"unbalanced in favour of the capitalists"

Everyone is capitalist. Everyone does everything for themselves. It balances in favour of people who set up businesses, who have idea's, who take calculated risks that succeed. And is that an unjust imbalance?

As for your nice, if loaded (look up the "if by whisky fallacy") explanation of how supply/demand works in the labour market, isn't that just? If I have a skill that is in abundance (such as stacking shelves) then it isn't really worth that much, and I could disappear from society without much impact. If I have a rare skill, then I am more valuable, and should get better paid.

Geddit?

how come bankers get paid so much?or politicians-anyone can lie

Bankers are paid so much for three reasons:

1. Because they provide a vital service to a number of people.
2. Information imbalance. (with investment banking in particular)
3. Woeful government policy

Politicians have only one reason: they sit on the tax revenue and can choose how much to take out from it.

As for the point made about the cost of stopping terrorism, we can see the economic benefit of doing so clearly from the effect of 9-11 on America. There is a financial reason as well as the protection of human life, so the figure given of price per citizen is very misleading.

@rlumley - Well I'm sorry if I offended you about by saying I didn't think a book you love was very well written, but I certainly don't think we need to resort to shootings to settle our differences over the quality of a piece of literature. ;)

I get that the point she was trying to make was that people are either evil and complete idiots or great geniuses. I just don't think that's even remotely realistic, and makes for flat uninteresting characters. People simply aren't that one dimensional. Why did she bother writing the whole book? You get the point she's trying to make (unconvincingly I think) within the first chapter or two, as soon as you meet the caricatures that pass for characters.

Maybe that's actually how Ayn Rand saw the world. Filled with flat one dimensional people with only one characteristic to define them. I feel sorry for anyone who is that self absorbed or has that much trouble connecting to and understanding other people.

@Chrispminis - Well I'm glad to hear your weren't apologizing for your view so much as whether it was examined or not.

I do agree with you that generally markets are a good way to get many things done and to distribute wealth. I've just found over the past few years that more and more I find that they do a bad job of it in many areas. As I said markets are simply a tool. Where they work well they should be used, where they don't, they shouldn't, or should be used within certain bounds. So many people get so hung up on these tools and turn them into ideologies, assume that they're always the best way to do things, and infuse them with moral principles that frequently have nothing to do with them.

I also agree that government action is hard to craft and can frequently be counter productive, but I find that the same is just as frequently true of markets. Everything needs to be constantly monitored and tweaked to make sure it's working well.

As for your argument about taxes. I just don't think it makes sense to argue that they are immoral. You can certainly argue that some people are taxed too much, but I don't think it makes any sense to argue that it's "immoral." In general no one who becomes wealthy would likely have been able to do so without the benefits provided by the government and society they exist in. It only seems fair to me that people be asked to pay back into the system that allowed them to gain their prosperity, so that others might have the same opportunities. Taxes would only be immoral if they were imposed by an entity that had no part in whatsoever in the creation of that wealth.

I can't speak for your tax situation in Canada, but I bet you are underestimating the services and benefits you get from the taxes your family pays. Certainly it's possible you are overtaxed, but taxes don't just go to roads and police and fire services (though the police services especially can be absolutely crucial in allowing anyone to actually make any money). They pay for education, which doesn't just benefit those that are being educated or those who have children who are being educated, communities with good schools tend to be more peaceful and stable communities. There are a lot of indirect benefits to education to a community. They pay for all kinds of other services and programs that may benefit a community in a lot of ways that may not be obvious on the surface.

Certainly, again, I would agree that it's entirely possible for people to be overtaxed, and maybe you're family is an example of that, but I just wanted to point out that there are a lot of benefits that aren't immediately obvious that many people overlook when they complain about paying taxes.

Ghostmaker,
I made a few corrections to your text...

The local crack dealer and pimp provide people with products and employment that they want. By connecting people in the whole system, they create wealth. Now, why do you begrudge them the wealth they created?

It is not an abusive relationship. They pay the employee what he or she is worth, the market rate. That that is less than what the owning family who run and set up the whole operation is neither here nor there. The mule does less valuable work for drug racket than the crime family, so of course he is paid less.

-----
"Slavery only seems to be the pinnacle of capitalism because you don't understand capitalism. Capitalism is a totally free system, and slavery is the antithesis of freedom."

That is total BS. Pure capitalism puts a price on everything and pays people as little as possible in order satisfy personal greed. A well regulated capitalism can be a very good thing... one where abuses such as monopolies and slave labor are policed. ...but without policing (and unions), you have the sweat shops of 19th Century America and Europe... and 21st Century SE Asia... and 21st Century world-wide (and local) drug and sex trade. Pure capitalism is the creed that greed is good and your ONLY responsibility is to your share-holders... There is no inherent morality to capitalism... and there is no check to it except from the outside... from individual conscience, from government oversight, and from organized worker resistance. Capitalism itself demands unmercifully the most possible profit... and certainly, the more you limit labor costs the more you increase your profit ... and the logical extreme is to shackle your workers to their work benches and only provide bread and water and a chamber pot and whip them when they don't work. Less labor cost = more profit and more profit = good. Capitalism is not what stopped slavery... indeed the American South decried the lower profits and the loss of "property" that came with abolition... The forces of capitalism in the South were completely behind the idea of slavery... it was a moral concept outside of the capitalistic argument for slavery that won the day.

It is interesting to me how in U.S. law a corporation is in most respects considered "a person"... and yet the corporation's only responsibility is for maximizing profit. Imagine for a moment if that was a standard that we applied to actual people. Imagine if all society expected individuals to do was to maximize their profit. Maybe that is a libertarian utopia... but it sounds like hell to me.

@ Dexter: Corporations ARE supposed to maximize profit. That's their sole purpose, and the officers and directors of the company have a fiduciary duty to do so. (I'd note that most people act the same way--in their own self-interest.) It is not for a corporation to spend its shareholders' investments to forward a particular social agenda. Rather, the role of regulation and enforced morality is rightfully placed in the hands of a democratically elected government. I think it's wrong to say that corporations should should not seek profit and instead focus their efforts to "act responsibly"--as if "responsibility" were a monolithic and certain thing, or if a board of directors can somehow find that perfect middle ground between making some profit while "doing good." If you want to feed the hungry, start a non-profit. If you want additional regulation that reigns in corporate excess, run for congress.

This is not to say that corporations should focus on profit and ignore all laws. In fact, acting illegally would probably hurt profits, as the corporation would be prosecuted, and be fined or have its charter revoked. That's why the government needs to intelligently regulate business activities, then all the part of the system do what they do best. Laws are just our society's decision on what is moral and good, and what isn't. So, we should regulate conduct via law, not by an expectation that a corporate entity should put aside its self-interest. In fact, would you rather have the board of directors of IBM decide what is "right" or an elected body? Okay, consider who dysfunctional Congress can be, maybe you shouldn't answer that... :) But hopefully the point is made.

@groverloaf, Yes - I agree. Capitalism does not have responsibility for advancing moral causes. That, actually, was my point to Ghostmaker. Capitalism, though useful, is amoral. And unfettered by conscience and regulation becomes a tool for the immoral.

As far as the power inequity that Jamie99uk and others pointed out... here is what noted pioneering economist and "father of capitalism" Adam Smith said regarding power inequity:

""Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. The affluence of the rich supposes the indigence of the many."

Again, I don't really have time to read all of this, but I laughed my head off at the guy who tried to use the bible to define morality. Obviously, he's never read this, so I'll repost it. It is an open letter to Dr. Laura, after she came out on her radio show and said that homosexuality was wrong because the bible says so.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

----------------------------------------------------

That's all folks.

I also laughed at the guy who said something to the effect of conservatives like to shoot people... That was pretty funny and got a chuckle.

@GhostMaker: "Everyone is capitalist. Everyone does everything for themselves. It balances in favour of people who set up businesses, who have ideas, who take calculated risks that succeed. And is that an unjust imbalance?"

Yes.

The central problem with capitalism is that whilst, in theory, through a combination of skill and luck, almost ANYONE could become rich. This does not mean that EVERYONE can become rich. It is an inherent feature of capitalism that some people - the majority in fact - will NOT become rich. Why should we support a system which presupposes that some people are entitled to a larger share of the world's wealth than others?

The world's resources are not infinite. If someone has more, then someone else must have less. Is THAT fair?

Just to continue: I read in today's newspaper that the football (soccer) player Gareth Barry, who has just signed to play for Manchester City football club, will be paid £130,000.00 per WEEK for his services. I earn £280.00 per week. Ghost, would you genuinely claim that this is because he is 464.3 times more worthy as a human being, than me? That makes me feel pretty worthless. I'm glad you think I'm worthless. Go you.

Sorry, Ghostmaker, one more:

"Everyone does everything for themselves"

Wow, you sound almost like a LaVeyan satanist, never mind a capitalist.

Just because you are greedy and selfish, don't assume that everyone else is like you.

@rlumley, thanks for posting the Dr. Laura letter - most entertaining!

@Jamiet99uk, I think of the Titanic... the strict capitalists would be buying and selling seats on the lifeboats while the liberals would be insisting that the "weakest" and most valuable to society (the women and children) should get preference. The pure capitalists would see this as an affront to all that is fine and good in people (greed, that is) and would be preaching how wise the invisible hand of the market is as they hold back the lower classes with their not so invisible hands. And from the lifeboats, as they watch the ship sink, they would conclude that their survival was proof of their superior ability to compete and therefore their greater value to society.

@rlumley, you'll note that letter quotes Leviticus (old testament). Not the new testament in which Jesus sets down a new set of really simple commandments which are a good example for morality. Additionally, I was pointing out that taxes WEREN'T inherently immoral. I wasn't defining morality or limiting it to the biblical context, but using the bible to show something WASN'T immoral. Apples to oranges comparison there.

There is more to morals than one religion's views, but the Judeau/Christian view is generally accepted to be more stringent than most and if it says something isn't immoral, then most of the other religion's views would likely agree with it.

In other words, find the most strict one, and if it allows it, it's probably OK. Likewise, if you take the most lenient and it forbids it, odds are most, if not all, will as well.

Jamiet99uk, I challenge you to name one thing that you didn't do for yourself.

@Ghostmaker, Jamiet99uk can answer for himself, but here is my answer:
there are many things that people do out of "enlightened self-interest"... Liberals will argue that it is in our self-interest to help the least among us... to educate, provide job-training, and welfare where necessary. One would not presume to suggest that families operate on a purely capitalistic model - where the weak are homeless and uneducated and where the sick go untreated if they can't personally pay for their care. The difference between conservative orthodoxy and liberal orthodoxy (if I may be so bold) is that liberals see the whole of humanity as an extended family - and conservatives do not. So - when I support progressive/liberal causes I do it for myself... because of my ties to the human family and because it is the kind of world I want to live in.

So you do it for yourself, ultimately.

Now, in a family, you act to help other people not because they will help you, but because you gain some pleasure from helping them.

@ Draugnar....

................

........

..........................................

.......................

I don't even know what to say. What makes religion the basis of morality? I consider myself a Christian, but I think the Bible is a complete load of crap. And it is.

Logic is the basis of morality, meaning that something being moral or immoral must be based in the fundamental laws of nature. Christian teachings through the years have served to enrich and empower one entity (The Church) to the disenfranchisement of others. To quote Ayn Rand, "For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors - between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it."

God does not define morality. Jesus does not define morality. What gives them the right? If you want a religious argument, "For why should my freedom be determined by someone else's conscience?" - I Corinthians 10:29

If you believe that God created the world and Jesus died on the cross (Which I happen to believe), what qualifications does that give them to determine what is moral? Morality can only be determined through a logical approach to life. I challenge you to think for yourself and determine your own morality, rather than accept what has been given to you.

"The central problem with capitalism is that whilst, in theory, through a combination of skill and luck, almost ANYONE could become rich. This does not mean that EVERYONE can become rich. It is an inherent feature of capitalism that some people - the majority in fact - will NOT become rich. Why should we support a system which presupposes that some people are entitled to a larger share of the world's wealth than others?"

Because, to put it bluntly, some people are better than others. Some people deserve more than others, some people work harder, or a more talented, and so deserve better. Not everyone is of equal value. That is why.


"The world's resources are not infinite. If someone has more, then someone else must have less. Is THAT fair?"

Firstly, nowhere near all of the resources are used and none of them to the greatest ability they could be, so that means that your argument, that life is a zero sum game, is wrong.

Secondly, yes it is. People who are more deserving than others should get more, as I said before.

"The world's resources are not infinite. If someone has more, then someone else must have less. Is THAT fair?"

I will answer with a quote from Ayn Rand, "If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose--because it contains all the others--the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality."

All that needs be said has been said.

@Draugnar, you state: "@rlumley, you'll note that letter quotes Leviticus (old testament). " Is there a new testament commandment against homosexuals? Regarding taxes, your argument is solid, in my mind. I have yet to hear a convincing biblical argument against taxes... and as you suggest, that is a pretty good gauge for the general acceptance by society of taxes as not being immoral.

@rlumley, is there any reputable philosopher or tradition that holds that taxes are immoral? Seems to me that across all cultures and times, taxes are an accepted and necessary part of civilization.

@rlumley, reputable philosopher... that means someone who is thought of as more than a kook by those outside her particular rabid following. I could quote Marx - but it would be, again, hard to get traction outside of certain very limited circles... my eyes rolled particularly hard in that passage about "make money" not being in any other language... I could similarly claim that since Spanish has no direct translation for "why" (por que? translates literally as "for which?") that therefore the Spanish have no idea about the purpose of anything. What a specious argument Rand makes. ...and what a cult Randian philosophy is. Full of specious arguments, two-dimensional characterizations and generalizations, and simple sweeping and extreme answers. Marx is not an adequate comparison... L. Ron Hubbard fits better.

All this discussion is full of non-sense. There is no wealth, there is no poverty.
You are born with nothing and will die with nothing. No one deserves better than another because there nothing anyone did by himself, one's very birth is caused. You don't know the earth is a sphere because you are more intelligent, but simply because you are conditioned to know so and believe you are more intelligent when comparing yourself with other ideas called 'past'.
There are many factors which do that some end up with resource access, some without. History shows this is just plain luck, conjuncture.
The only problem one really has is how one's idea of self depends on this wealth, whether material or not. What people want is freedom, the freedom to be what they are, you think that by making more money you become more free, but that's nonsense. It makes you more dependent on that money on your belief you need that money. If you didn't find this out yet, you will soon enough.
Does anyone of you really believe that before money was punched people were unhappy, suffering more than today? Come on people wake up and see what's before your eyes.
If everyone would be at peace within, there would not even be such a discussion in the first place.

@Ghostmaker - do you *really* believe that those who accumulate the most wealth are genuinely the most useful and best people? An investment banker is better than a surgeon. Paris Hilton deserves to make more money than pretty much everyone here?

Who decides who is worth more? Right now, I think the argument that a UK MP is worth more than a nurse (say) is pretty thin, and I know who gets significantly more money. To assume the capitalism in any form rewards those that deserve most the most is not backed up by any kind of evidence.

She isn't actually talking about creating a phrase. It is simply a way of saying that the concept was created by the American people. You don't always have to assume she is making a specious argument, you know.

That was to Dexter, btw.

Pete U, I am willing to make an exception in two cases:

1. People who exploit information imbalance.
2. People who choose their own pay from a companies' pot, or the tax revenue.

As for Paris Hilton, people collectively value her more than anyone else.

The surgeon is, remember, not a part of capitalism in the UK. It is difficult to use real world examples, because there is no real capitalism in the real world.