This is part of the reason I have a problem with capitalism

[Audie]

I am afraid I don't consider majorly biased opinions as relevant.

Huh? Speaking of irrelevant..,?

 

[Audie]

Let me put what I have said in perspective: It is only natural that if you have a whole lot to lose by a shift to some other economical order that you won't want any significant changes, but it just makes your opinion that much irrelevant. This is the case irrespective of the status quo being capitalism or socialism. If you have a lot to lose then you will tend be very much biased. If you can break that mold I am interested to hear you.

Irr- this and irr- that, and all of it biased.

 

[Audie]

Sooo...are you saying that I can only sell my services and/or goods at an arbitrary price determined by someone like you?

Hey fair is fair right?

 

[Stevicus]

Capitalism = Competition

There are two essential problems with competition. The first is that there must be winners and losers. That's not a problem if we are talking about team sports in which the only thing lost is a game; but it's a major problem when people must compete for survival and the losers might be people willing to work hard if they could only find a job.

As the OP suggests, the other problem is that cheating on the rules is part of a winning strategy in all competition if you can get away with it. Can anyone name a professional sport that hasn't had a cheating scandal? Top flight coaches in the USA scout the officials and teach their players how to cheat on the rules of their game and get away with it.

However, fully cooperative (Socialist) systems require governments that are competent decision-makers and free of corruption; and we haven't yet invented a government like that. So, for now, the free market is useful to produce products that can be shopped and compared by well-informed consumers spending their own money. Where those criteria aren't met, even poorly managed socialism is better than rampant fraud. Thus, since the free market limits the power of lousy governments, the mixed economies are the best we can do right now.

I think your analogy to professional sports is apt, although as you say, it's not the same as sporting events, since the rules are generally enforced (although not without scandal) and the competition is as fair as possible (which is also why there are different levels and leagues). For example, in football, each side has 11 players on the field. If someone could simply pay extra and say "I'm going to put 30 players on the field," that would be how capitalism plays out in today's society.

Theoretically, it's the government's job to be the umpire or referee to make sure that competition is fair, which is where the legal system (judges and lawyers) gets involved. That's another kind of competition which is also part of the mix, and unless all lawyers as good as the next and all interchangeable, then that poses an even bigger problem. If the competition among lawyers isn't fair, then the competition itself is tainted.

The thing about open competition is that it can only escalate from there. Competition can turn into mobsterism - or in the more extreme cases, outright revolution.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am afraid I don't consider majorly biased opinions as relevant.

Well....that makes us all irrelevant.

 

[Stevicus]

I think we deny our humanity if we deny that competition is essential. That said, we know enough these days to protect those who don't compete well and to rein in those who compete too well. E.g., social security at one end of the spectrum and progressive, loop-hole-free taxation at the other end.

Well, we should know enough these days, but sometimes I wonder.

If we want to keep it a "friendly" competition, that would be fine. But if it's the kind of dog-eat-dog, screw-you-pay-me kind of competition, then no one has any room to talk if it escalates beyond a certain level.

I've heard plenty of capitalists lately speak scornfully about socialism, and over the course of my life, I've heard them express fears and concerns about radicals and revolutionaries who could take the competition to the next level.

That, I suppose, is another thing about capitalism that's a bit mystifying. That is, capitalists claim to favor a system of competition, but once the "competition" goes beyond a certain level and is no longer stacked in their favor, suddenly they start to cry foul and plead for government intervention.

 

[Stevicus]

Well strike up the brass band! There is no corruption, dishonesty, or "bad behavior" in any other economic model.

I never said that. However, there are other systems which have had stricter enforcement and stronger penalties for corruption or other malfeasance.

 

[Koldo]

Well....that makes us all irrelevant.

Yes, but it depends on the topic because we have varying degrees of bias.
On this particular subject I find the opinions of those that would have a lot to lose by any given shift in the status quo, but that still want to go through with it, to be the most valuable. It is really easy, trivial, to support a change that will benefit our pockets and to be opposed to a change that will make us lose money.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm a huge proponent of capitalism. Still am.

However you will find that I agree wholeheartedly that people can certainly be taken for a ride in a capitalist system.

It's still better than any alternate system I can think of.

I don't think it has to be an either/or question. I'm not even saying that we need to have socialism. However, I think it's a good idea for capitalists and its proponents to at least mindful of the flaws in the system they favor. That's something that I'm not seeing enough of.

 

[BSM1]

I never said that. However, there are other systems which have had stricter enforcement and stronger penalties for corruption or other malfeasance.

Yeah, but in China the family has to pay for the bullet....is that fair?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, but it depends on the topic because we have varying degrees of bias.
On this particular subject I find the opinions of those that would have a lot to lose by any given shift in the status quo, but that still want to go through with it, to be the most valuable. It is really easy, trivial, to support a change that will benefit our pockets and to be opposed to a change that will make us lose money.

This is to grant cromulence based upon who someone is,
ie, their station in life, rather than their reasoning.

 

[Audie]

Yeah, but in China the family has to pay for the bullet....is that fair?

Sheesh. EVERYbody gotta pick on China.

 

[Stevicus]

There is true capitalism, then there is crony capitalism, not the same at all.

Before I get to the difference, I want to address your example. You are not detailing flaws in an economic system, you are detailing the crime of fraud and or embezzlement. The crime is no different than if it occurs in a bank or gas station. A person in a position of trust steals. It happens thousands of times a day, in hospitals, restaurants, amusement parks, etc, etc etc. The flaw is a human one, not a flaw of a system, though I will concede that crooks in high places with a lot of money in play have the chance to steal a whole heck of a lot.

A true capitalist economy gives the consumer the ability to control those producer and sellers within that economy.

A true capitalist economy requires transparency of a producer and seller.

A true capital economy requires strict enforcement of the law regarding producers and sellers at any level, including CEO´s and owners,

Finally, and most important, a true capitalist economy requires strong market competition, no monopolies.

If a company pollutes and the citizenry objects, the market will express the need for change, that, or the business suffers.

Your executive that in your eyes makes too much money, if others agree, you can go to another company to express your displeasure.

In a true capitalist economy, market forces are extremely powerful forces, for the good of the company or to itś detriment.

However, crony capitalism allows secrecy, manipulation, monopolies , and collusion between the government and companies, and flat out bribery in the form of direct cash, or political contributions.

If there were actually politicians who were concerned about this problem, busting up the many monopolies would be a great start.

Don hold your breath.

I can see your point about "true" capitalism, but that's the kicker. Socialists can say the same about "true" socialism and point out that Stalin's USSR and Mao's China (or Cuba, NK, Venezuela, etc.) are not "true" socialism. And I can see their point, especially about ostensibly collectivist systems invariably turning into cults of personality in various forms.

The example I brought up was just one that was handy, since I saw it in this morning's news feed, but such stories are common. One problem which you're pointing to here seems to be lax enforcement and a system which is just too dang soft when it comes to white-collar criminals and the general level of sleaze which exists out there.

 

[Stevicus]

Usually the ones against capitalism are the ones who
are not very good at it.

I think it goes up and down the spectrum.

As for your crook we could bring up pedophile
priests, who prove religion is bad, corrupt commies
who prove that communism causes badness.

But that would be "whataboutism," wouldn't it?

I too take issue with the "general pattern of dishonesty
of capitalists" but as an undemonstrated calumny.

"Undemonstrated"? The article in the OP was only a single example, although I could come up with many more. In fact, every time I come across a story about capitalists behaving badly, I'll post it in this thread.

 

[Stevicus]

That is a worker cheating a company. That isn't capitalism

It's a downside of capitalism, but it would not have been possible without capitalism.

 

[shmogie]

Let me put what I have said in perspective: It is only natural that if you have a whole lot to lose by a shift to some other economical order that you won't want any significant changes, but it just makes your opinion that much irrelevant. This is the case irrespective of the status quo being capitalism or socialism. If you have a lot to lose then you will tend be very much biased. If you can break that mold I am interested to hear you.

I note you didn´t answer the questions, they weren´t rhetorical.

 

[Stevicus]

"Enlightened self-interest" my friend. And
of course I am one who benefits.

Those who do not benefit much, are not
good at it might consider looking at themselves,
rather than default to "blame those crooked
heartless capitalists".

We kinda went that route in China, class enemies
and all that rot.

Well, I may be wrong, but it looks like China is better off now than they were during the time of the Boxer Rebellion up until the rule of Chiang Kai-Shek. The first half of the 20th century was an absolute disaster for China, but the second half of the 20th century showed marked improvement.

 

[Stevicus]

Sooo...are you saying that I can only sell my services and/or goods at an arbitrary price determined by someone like you?

FDR established the Office of Price Administration to settle such matters.

Office of Price Administration - Wikipedia

So, we've had it before, under the existing Constitution and our capitalist system. It's not unprecedented in the US system.

 

[Stevicus]

Yeah, but in China the family has to pay for the bullet....is that fair?

That doesn't seem to be in keeping with the ideals and tenets of true socialism.

 

[Koldo]

This is to grant cromulence based upon who someone is,
ie, their station in life, rather than their reasoning.

One can always find a reason to justify the conclusion they held before thinking things through.