and regulatory bodies seem to always lag too far behind the curve when it comes to curbing the excess of capitalism and there's no excuse for that. I currently have several designs (not hifi!) that I am struggling to protect properly. It hopefully won't affect me personally, given my age, but it possibly will affect younger employees who might not be able to count on the long term income from those inventions. That upsets me, but by the same token I wouldn't have invested in creating them if there wasn't a carrot available at the other end. Having said that, they don't save lives or anything important so perhaps it's just an irrelevance in the grand scheme of things.
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
It's because, TPA, you are trying to frame the debate as if it's still 1974. And the fact that so many on PFM do this is why economic debate seems not much different than a particularly stupid and aggressive version of Margaret Thatcher arguing with a Michael Foot caricature.
BTW note that a statement like "I get frustrated that govt and regulatory bodies seem to always lag too far behind the curve when it comes to curbing the excess of capitalism" puts you firmly on the left.
BTW note that a statement like "I get frustrated that govt and regulatory bodies seem to always lag too far behind the curve when it comes to curbing the excess of capitalism" puts you firmly on the left.
