toldailytopic: In your opinion, what's the ONE worst thing about capitalism?

[Cracked]

Only men and women acting with a sense of personal responsiblility and loving accountability to one another can make the system of capitalism work.

And, because this is rare (by and large), we need government regulation and intervention.

 

[Newman]

I don't think you understand my position. I don't have in mind the extraordinary cases of misjudgment, deceit, etc. I'm talking about the every day transactions. If I work for 8 hours and get paid x amount, comparing the x amount to what that roughly correlates in purchasing power, I've esteemed that my labor and the x amount are roughly equal in value, or otherwise, I've esteemed that my labor is worth less.

Well, presupposing a vacuum, and presupposing that I were a perfect rational calculator, and the transaction were conceived solely in itself in isolation, then indeed, my estimation would be a solid one.

But that's not what happens, is it? The transaction occurs under competitive market conditions according to agents who are performing the transaction with a capitalist mindset. As a matter of fact, it's clearly evident that my estimation, under these conditions, is bound to be wrong at some point. Because of any extraordinary flaw in my judgment? No. Something completely commonplace in a capitalist economy: price fluxuation.

A boss will, on occassion, give me a raise, and that raise may or may not be related to inflation. Well...was my work any more or less valuable the moment before I got the raise than after, considered in itself? No, my work remains the same. Did I make an error of judgment in selling my labor at too low a price when it was worth more? Did the employer make an error of judgment in paying me more when my labor was worth less?

Another example: The moment after the Playstation 3 came out, it cost x. A year later, it cost x-y, where y is the difference between its initial cost and its cost a year later. Did the value of the Playstation 3, considered in itself, change? No, the Playstation 3 remained the same in both cases, presumably. Yes, yes, the Playstation 3 underwent certain changes, but I don't think that these changes had anything to do with the price.

Well...no...neither. Market prices don't reflect actual value. They only reflect market conditions. When I make an estimation of value, I'm not estimating actual value to me. I'm merely estimating the market conditions. I'll purchase the milk for $3.50 a gallon, not because it's worth so much of my work or because it cost that much to produce it, but because I can't find it any cheaper. Again, the milk producers sell the milk for $3.50 a gallon, not because they esteem that the milk is worth so much of my labor or because it cost them that much to make it, but because they esteemed that $3.50 is the most for which they would be able to sell it.

As a matter of fact, I think that deceit/exploitation/etc. more or less are built into the capitalist system, and that's because capitalism is based on one big lie: that a human being (or his labor) has a price tag.

You've just described the labor theory of value. It's bunk and is the source of many bad economic theories, most notably Marxism.

Value comes from individuals, subjectively. Nowhere else.

It's called the law of imputation. The costs involved in producing something don't dictate the price of what the factors of production produce, but the other way around. Individuals' subjective valuations of the product impute value onto the factors of production, including labor.

The PS3 went down in price because consumer demand, namely individuals' subjective valuations of a PS3, went down.

When buyers and sellers are allowed to trade freely, then prices and production will find their way to an equilibrium that allots both the consumers and the producers with the maximum amount of surplus value as possible.

 

[steko]

And, because this is rare (by and large), we need government regulation and intervention.

Right, it's either Christ reigning in our hearts as GOD, or the alternative, an imposed government statism ruling from the outside as god.

 

[Traditio]

You've just described the labor theory of value. It's bunk and is the source of many bad economic theories, most notably Marxism.

You can say "it's bunk" as much as you want, but if you don't give an argument for it being bunk, then you can't really expect anyone to be convinced when you say it. On that note, I think it's rather odd that you didn't go into greater detail. Basing myself on your previous posts, I can only imagine that your failure to go into more detail wasn't based in any lack of knowledge/understanding on your part. :idunno:

On that note, I haven't really espoused any particular economic view. I'm merely saying that there's an obvious flaw in the capitalist system, at least, in the sense that you were talking about earlier. It's not merely the case that sometimes you misjudge. As a matter of fact, you're always misdjudging, given the capitalist system. The value isn't determined by anything concrete. If you esteem that you're getting what you pay for, then you're bound to be wrong. The price both of your money and what you're paying for is bound to fluxuate.

Value comes from individuals, subjectively. Nowhere else.

Maybe, but with Immanuel Kant, I hold that there is at least one kind of thing which has an objective value, namely, rational nature. Since a rational agent makes subjective value judgments, then by that very capacity of making subjective judgments, he must be judged as having an intrinsic objective value in himself, and not only does he have an intrinsic value, but he has a value which is infinite. Kant says that a rational being has an infinite moral worth. You can't put a price tag on a human person. This is why Kant says that you never ought to treat a human person merely as a means.

It's called the law of imputation. The costs involved in producing something don't dictate the price of what the factors of production produce, but the other way around. Individuals' subjective valuations of the product impute value onto the factors of production, including labor.

Given a capitalist system, I agree, and that's why I think that capitalism is bizarre. As a matter of fact, labor as such has an objective value, and the value is intrinsically tied to the laborer. Since a rational being is an end-in-himself, and not merely a means to an end, the value of his labor can't be dictated by market conditions. Oh sure, you can try to put a price, and you even can pay that price. You can engage in negotiations. You can enforce it. But for all that, you won't have changed the real value of the labor. For all the alleged "contract" and "legality" of the "economic exchange," you'll merely have engaged in exploitation.

My labor isn't worth the subjective value that my employer places on it, even though that's what my employer pays me. My labor has a real value that procedes from my moral worth as a rational being. The value of my labor (at least) is what is required for the robust and dynamic exercise of my agency in a kingdom of ends.

The PS3 went down in price because consumer demand, namely individuals' subjective valuations of a PS3, went down.

Subjective value is self-defeating.

When buyers and sellers are allowed to trade freely, then prices and production will find their way to an equilibrium that allots both the consumers and the producers with the maximum amount of surplus value as possible.

But for all that, is it fair in a moral sense? The answer is no.

 

[Nick M]

Exploited workers.

It is your brotherhood in Christ that keeps me from tearing you apart when you make stupid comments like this. Labor and potential labor laws have nothing to do with free exchange and open markets.

The one bad thing? I guess from liberal perspective, stealing is considered wrong instead of fair. So I know they don't like it.

 

[Nick M]

And, because this is rare (by and large), we need government regulation and intervention.

Right. And he already gave instruction.

Exodus 20. You shall not steal. That means if it isn't yours, you can not take it unless they give it to you. Having the government force you to give it by reason of force and threat of action is your will, and is stealing.

 

[Nick M]

It takes money to make money so if you have a brilliant idea and no capital you might be forced to borrow money at interest which can suck the life out of the business venture before it really has a chance to take off.

True. Unless you have a talent that an employer will pay big money for because he can sell your talent. Take the knucklhead formerly know as puff daddy, p diddy, and various other names. He went to the studio with no money and no training/history in the industry. Naturaly they told him no. He said he would work for free. In that case, they let him work for free as a producer. He has of course made millions and is worth millions from his talents with no money to start.

 

[Traditio]

Right. And he already gave instruction.

Exodus 20. You shall not steal. That means if it isn't yours, you can not take it unless they give it to you. Having the government force you to give it by reason of force and threat of action is your will, and is stealing.

It's not stealing if you never had a legitimate claim to it to begin with. If you have an excess while your neighbor is starving, and you know that your neighbor is starving, you don't have a legitimate claim to keep your excess (or at least, some of it).

 

[Newman]

You can say "it's bunk" as much as you want, but if you don't give an argument for it being bunk, then you can't really expect anyone to be convinced when you say it. On that note, I think it's rather odd that you didn't go into greater detail. Basing myself on your previous posts, I can only imagine that your failure to go into more detail wasn't based in any lack of knowledge/understanding on your part. :idunno:

The labor theory of value is wrong because I could spend 10 hours a day working really hard on an exact miniature replica of Rosie O'Donnell made out of lima beans and toilet paper. No matter how much labor I put into that, it isn't worth anything. It has no productive value and no consumer in his right mind would pay a dime for it.

My labor did not add any value to the toilet paper and lima beans. My labor was all for nothing. Value comes from what consumers want.

On that note, I haven't really espoused any particular economic view. I'm merely saying that there's an obvious flaw in the capitalist system, at least, in the sense that you were talking about earlier. It's not merely the case that sometimes you misjudge. As a matter of fact, you're always misdjudging, given the capitalist system. The value isn't determined by anything concrete. If you esteem that you're getting what you pay for, then you're bound to be wrong. The price both of your money and what you're paying for is bound to fluxuate.

The fact that value isn't concrete means that the system is more fair and that most people get more value than what they paid. If sellers could somehow know exactly what the maximum price we would pay for something, we would end up with monopolistic price discrimination, i.e., monopoly heaven (heaven for the producers, hell for the consumers).

Some people, maybe you, would pay upwards of $15 dollars for a gallon of milk, while others wouldn't pay more than $5. Some people don't like milk and so they wouldn't take it even with a $0 price tag.

This means that at a price of $3.50, those that hate milk don't get any, the people that would pay $5 have an extra $1.50, and the people that would pay $15 have a consumer surplus of $11.50!

Maybe, but with Immanuel Kant, I hold that there is at least one kind of thing which has an objective value, namely, rational nature. Since a rational agent makes subjective value judgments, then by that very capacity of making subjective judgments, he must be judged as having an intrinsic objective value in himself, and not only does he have an intrinsic value, but he has a value which is infinite. Kant says that a rational being has an infinite moral worth. You can't put a price tag on a human person. This is why Kant says that you never ought to treat a human person merely as a means.

But we aren't talking about buying and trading humans or even their rationality. We are talking about goods and services.

Given a capitalist system, I agree, and that's why I think that capitalism is bizarre. As a matter of fact, labor as such has an objective value, and the value is intrinsically tied to the laborer. Since a rational being is an end-in-himself, and not merely a means to an end, the value of his labor can't be dictated by market conditions. Oh sure, you can try to put a price, and you even can pay that price. You can engage in negotiations. You can enforce it. But for all that, you won't have changed the real value of the labor. For all the alleged "contract" and "legality" of the "economic exchange," you'll merely have engaged in exploitation.

I fail to see how two people in a voluntary exchange of wages and labor, both of which were mutually agreed upon by the laborer and the employer, could be labeled "exploitation".

My labor isn't worth the subjective value that my employer places on it, even though that's what my employer pays me. My labor has a real value that procedes from my moral worth as a rational being. The value of my labor (at least) is what is required for the robust and dynamic exercise of my agency in a kingdom of ends.

Then why did you agree to work for the wage that you get? See, at some level, you do place value on your time and effort.

Subjective value is self-defeating.

*You can say "it's self-defeating" as much as you want, but if you don't give an argument for it being self-defeating, then you can't really expect anyone to be convinced when you say it. On that note, I think it's rather odd that you didn't go into greater detail. Basing myself on your previous posts, I can only imagine that your failure to go into more detail wasn't based in any lack of knowledge/understanding on your part. :idunno:

But for all that, is it fair in a moral sense? The answer is no.

You still haven't convinced me that there is any unfairness inherent in a free market system.

 

[Nick M]

It's not stealing if you never had a legitimate claim to it to begin with. If you have an excess while your neighbor is starving, and you know that your neighbor is starving, you don't have a legitimate claim to keep your excess (or at least, some of it).

Says who? The grasshopper that played all summer instead of gathering for the winter? Did you get your refund yet?

 

[Memento Mori]

The abundance of advertisement in conjunction with the stupidity of buyers... (myself included)

 

[chrysostom]

short sightedness

 

[BabyChristian]

Greed.

Angelspit wrote a rather good tune about corporate greed, Homo-Machinery.

Let's talk a bit about laziness and entitlements!

I'm tired of all of the greed talk. The people that don't want to work already don't have to and the liberals want it to expand.

 

[fool]

toldailytopic: In your opinion, what's the ONE worst thing about capitalism?

Capitals were a good thing in the old days but now that we have internets we could just as easily spread the government offices around evenly which might help with the smell.

 

[Cracked]

It is your brotherhood in Christ that keeps me from tearing you apart when you make stupid comments like this. Labor and potential labor laws have nothing to do with free exchange and open markets.

The one bad thing? I guess from liberal perspective, stealing is considered wrong instead of fair. So I know they don't like it.

Feel free to "tear me appart" Nick lain:. In a capitalist system, workers are often exploited without some sort of lawful means to defend themselves. That is was regulation is for, something that a lot of conservatives would like to see minimized. So yes, one bad thing about unregulated capitalism is that it leads to squeezing labor for the profit of those in control.

 

[Cracked]

Right. And he already gave instruction.

Exodus 20. You shall not steal. That means if it isn't yours, you can not take it unless they give it to you. Having the government force you to give it by reason of force and threat of action is your will, and is stealing.

What? I'm talking about labor laws, safety laws, environmental laws, laws on monopolies, that sort of thing. The sad truth is that people need government to defend them from capitalism in its pure form.

 

[firon]

Welfare, liberalism, and unions are destroying capitalism

Welfare, liberalism, and unions are destroying capitalism

Capitalism is the foundation of America's economy. It is based on biblical precepts, and all those who are against or ignorant of those precepts are destroying America.

 

[Cracked]

Capitalism is the foundation of America's economy. It is based on biblical precepts, and all those who are against or ignorant of those precepts are destroying America.

What are those precepts, exactly?

 

[Granite]

Capitalism is the foundation of America's economy. It is based on biblical precepts, and all those who are against or ignorant of those precepts are destroying America.

I wasn't aware that "make as much money as you can and crush your competitors at all costs" was to be found in the good book.

 

[taikoo]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for November 9th, 2010 11:26 AM

toldailytopic: In your opinion, what's the ONE worst thing about capitalism?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

that others do it better than Americans do?