|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post!
|
On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post!
It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) .
the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally
The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed.
EDIT: Just to tie it to my previous post, I was suggesting a handful of greedy people convinced society at large that wanting shelter and good schools was the same kind of 'greed' as wanting to go from $50 billion to $51 billion.
|
On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post! It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) . Show nested quote +the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed.
But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest.
The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.”
|
On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post!
Hi  Good post.
You can make a decent argument that the real thing that's being said is that people wouldn't work hard without exploitation. If your survival didn't depend on you getting your wage, if scarcity didn't threaten you, why would you work hard to make money for your boss? But of course that's not really a message that you can rally people around, so instead you talk about society as if everyone was in the capitalist class, fighting to increase their profit and satisfy their greed, instead of talking about reality where the large majority are in the working class and just working to earn the right (/privilege?) to live in their own society.
|
On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post! It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) . the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.”
I think we're agreeing that labeling people's desire to have their basic material needs met as "greed" was a tool of inordinately greedy people to justify/legitimate/systematize their own destructive greed.
Also that fearmongering about more equitable social systems is a reactionary defense mechanism.
WB btw
|
Yeah, and I certainly recognize you two are not gonna be the ones to dissuade me that capitalism’s self-conception myth is bullshit. But I guess what bothers me more is that I don’t think any of that is why people who support capitalism actually support it. It’s pure rhetoric, which makes sense as a cheap way to dismiss the arguments of rabble-rousing socialists. But why, when there’s not a rabble-rousing socialist in the room, do they still repeat it so much?
|
I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though.
On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post! It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) . the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.”
I agree with the first paragraph. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump.
|
On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though. Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post! It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) . the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump.
I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019.
I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something.
I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law.
Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking?
|
On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though. On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post! It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) . the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump. I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019. I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something. I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law. Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking?
Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often 
|
On January 20 2020 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post! It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) . the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I think we're agreeing that labeling people's desire to have their basic material needs met as "greed" was a tool of inordinately greedy people to justify/legitimate/systematize their own destructive greed. Also that fearmongering about more equitable social systems is a reactionary defense mechanism. WB btw
Totally agreed. Don't have a solution haha but this is the truth.
|
On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though. On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post! It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) . the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump. I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019. I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something. I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law. Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking? Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often
It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force.
Edit: I think that's what you were saying.
|
Northern Ireland23799 Posts
On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though. On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post! It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) . the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump. I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019. I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something. I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law. Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking?
Nice to see some new blood! I know you’re a returning veteran but as I wasn’t active back in the day much you seem like a fresh face.
It does depend where one draws lines, for me the accepted practice of say your Purdue Pharma example is far more societally damaging than some guy doing some insider trading or whatever.
Depends on how one draws other lines too. If you subscribe to the one man is an autonomous island who can make informed decisions according to their needs, a lot of practices are fine.
If you feel people are more malleable and subject to environmental influences, then that makes more practices ethically dubious.
|
On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though. On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post! It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) . the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump. I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019. I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something. I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law. Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking? Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force. Edit: I think that's what you were saying.
I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong.
edit: but to be clear, human fallibility is a core part of American Conservatism which if course includes a capitalist outlook. Human behavior still matters. But I wouldn't argue that greed is good. I'm probably not explaining this very well.
|
On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though. On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post! It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) . the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump. I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019. I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something. I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law. Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking? Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force. Edit: I think that's what you were saying. I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong.
This isn't what's happening. People arguing against socialism is because capitalism is the developed status quo that has been compromised for the better over time. Socialism is the untested theoretical ideal that has never worked anywhere near as well as capitalism because people have been working with capitalism for almost all of human history and have never had a chance to compete against capitalist countries.
Capitalism just has such an institutional advantage that we all know the weaknesses and strengths of it to the point where its all accepted common knowledge. Meanwhile, Socialism is an (in practice) an abstract concept without basic things like "how does amazon work" going past "idk let the warehouse workers figure out whos best to run a trillion-dollar company". Those guys are being worked to death until their boses figure out how to replace them with robots, they aren't gona vote for a guy who will replace them with robots.
To turn a phrase from my tsundere kwark, Arguing about socialism is a content-generating concept.
|
On January 20 2020 07:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though. On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post! It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) . the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump. I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019. I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something. I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law. Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking? Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force. Edit: I think that's what you were saying. I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong. This isn't what's happening. People arguing against socialism is because capitalism is the developed status quo that has been compromised for the better over time. Socialism is the untested theoretical ideal that has never worked anywhere near as well as capitalism because people have been working with capitalism for almost all of human history and have never had a chance to compete against capitalist countries. Capitalism just has such an institutional advantage that we all know the weaknesses and strengths of it to the point where its all accepted common knowledge. Meanwhile, Socialism is an (in practice) an abstract concept without basic things like "how does amazon work" going past "idk let the warehouse workers figure out whos best to run a trillion-dollar company". Those guys are being worked to death until their boses figure out how to replace them with robots, they aren't gona vote for a guy who will replace them with robots. To turn a phrase from my tsundere kwark, Arguing about socialism is a content-generating concept.
When/if some sort of crisis happens I'm not sure that relying the current systems entrenched nature and/or the insufficiency of the main alternative is going to cut it. Great damage can still be done. I agree that it's easy to criticize capitalism because we are all in some way familiar with it, but then one must ask why there is so much criticism and so little defense. Surely if we are all intimately familiar with the system then it would be just as needless to point out its flaws as defend its advantages.
Argue against socialism! But do not cede or ignore the moral arguments to focus on the practical. At least not as a habit. Maybe in this thread sure, but if you are trying to one-on-one convince someone to change their mind, I think it would be unwise.
|
On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though. On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post! It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) . the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump. I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019. I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something. I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law. Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking? Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force. Edit: I think that's what you were saying. I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong. edit: but to be clear, human fallibility is a core part of American Conservatism which if course includes a capitalist outlook. Human behavior still matters. But I wouldn't argue that greed is good. I'm probably not explaining this very well.
I'm curious how you reconcile billionaires being a good thing or an example of a successful/pinnacle/desirable capitalist without greed being good?
How do you explain the desire of one to go from $49 billion of personal wealth to $50 billion without greed or identifying it as a virtue rather than vice?
Or do you?
|
On January 20 2020 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though. On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post! It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) . the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump. I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019. I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something. I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law. Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking? Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force. Edit: I think that's what you were saying. I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong. edit: but to be clear, human fallibility is a core part of American Conservatism which if course includes a capitalist outlook. Human behavior still matters. But I wouldn't argue that greed is good. I'm probably not explaining this very well. I'm curious how you reconcile billionaires being a good thing or an example of a successful/pinnacle/desirable capitalist without greed being good? How do you explain the desire of one to go from $49 billion of personal wealth to $50 billion without greed or identifying it as a virtue rather than vice? Or do you?
What do you mean by "explain"? It could be greed, might even be in most/all cases. If you don't view earning that much as theft, then it really becomes an issue of little concern in and of itself, if you are not the billionaire in question.
|
On January 20 2020 12:21 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though. On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post! It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) . the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump. I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019. I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something. I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law. Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking? Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force. Edit: I think that's what you were saying. I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong. edit: but to be clear, human fallibility is a core part of American Conservatism which if course includes a capitalist outlook. Human behavior still matters. But I wouldn't argue that greed is good. I'm probably not explaining this very well. I'm curious how you reconcile billionaires being a good thing or an example of a successful/pinnacle/desirable capitalist without greed being good? How do you explain the desire of one to go from $49 billion of personal wealth to $50 billion without greed or identifying it as a virtue rather than vice? Or do you? What do you mean by "explain"? It could be greed, might even be in most/all cases. If you don't view earning that much as theft, then it really becomes an issue of little concern in and of itself, if you are not the billionaire in question.
"explain" there essentially asks the question of why isn't it 'theft' or more broadly 'criminal' (or why are billionaires a good thing if greed isn't good)? It also calls up the question of how what is "earned" is determined. I have my own understanding of why/what that is, but I was particularly curious what yours was without the aid of greed being good.
As ChristianS alluded, I'm not used to hearing this argument from someone of your general political persuasion so I'm quite intrigued.
|
|
|
On January 20 2020 12:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 12:21 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though. On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) .
[quote]
The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump. I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019. I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something. I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law. Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking? Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force. Edit: I think that's what you were saying. I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong. edit: but to be clear, human fallibility is a core part of American Conservatism which if course includes a capitalist outlook. Human behavior still matters. But I wouldn't argue that greed is good. I'm probably not explaining this very well. I'm curious how you reconcile billionaires being a good thing or an example of a successful/pinnacle/desirable capitalist without greed being good? How do you explain the desire of one to go from $49 billion of personal wealth to $50 billion without greed or identifying it as a virtue rather than vice? Or do you? What do you mean by "explain"? It could be greed, might even be in most/all cases. If you don't view earning that much as theft, then it really becomes an issue of little concern in and of itself, if you are not the billionaire in question. "explain" there essentially asks the question of why isn't it 'theft' or more broadly 'criminal' (or why are billionaires a good thing if greed isn't good)? It also calls up the question of how what is "earned" is determined. I have my own understanding of why/what that is, but I was particularly curious what yours was without the aid of greed being good. As ChristianS alluded, I'm not used to hearing this argument from someone of your general political persuasion so I'm quite intrigued.
Well to be fair, I'm not sure there's perfect overlap on "is it bad" and "it should be criminal." I think the easiest, most simplistic answer is that a "good" billionaire doesn't become one through theft but by providing a service or product that people want or need. In that sense, his compensation is "just" in that buyers have willingly paid and through various means that money has accrued to him. So he has earned it, which isn't wrong in and of itself. That much I think everyone is familiar with, and I'm sure I could somewhat predict your reply to that assertion. Perhaps it's greed that motivated him, and that would be wrong. Perhaps he hoards it and values it too much. Poor and rich alike are imperfect.
I think this is actually more fundamental and more complicated. It's not that greed is good, it's that greed is part of reality. And that doesn't even touch on what should be done were it agreed that being that wealthy was inherently bad. We can all agree, even the biggest defender of billionaires, that coming into wealth through straight up theft, lies, or fraud is bad and that wealth should be repaid.
So while I've seen it too, it's a little sad that so many understand the argument over capitalism as one of "is greed good." Anyone who has though seriously on this for any amount of time ought to be able to answer the question instantly, the definition of the word and what it describes almost require it.
I dont feel ive done well here explaining my thoughts on this, but I did want to point out that even capitalists believe that greed is bad. at least they should.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
