Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (5504)	2/12/2001 9:02:21 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Respond to of 82486

Feudalism was in some ways preferable to the forms of exploitation seen under sweat-shop style unbridled capitalism... it at least had obligations and customs going both ways. That is true. Under feudalism the serf only forked over one third of his crops to the local liege lord. In return he received protection. Compare that with today, we give up one half of what we produce and receive very little protection.

To: thames_sider who wrote (5504)	2/12/2001 9:13:21 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Pure capitalism deals with efficiency, the assignment of resources, pricing mechanisms... it has no viewpoint on whether it is 'right' or 'wrong'. If capitalism works best as an economic system, why not assign the values of right and wrong based upon their compatibility with capitalism, at least as a point of departure? To the extent that the social fallout troubles us, we can then back off from capitalism until we hit a reasonable equilibrium between the capitalistic model of right and wrong and whatever other models we might have. Seems to me easier to adjust our rights and wrongs to accommodate our economic system than to invent a workable economic system based on right and wrong. Karen

To: thames_sider who wrote (5504)	2/12/2001 12:43:25 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Humanity is not about efficiency. Certainly efficiency is good when it brings about the things we want, but most of us wouldn't embrace the efficiency of the death camps. Even if we recognize that there are class problems most of us wouldn't embrace the expediency of eliminating the class that offends us. The only time efficiency and expediency would be in line with my goals would be when they simultaneously embrace compassion. Without compassion, we might as well model our society and our lives on the behavior of the marine life forms where the great eat the small.

To: thames_sider who wrote (5504)	2/12/2001 4:01:35 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

But IMO capitalism, unlike communism in particular, is not based on a 'moral' case. Pure capitalism deals with efficiency, the assignment of resources, pricing mechanisms... it has no viewpoint on whether it is 'right' or 'wrong'. That's probably why its variants are now so widespread, because it can be workable under most political systems to some degree. I believe it is based at least partially on the moral case for freedom. Free markets are part of the more general idea of freedom. As for capitalism not being based on producing a moral result perhaps you are right but then the greater wealth created by a free market can be voluntarily shared. The person who benefits from capitalism is a moral agent capable of good or evil, capitalism itself is not. Tim