Greg says:
Yup Greg, you are right. It took a long time to convince me of the value of capitalism. In Standard 6, I took a lot of abuse for claiming Jesus, my hero at the time, was a communist.Trevor, you appear to be flirting with communism, what with advocating state control of the economy, and questioning property rights.
In first year varsity, I thought our `Thinking About Business' course should have been renamed `Free Market Indoctrination'. I considered wearing a red shirt with a hammer and sickle on it to classes along with friends Tapiwanofsky, Robanofsky and I was renamed Donkonofsky.
I have to plead a fair amount of ignorance. My studies have lead me to know quite a lot about Capitalism. I know very little about Communism, and have not read much Karl Marx or the alike.
A few points...
1) I object strongly to the fact that we are so dependant on who our parents are as a future determinant of our success. I think Dynastic Wealth is as problematic as Hereditary Political Power, since I think Economic Power is often more powerful than political power.
2) I am very uncomfortable about the fact that some people don't seem able to exercise their right to free choice in a way that would benefit them because of short-sightedness. Manual Labourers and Domestic Workers blowing their salaries at the casino and on alcohol while their families suffer, concerns me.
3) I am equally concerned by the idea of a `Big Brother' Government deciding for you what you should do.
4) I think Capitalism provides better incentives for those who have money, and no better incentive than Communism once wealth is inherited. If the marginal value of extra effort isn't rewarded adequately, the person won't put in the extra effort.
5) I am a fan of making resources go to where they will work best for the greatest total benefit to society. I believe there is more marginal benefit where there is no wealth. I am not sure what measure is available for the greatest total benefit.
6) I believe property rights are important, BUT I also believe that there should be limits.... long term leases may provide similar benefits in terms of improvement. In theory, one very efficient Capitalist can slowly buy all the land in the country, then in their will say... I wan't all the trees cut down, everything burnt and no one is allowed to live here ever again. That doesn't sit right. If everyone was born with the same rights to property, and they managed to stuff it up, fine, take responsibility. But that isn't the case. It is the start of property rights that concerns me, and their duration.
7) I think Communism is impractical and power corrupts people to the point that it is impossible. Similarly, I think we need to consider what a purely capitalist world would do taking human nature into consideration.
8) I believe Governments are inefficient and that good leaders are rare, BUT an excellent altruistic leader who managed to inspire people beyond themselves can lead to better results than the invisible hand. The concede the Invisible Hand may get there in the end, and is probably a more realistic (yet far slower) path.
9) I believe in Teamwork, Ubuntu and relationships and that we can achieve more working together with inspired leaders.
10) I see more benefit in
(a) everyone being better off, than
(b) a few people being rediculously better off and the others only being better off, but less so than in scenario a.
11) I struggle to figure out how much of my own wealth I am entitled to spend freely and extravagently, and how much I should be targeting to relieving the extreme poverty of others.
12) I think I have worked hard, and `delayed gratification' enough to deserve to live a better than average standard of life.
There are other things, but this post is too long.
Some thoughts hint at Communism, so yes, there is flirting. But I like to think of myself as a Philanthrocapitalist.
8 comments:
Wow, long post. Just some initial comments on a few things that stand out to me...
I strongly believe that nobody, no matter how altruistic, and no matter how brilliant, can do better than the invisisble hand at the vast majority of the stuff that needs to happen in a complex eceonomy e.g. deciding how many loaves of bread to make, when, where etc.
There is no conflict between capitalism and philanthropy. You are perfectly welcome to believe that capitalism is the best economic system and still be a philanthropist. You do not have to call yourself a philanthrocapitalist.
Point 10: fine, but what about the choice between everyone being more or less at the same level vs. the average person being at a very significantly higher level, some being at a vastly higher level, and some being at a lower level? That is the choice we face in reality.
I think Ubuntu is highly overated. Teamwork is fine is suppose, has it's place. I have no idea what liking teamwork (or otherwise) has to do with much of the stuff we're talking about though. Like Stuart, I'm quite scared of inspired leaders, but again don't really see why it matters here.
The starting point of property distribution is problematic, I agree. Ditto strongly entrenched dynatic wealth. But I don't think those problems invalidate the whole system. The overall gains from having a proper system of property rights are so great, that they outweigh these probelms of distribution. And there are various automatic and other mechanisms for smoothing the disparities and unfairness over time.
Point 2: I also think this is sad, but for me free choice is the most important thing. Some people exercise their free choice stupidly. That's just one of those base facts of life that you can't get away from.
I have no doubt that the struggles you refer to in points 11 and 12 are serious issues for you. Surely one of the great things about a free society is that you can struggle with these issues, can to your own conclusions about what is right, and act accordingly. You can give away all your money if you want. Or you can be a selfish bastard and fritter it away frivolously. Surely you shouldn't want to impose your own solution on the rest of us?
I also believe in the power of the invisible hand in determining the right amount of things to supply. I like that capitalim encourages risk taking, and that it rewards those who are willing to make mistakes more than those who seek safety and aren't prepared to fail. That is great. It is part of the reason for great innovation and continual improvement.
I know I don't have to call myself that and that the two don't conflict. I just like calling myself that, and still like to think I came up with the term. Does that make me pretentious, arrogant, misguided or just nerdy?
I agree that the choice is closer to the one you suggest, I don't know the answer, but I do know that extreme poverty and extreme wealth juxtaposed causes problems. `Let them eat cake' and Mrs Mugabe spring to mind.
I think most of the pleasure we derive from life is based on relationships and interaction with other people. I think it has everything to do with what we are talking about here. An economic system is all about defining human interaction, and the basis of that interaction depends on the weightings you put on various relationships. We are not Homo Economicus.
I think they may not yet have invalidated the system, but I think Dynastic Wealth is the single greates threat to the success of capitalism. In the same way as Communism's achiles' heal was power corrupting those in charge. Growing contrasts between wealthy and poor even if the average increases breeds discontent. Being born in a squater camp and receiving no education other than how to beg at a street corner from the child in the back seat of an SLK is just no good, and is not a problem that will be solved by the invisible hand. The invisible hand left to its' devices may just leave that kid to starve.
Point 2 is tragic. I don't think saying it is one of those base facts of life we can't get away from is acceptable. Watching societies like the Aboriginies be subjugated by alcohol is no good. I don't know what the answer is, and I suspect it has a lot to do with the point in the paragraph above. I am not sure I value free choice over that. I do value free choice though and I don't know how to reconcile the two.
I am more inclined to agree with you if the wealth you throw away selfishly was wealth you built up yourself. I still get the feeling there is some sort of moral obligation here. Tough to quantify though.
Oh, and being stuck at an airport can lead to long posts :-)
1). Why do you think this? Authoritarian leaders may often be very rich, but that doesn't make it a dynastic wealth problem. Laws forcing a certain % of endowments to be spent each year are pretty destructive I think and could be even more so in the future.
In the previous post on political and economic power i believe you equivocated, slipping between to different definitions of power.
2). This is very sad, but seeing a problem does not mean that government is best placed to fix it. Or even if it is, that it should.
4). So? either the money sits in the bank and people borrow and start businesses, or he fritters it away. Whats the problem?
5). I'm all in favour of simply giving people money. You don't need an activist government to do this. its compatible with pretty free market economy.
6). Libertarians are often fond of land taxes. which is like taking buts of their land each year.
It doens't sit right, but the chance of this happening are zero
7). Ummm... I'm unfazed...
8). You persist in this line, but I still don't know to what end you think a nice leader would be better. What is to be achieved.
9). Teamwork, ubuntu etc being great does not imply the need for great leaders.
10). What greg said
11). entitled is not so much a moral thing. you are entitled to it all. but it might be good to give some away. more is probably "better"
12).
1) I never claimed that authoritarian leaders being rich makes it a dynastic wealth problem. Someone with dynastic wealth needn't be a leader, they are just rich because of their ancestors and through no merit of their own. Philanthropic Endowments in my opionion fall into another category, and I also have potential problems with placing fixed percentage caps on disbursements.
To quote you from the post to which you refer...
'thats fine. We disagree on what power means. Politicians need to convince people to give them power, but they then have it in the sense that I mean, and in a sense that bill doesn't.'
We disagreed on the definition... I was trying to figure out one I was happy with, I wasn't happy with your definition. Do you have a problem with `equivocating'? I believe it to be a necessary step in finding the truth.
2)Neither does it mean the Invisible Hand can fix it. Or if it can't that we shouldn't. Saying, its an unsolvable problem is not solution.
4)Why do you object to the structural inefficiencies of Communinism, and then say the structural inefficiencies of capitalism aren't a problem. I would support an efficient system, which in their pure form, I don't believe either system is. You assume the money is in the bank, and people can borrow against it.
5) I partly agree, but think this is related to problem 2
6) You underestimate the chances. They are not zero. The example I use is extreme, but the chances of someone inefficient being placed in charge of large amounts of wealth and directing that wealth to self destruction are far from zero. A `pleasant' example that could be done in a not pleasant way as well is the land that Beatrix Potter bequethed that is now `The Lakes District'. She was benevolent. Others may not be... The ability of one person to decide how land should be used in perpetuity exists and is a potential source of vast inefficiencies as needs change.
8) Yes, I `persist', and I will unless you convince me otherwise. Continual Improvement is to be achieved, and I believe co-ordination is more efficient in many cases.
9) I think leadership is essential in teamwork. I think communities revolve around community leaders. So we disagree.
10) same response as to Greg then
11) I don't agree, it is not a factual thing, so it must be a moral thing, and I definitely think there is such a thing as moral obligation or entitlement.
1) I'm not going to weigh in on this topic. But I do have a problem with equivocating. It is a crime against logic, and a sneaky way of slipping out of an argument when you are losing, not a necessary step in finding the truth. I haven't read the post though, so I don't know if you were doing it.
2) Saying "Saying, its an unsolvable problem is not solution" or "saying it is one of those base facts of life we can't get away from is not acceptable" misses the point (as well as sounding like an empty hooray statement).
Take the following two statements:
1. Freedom of choice is good.
2. Sometimes people will exercise their free choice stupidly, and harm themselves. This is bad.
If you accept both of those statements, it is apparent that there is no perfect outcome. Saying that this unacceptable, or "not a solution" is just irritating. The debate lies in where to strike the balance, not in trying to deny the dilemma.
4) Where is the money then? Difficult to think where it could be where it's not either being useful to someone, or being frittered away (in which case your problem eventually disappears).
5) Yes, agree this is strongly related to 2 i.e. whether you prefer free choice or nanny state.
6) The chances of your original scenario happening are zero. The chances of your more realistic scenarios occuring are not zero, but then the effects can be mitigated, while maintaining the concept of property rights. Such as land taxes, as Stuart said.
To rephrase your sentence, but insert my opinion, rather than yours: The ability of individual people to decide how land should be used in perpetuity (i.e. property rights) exists and is a source of vast efficiencies which you'd be crazy to tamper with unless you're damn sure you've got a better idea.
8) Continual improvement of what? Co-ordination of what?
9) Ok, let's assume we all like teamwork. And inspired leaders are great. And leadership is essential for teamwork. Now what (apart from all being able to say a big hooray)?
10) Few people would disagree that extreme wealth and poverty justaposed causes problems. If that was the point you were trying to make you did it in a funny way.
1). I was trying to anticipate examples of dynastic wealth being a problem. I can't really think of any offhand. I'm sure there are examples, but I wonder about how serious they are.
I don't think we're thinking about the same thing about equivocation. it is a big hinderance to truth seeking, ands is quite slippery.
I think power in your sense is almost always good. Politicians, in addition to power in that sense, have the ability to coerce and violate peoples rights. thats what concerns me.
4). What are these? I don't really know.
I'm biased because I view free market capitalism as just and I'm not a full utilitarian, we shouldn't do something if a cost benefit analysis says its good. I view communism as extremly unjust even if well intentioned.
I dont. Just sticking money under a mattress is also cool.
6). I don't really have a problem with people trashing their huge estates, it's theirs to trash. Does this happen often? as with the right to booze your life away, the right to screw up with your wealth, fail spectacularly in some venture, whatever, is actually one the greatest glories of capitalism. its sad when things go wrong though, but its also essential.
8). I'm asking for examples. I think capitalism is amazing way of building cumulative improvement.
9). there are loads of leaders in a totally free market. Of course they're important. I think CEO's should keep there millions of dollars.
we're allowed to refrain from being moral. we're not allowed to withold stuff people are entitled to.
This is getting long... perhaps I should try break the discussion into smaller chunks, to try and get somewhere...
As far as equivocating goes... I guess it depends on what we mean. I understood the word to mean changing between opinions. In this sense I do not see a problem with it, and in this sense I think being scared of changing your opinion to `win' an argument is a major obstacle in the search for the truth.
I looked up a definition.
"to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge: When asked directly for his position on disarmament, the candidate only equivocated."
If Stuarts accusation was that I was trying to mislead. I plead no guilty. If Stuarts accusation is that I have no definite position on what power is... I plead guilty, but don't believe that is equivocating.
One of the big problems I have with US politics is the belief that someone changing their minds is a problem. I think it is a strength if they change it for a well thought out reason.
As for "a sneaky way of slipping out of an argument when you are losing"...
It is a discussion with a common aim of getting to a resolution so I have no interest in `winning', and there is no possibility of me `losing'. If this sounds like a `hooray' statement to Greg or makes Stuart want to throw up... Sorry, I am a `hooray' kind of guy who occasionally will do that kind of thing.
Let me attempt to break this into pieces and questions I have...
2) In Greg's words:
1. Freedom of choice is good.
2. Sometimes people will exercise their free choice stupidly, and harm themselves. This is bad.
What is the balance?
4) I think letting wealth being frittered away is a problem if it is purely wasteful. The focus is on improving efficiency. This is clearly an inefficiency.
6) Estate planning, awareness of tax issues and generating jsut sufficient income to cover the tax, but not enough to improve the land or be efficient can mitigate your mitigation. I don't like the idea that one person can decide on how something can be used in perpetuity, for a long period yes, and if they built that wealth themselves yes, but not in perpetuity.
The question:
Property Rights are a source of vast efficiencies, but also create the potential for crippling conflict between those with land, and those without and the potential for inefficient use. It is the best system we have so far, but how can it be improved?
8) Does capitalism self co-ordinate, and correct inefficiencies without market failures sufficiently to not need a government to occassionally intervene to avoid collapse or direct activity?
9) Stuart point is valid... but these leaders are not `democratically elected'... So the question is, should market forces elect the leaders? Alternatively stated, should the wealthy be the leaders?
To pre-empt, yes, market forces wittle out bad leaders in terms of the profit motive, but then the question comes... is the profit motive the only thing that should determine our path of action?
10) Greg, glad I made you laugh then.
11) Stuart...
"we're not allowed to withold stuff people are entitled to."
I do think there should be a moral obligation... I think opulence while others suffer is a massive problem. Yes, we can't force moral questions into law if they don't affect society. But if they do... if killing someone is a problem, we make it against the law even if a particular persons moral code allows it.
If action would prevent death and poverty, and inaction doesn't prevent it (but also doesn't cause it), at what point do you have a moral obligation to act, and at what point does making that law benefit society. Peter Singer has an argument something along these lines... I will try find where I read it.
I didn't do a good job of breaking this into parts. I also wasn't all that successful at not getting defensive in my response... I will attempt not to be irritating or use hooray statements.
I will write seperate posts on:
1) Equivocation
2) Balancing Free Choice & Self-Harm
3) What inefficiencies are there in Capitalism, and how best mitigate them with minimal government interference?
4) Is the profit motive a sufficient force to ensure we live in `a good' society, i.e. Stakeholder vs. Shareholder Societies?
5) What moral obligation do we have to assisting the sick, poor and disempowered?
Being prepared to change opinions under the right circumstances is a great virtue, but that isn't equivocation. I don't much like the definition you found either, it’s about right, but shouldn't imply that it's conscious, it often isn't and we do it all the time.
For example, a Christian is normally thought of as someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus, but sometimes is used as a synonym for good. This equivocation is used to imply that being a Christian makes you good. It usually isn't deliberate.
There’s a chapter on equivocation in "bad thoughts" which is one of my favourite books.
2). basically I don't believe the government has much right to make a decision on the balance at all. Though I get that this is unpalatable or silly to many people, it’s a pretty fundamental value difference about the scope of government.
Of course I favour the development of cultural norms that mitigate the problems in various ways.
I'm also in favour of being extremely hard on parents who abandon or neglect their children, which might change their attitudes in the long run.
4). sticking cash in the bank or under the mattress isn't wasteful. Smashing your house with a bulldozer for no reason is, but this doesn't happen much.
The suffering is felt by the owner. The incentives are very much against this.
8). Avoid the collapse of the economy?
9). I'm not such a fan of democracy, so that doesn't bother me.
I choose free market deliberately here. Religious leaders, neighbourhood watch leaders, leaders of your habit for humanity branch and rugby club. I don't much care how they're elected. Each organisation should choose their own. The idea that government should have ANY say over how a company leader is chosen gives me the creeps.
This might not be your vision, but I'm just pointing out that I think leaders are important.
11). Greg and I keep saying that we like a tax and transfer system. This should deal with what we are obliged to give. I don't think either of us have a fixed number in mind. A hardened right wing libertarian suggested $10 000 per year in the US.
I've read Singer's arguments and am not convinced (neither are most moral philosophers). I think the difference between harming someone and not preventing harm is VERY important, Singer doesn't.
Post a Comment