General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould capitalism exist for the benefit of the individual or the benefit of the people?
After all, capitalism is an economic system and can exist with or without democracy, as it does in China and other places around the world.
The "right to property" is considered an original idea of our Founders.
In the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
However, this does not permit the use of property as a means to exploit labor for individual benefit or other purposes. In fact, the Constitution does not mention capitalism at all. Some folks consider capitalism to be a freedom, just like speech or religion.
But should capitalists be permitted to use labor for their own benefit, without any restrictions, or should they exist to help the entire society? For example, taken to an extreme, could a capitalist trade water for the labor of a person thirsting to death, if it benefited him personally?
In a way, this is the argument that Mitt Romney makes when he defends JP Morgan Chase Bank and when he defends himself for becoming wealthy by manipulating the finances of small struggling companies to benefit himself as a private equity manager. This is a form of capitalism that people should not accept as legitimate, in my opinion.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
matmar
(593 posts)Jesus was a socialist.
So to use the Right's own claimed ally, Jesus, capitalism should exist ONLY to benefit us all, equally.
former9thward
(31,947 posts)Neither of those economic systems existed 2000 years ago.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)former9thward
(31,947 posts)Unless you have developed your own definition of socialism and applied it in some peculiar way to society 2000 years.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Class society was well developed by then.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
ananda
(28,837 posts)If you're a rich white male or RWM wannabe, then capitalism exists to protect, defend, and promote your special group.
If you're an "other" though, it's rugged individualism all the way honey!
kentuck
(111,054 posts)If you're part of the 1% or part of the 99% ? We should make it clear that these folks are not divided 50/50..
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)It is individuals investing their own money with the purpose of receiving a return on that investment that defines capitalism.
Money that is "invested" to help other people is called charity.
kentuck
(111,054 posts)Or the maximum return on investment?
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)That is why 10 year Treasuries are yielding less than 2% and venture capital is looking for around 20%.
kentuck
(111,054 posts)Or risk to your "property"?
Some people go to work everyday and risk their lives on the job. We should try and keep that word in perspective.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Return on investment can't be fairly evaluated with taking that into consideration.
kentuck
(111,054 posts)You might win but you might lose?
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)You can evaluate whether a particular investment is right for you based on your particular situation. Do you have risk capital or are you in a position where loss of your investment would be devastating? It makes a big difference. One investor might be more knowledgeable about a particular investment and in a better position to manage a certain risk than another.
Vegas is a pure game of chance.
kentuck
(111,054 posts)Is that correct?
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)In gambling (a la Vegas), the games are structured so that the house has a slight advantage. Leaving card counters aside, I would expect that over a reasonably long period of time, I would lose money gambling in a casino. I would conclude that the risk in gambling is very high, since the probablity is that you will lose. Yes, some people do win, but more people lose which is how the casino stays in business.
People do not make investments expecting to lose money. Intelligent investors do research to identify and quantify risk. If possible, they try to mitigate risk. You can't that with gambling.
kentuck
(111,054 posts)..than the gambler inside his casino? One of them would be considered a capitalist.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)kentuck
(111,054 posts)Doesn't he take about the same risk as a private equity manager like Mitt Romney?
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)If he doesn't, then he's not an investor, so a comparison would be meaningless. If he does, you would need to some work defining the risk profile for the casino owner's investment and for the equity manager's investment and compare them in order to draw any conclusions.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Personally, I would want my fund manager to be sitting in the same investments I am. If he isn't, then I'd ask why not.
kentuck
(111,054 posts)..from others. They put very little of their own money into the venture. In fact, the casino owner may have a larger percentage invested in his casino than would a private equity manager?
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Many private equity funds are managing billions in assets, There aren't many people in a position to personally invest enough money to be considered a significant investor in a large fund. I can see a lot of these guys having millions of their own money invested in the same fund.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)...there is no single bet where the odds are ever in your favor. The very best single bet in a Vegas type casino is the don't pass line for craps. The house advantage is 1.402%.
Buy an index fund. 
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)..
malthaussen
(17,175 posts)Captialism doesn't exist "for the benefit" of anyone or anything. It simply exists, in the same way air exists.
If your question is whether or not capitalism should be regulated by the political process, and if so to what degree, then you should say so. "Should capitalism exist" is a question on the order of "Do you believe in polygamy?"
Since you ask for an opinion, I'll give one: capitalism should be regulated by the political process. To what degree? To the degree that no one individual has a yearly income greater than what the average individual earns in, say, ten lifetimes.
-- Mal
kentuck
(111,054 posts)I do not think it exists in the same way that air exists. Capitalism is created by man for mostly greedy purposes that must be regulated by others in society, and allowing for a fair amount of wealth to the individual as per the rules of a progressive tax system.
I agree that capitalism is the invention of man and is largely fashioned by the politics of the society just like any other economic systems areas. And I also do believe that society should be organized for the maximum benefit of the all people in that society regardless of class or any other stratification of the people.
Democrats_win
(6,539 posts)Capitalism is what it is. To me the problem is that government continues to be more about capitalism and less about the people. In some cases the government should try to help capitalism, but in many cases it shouldn't.
RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)Well-regulated capitalism can benefit both society and the individual.
The problem is that it's not well-regulated.
TBF
(32,017 posts)past it to socialism of one sort or another.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)You can't just section out bits of it and say, I want to keep this part, I don't like this part. They are all interconnected. It is based on exploitation and exists to extract profit. With mighty effort, we can sometimes get it to drop crumbs to society. What we need to be asking is, is it still worth keeping, given that the rate of crumbs dropped is getting tinier and tinier? My answer is no.
The "right to property" was probably intended to simply be individual property, that a king couldn't take from you. The founding fathers wrote that before corporations really existed. Capitalism's end-point, the corporate monopoly, has made a lot of hay out of that one little line, even having themselves declared individual legal persons, to keep their asses covered.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)e.g.:
The Virginia Company refers collectively to a pair of English joint stock companies chartered by James I on 10 April 1606 with the purposes of establishing settlements on the coast of North America. The two companies, called the "Virginia Company of London" (or the London Company) and the "Virginia Company of Plymouth" (or Plymouth Company) operated with identical charters but with differing territories...
On 14 May 1607, the London Company established the Jamestown Settlement...
With the religious pilgrims who arrived aboard the Mayflower, a successor company to the Plymouth Company eventually established a permanent settlement in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620 in what is now New England...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Company
Following the precedent set by other companies such as the Moscovy Company and East India Company, the Virginia Company was a joint-stock company, which sold shares. All who purchased shares at a cost of £12 10s shared in the success or failure of the venture. The Virginia Company was formed both to bring profit to its shareholders and to establish an English colony in the New World. The Company, under the direction of its treasurer Sir Thomas Smith, was instructed to colonize land between the 34th and 41st northern parallel.
http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/the-virginia-company-of-london.htm
This angle is typically given short shrift in american history classes.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)The East India company was also selling shares and had been granted a monopoly, for exploration in the other direction. I should have qualified by saying modern corporations. I'd be curious if the writers of the founding documents had such joint-stock companies in mind when they were writing about private property.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)wasn't open to a lot of the types who made the Revolution.
But I actually think the old chartered companies weren't so different from modern corps except in two respects: most obviously, the old ones were grants from royalty, and royalty shared in the take. Second, the stockholders were mostly from a small privileged segment of the population, including aristocrats and their buddies.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Now I'm curious about that historical question. It would explain a lot about subsequent political conflicts and shifts in the ensuing years after the Revolution.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)only 16 years after the Revolution, I think that's probably right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttonwood_Agreement
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)the excesses of the East India company and other corporations was one of the causes of the American Revolution. For instance, the Tea Act was passed at the behest of the East India company.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)In my experience it's not that easy to find popular works on the subject.
tralala
(239 posts)and capitalist society, not "The People". To substitute the quasi-nationalist, anonymous People for the international, unique Bourgeois, and yet to refuse to advance beyond bourgeois relations of production, strikes me as somewhat right-populist, or, in other words, fascist.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Whatever they wish from scratch in the rubble of their system.
I hope they do implement something close to what many socialists like so we can see this grand experiment unfold.
kentuck
(111,054 posts)They are weighted down with debt from their present system. They are collapsing for a reason.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Quite a bit of it had to do with the corruption of their leaders. The Greeks were hiding their debt for years, and their crisis started when this malfeasance was revealed. It also had to do with the way Greece was overvalued after their conversion to the Euro. It also had to do with the structure of central banking for Euro states and the ineffectiveness of being able to deal with the problem. So the issue with Greece is multifaceted. No one single thing created their crisis.
kentuck
(111,054 posts)I did not mean to say that one thing caused the crisis in Greece.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Perhaps it's just because I live in the epicenter of wingnut heaven, but the version I hear most often is that the Greek welfare state is what caused their demise, and I just take exception to that flawed analysis. I incorrectly inferred that was your meaning.
kentuck
(111,054 posts)
TBF
(32,017 posts)You used to be more subtle.
chickypea
(30 posts)Controlled capitalism can exist. I have no problem with someone making money, as long as they are not doing so on other people's backs.
In Europe, there is a different model of capitalism which insures that people are well paid for their labors, and CEOs do not earn 500% more than the average worker.
I lived in Switzerland, yes, the home of the rich, and there is no real poverty there. Most people would be considered "upper middle class" by American standards- there is no want.
Our brand of capitalism works on exploitation and greed. That is NOT good for society, and needs to be changed/destroyed!
tralala
(239 posts)
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)a closed system.
Capitalism *requires* poverty, just as it *requires* unending growth.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)For the vast majority of human history, humans lived in classless societies. I've also heard of studies by scientists in various fields that argue that altruism was essential for humanity to evolve and survive.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)But the most meticulous and greatest degree of care should be given to make sure no other individuals or ecosystems are harmed by the actions of that individual. Free and fair capitalism with zero speculative growth or derivative banking needed. If you can grow it, fix it, heal it, build it, sew it, drill it, raise it or cook it do it with minimal risk to your fellow man and with the ever present thought of how your actions might affect seven generations from now.
We know climate change isn't a game and yet we are all still holding the cards and waiting for the next hit. If we don't get a new deck soon it'll be too late to worry about any of this garbage a few generations out, let alone seven.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)A state controlled economy would be worse. It's the ultimate monopoly with the armed power of the state behiind it. Creating a state run monopoly doesn't protect people from scumbags, it just gives the scumbags more concentrated power. I'd rather tolerate Wal-Mart just to be free enough to go shop at another store.
kentuck
(111,054 posts)you might have a valid point.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)honest quesiton
kentuck
(111,054 posts)Some where socialism and capitalism share near 50% each of the economy's control.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)That's not snark or criticism. If nothing else its an academic curiosity. It's always good to share ideas and its good to be open to ideas.
kentuck
(111,054 posts)tralala
(239 posts)Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #29)
tralala This message was self-deleted by its author.
tralala
(239 posts)
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And it's a false dichotomy. It's possible to have a capitalist system that allows the individual to prosper that still benefits society through the funding of a strong social safety net via progressive taxation and estate tax while providing for protection for workers through health and safety regulations and the right to organise and bargain collectively and while having strong anti-monopoly laws in place to place a check on anticompetitive behaviour.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)part & parcel of capitalism.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)some people will fail, yes, and some will be incapable of succeeding for any number of reasons (mental or physical disability for instance). You can't construct a society where everyone is guaranteed to succeed without it being like Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron".
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)not without changing human nature, you can't, humans are social primates with a heirarchical social structure; unless you rewire human social behaviour you'll never have any society that isn't hierarchical and doesn't have "winners" and "losers".
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)hierarchically and participate in lots of things where one person's superior talent or achievement doesn't make the other a "loser". otoh, in those realms the superior achievement doesn't give the achievers access to superior resources.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)What is that? Why do you assume it even exists. Class society has only existed for about 10,000 years or so. Humans, as in homo sapiens, are much older than that and have lived in classless societies for a much longer period of time. Human nature isn't fixed it, like most other things, is influenced very heavily be environment.
Response to kentuck (Original post)
tralala This message was self-deleted by its author.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)To the extent that we have a market economy, we should allow it only to the extent that it benefits people.
Under Capitalism people are allowed to accumulate vast pools of capital. They use those pools to buy other people's labor for less than it's worth. This increases the size of their pool of money by stealing from and impoverishing the workers. They live off their vast pools of money while workers are paid the minimum required to keep them working.
And if the people with the big pools of money end up controlling the government, it makes it so it's not even really a democracy. It makes it so the working people can't even get justice through voting.
The whole thing is clearly unfair. There isn't any reason why we have to live like that.
We would be better off with a socialist framework, with the capitalist portion of the economy minimized. Maybe let's allow capitalism to exist in a sandbox where people could play kiddie capitalist, and make a little extra money, but they really couldn't hurt anybody. If capitalism has any positive aspects like encouraging innovation or providing a non-violent outlet for psychopaths to express themselves, let's make sure it happens in a tight sandbox where it can't hurt anybody. Let people make a little extra money, no problem. But the idea of people accumulating so much money that they will never have to work again, and neither will their children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren etc., that has to go. It's fundamentally anti-democratic. And despite rumors to the contrary, it's highly incompatible with human nature.
GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)Where do they come from? Socialists.
Where do they go? Individualists.
Vidar
(18,335 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)It confers no rights. What it DOES, is LIMIT the authority of the government with respect to how government treats citizens.
"...this does not permit the use of property as a means to..." is an absolutely moot point in light of this:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
None of the ten amendments confer rights. They are all statements of limitation as to what the government can and cannot do.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)The intent of the design I interpret to state that rights are not granted but exist innately.
This is important otherwise our rights would be limited to those enumerated instead of establishing a limited government that derives permission to act from the people instead of the other way around (which we are heading toward at a rate approaching the speed of light.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Capitalism is an 18th century idea that was evolved by 19th century minds chock-full of the bizarre ignorance and prejudices of the Victorian Era.
We live in an entirely different world today, we need to create a new system. One designed to serve defined purposes and purposely developed to be self-regulating. Until enough of us shed our aversion to change and look forward, this is all we're going to get.
K&R
rucky
(35,211 posts)not immoral, not moral. morals have nothing to do with it.
Which is why we need a democracy to regulate business and protect the interest of the people.
