4 ms·

>Someone must have had problems understanding Capitalism, it seems An obtuse comment considering he's a leading scientist. To call capitalism an 'economy of g

>Someone must have had problems understanding Capitalism, it seems An obtuse comment considering he's a leading scientist. To call capitalism an 'economy of greed' isn't without merit. After all raw capitalism is about survival of the fittest where only the strong survive and the weak perish, if it were not for the philanthropy of others. I think the great thing about reading Adam Smith is how seriously misunderstood his works are. For example, people cite Adam Smith as one who believed in no social safety net, taxes and zero regulation. This is simply not true and if you think it is you should go back and read the book that you clearly have not read.

ekianjo 14y ago
Adam Smith is not the only person to read to understand Capitalism. No need to be pretentious. > An obtuse comment considering he's a leading scientist. So what? Since when being recognized in one field makes you competent in another? A widespread fallacy.
- hackerboos 14y ago
  You were being obtuse because since his opinion differs from yours he must have had problems 'understanding' capitalism.
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    Yeah, because Capitalism is a system that has put millions/billions of people out of misery and starvation throughout the world (and you can see that, proven again when Communist China started to inject some capitalism in its economy in the 1990s), and summarizing is as simply "greed" just does not do much justice to it.
    - hackerboos 14y ago
      If only it was as simple as that.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - unalone 14y ago
      > because Capitalism is a system that has put millions/billions of people out of misery and starvation throughout the world And meanwhile, it has systematized the misery and starvation of millions and billions of people itself, while – cruelly – being so opportunistic, so seemingly advantageous to the resourceful individual, that it teaches us to despise those who suffer, to see them as somehow beneath us. The contempt that was once the property of those few at the very, very top has become democratized, so that we may all join in in feeling it. I'm not purely anti-capitalist, but your dismissal of the possibility that capitalism could have possibly done anything as horribly wrong to the world as its critics claim is pretty one-dimensional itself. There's a good argument to be made that capitalism hand-in-hand with the mass-production mindset of the Industrial Revolution led to a society in which the value of individuals is reduced rather than enhanced, and that this is one of the central crises of the 20th and early 21st centuries. Your abrupt dismissal of that possibility doesn't make it go away; it just makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about.
      - ekianjo 14y ago
        > Your abrupt dismissal of that possibility doesn't make it go away; it just makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about. Yet you write this on a computer, a smartphone or a tablet, which has been provided to you at a very low, affordable price thanks to this capitalistic model you seem to despise. And you are the one who is accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about.
        unalone 14y ago
        Yeah, see, this is the sort of argument that even freshmen College Democrats think isn't worth arguing. Yeah, my computer's a result of that capitalistic model. That computer was made in a factory that attracted a lot of controversy for having working conditions so poor that employees literally killed themselves. That factory is the result of a line of thinking that dates back to Henry Ford, which is: let's find exactly the price that we can pay people to get them doing monotonous, soul-deadening work for eight to sixteen hours a day without them walking out. And the more these factories become the norm, the less we'll have to pay, because the fewer other places they can go. What amuses me about this is that I am not a radical critic of capitalism. As far as people who think capitalism's less than perfect goes, I am so far along being okay with capitalism that my radical friends make fun of me for it. Your treating me like I'm some idiot who doesn't know the first thing about history suggests you haven't had many conversations about this, because trust me, nothing I'm saying is controversial in the least. The way I see it, capitalism is a very sensible model for creating new things, for innovating, for encouraging systematic change in the directions of optimization and consumer satisfaction. But this model is only as effective, basically, as the freedoms which you're given within it – same as any system, right? In capitalism, the biggest threat is basically that those with the means of production and wealth hold all the reins, and they can inflict horrible suffering upon lots of people without punishment. I'm not just talking about paying people cruel wages to work at factories – I'm talking TV networks producing terrible bottom-of-the-rung shows, and opposing competition from cable networks who'd like to offer quality programming. Or a music industry that is so determined to squeeze as much money as possible out of super-celebrity bands that it's hurt the ability of smaller, local bands to support themselves. The scale at which mass production operates is literally inhuman: that is, it is so large that we are mentally incapable of processing it without a whole lot of effort. And because of that, it's led to a lot of nastiness that's hurt a bunch of people, not even because the people inflicting the pain are evil, but because they can't comprehend the extent of their actions. And, of course, they have incentives to look only at the good their actions create, and not at all at the bad – much like you with your silly "YOU USE COMPUTERS TOO" argument. Now, the reason I'm not a radical anarchist like some of my friends is that I feel people attempting to revise capitalism can still achieve something from within the system. I also think that capitalism is better enough than the old alternatives that its shittiness can be, not forgiven, but understood within the greater historical context. My radical friends would disagree with this: they'd argue that enough freedom was lost in the 20th century that we're worse off now than ever before. I suspect they're wrong. They'd also argue that capitalism cannot be fixed without outright revolution – I disagree with that too. But I think it's pretty obvious that "capitalism unto itself" is an outdated economic model with some blatant flaws, and that we'll see the world slowly adopting more humane systems. And again, this is not a controversial thought except among those who've rationalized the deaths and sufferings of all the people who go into making this comfortable system for we lucky few. I'm conflicted about how stuck I am with the system that currently exists, about how little alternative I have. I hope that tech manufacturers figure out a way to offer me good products with much less human suffering behind their manufacturing; I'd pay a premium for that, in fact. And capitalism allows for that too, so I can criticize the state of our capitalist world today without rejecting capitalism outright and going to live in the woods. I like civilization. I just happen to think that capitalism is not quite so civilized as you'd like to believe it is for convenience's sake.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - cryptoz 14y ago
      Capitalism has also annihilated entire species from the face of the Earth and is a leading, driving force in causing global climate change. Summarizing it as having put billions of people out of misery is not doing it justice.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        Capitalism is a symptom, not a root cause as you are suggesting. Communism has (and has had) a similar record of environmental and climatic effects. To me, the root cause is ... us. As Pogo (Walt Kelly) famously said, "We have met the enemy... and he is us": http://www.igopogo.com/we_have_met.htm http://www.igopogo.com/we_have_met.htm
      - ekianjo 14y ago
        You probably prefer other systems who focuses on the annihilation of the human race above all ? If you were born in a "capitalist" country you are probably owing to that system the right to be alive nowadays, well fed and educated. Look at how people fare in countries where there is no entrepreneurship, no free markets and no way to invest the fruits of your labor. You ought to travel a little more.
        cryptoz 14y ago
        I've spent as much time travelling in Eastern Europe as my bank account can afford. It's insulting and rude to suggest I don't have world knowledge merely because I can see pitfalls of capitalism.
    - rmk2 14y ago
      > Yeah, because Capitalism is a system that has put millions/billions of people out of misery and starvation throughout the world So has Stalin!!![1] I am not sure you are aware of the precious, precious ambiguity in your use of the idiom "putting someone out of their misery"... http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/put+out+of+misery http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/put+out+of+misery [1]: Tell me, is what I wrote positive or negative? Either way, I'm sure Capitalism did!
jacques_chester 14y ago
Adam Smith said a lot of things -- he was a philosopher of morals before he wrote about what we today call economics. While he recommended the necessity of basic state institutions, I think would be a reach to say that he would justify the whole of the modern state, as some people nowadays try to imply. He'd probably be considered thoroughly minimalist by today's standards. Smith's most important contribution was popularising the observation that greed can lead to positive outcomes, so long as it is hedged with some carefully chosen rules. It's inevitable, so there's no much point getting upset about it. Why not turn it to largely positive ends? He wasn't first. Bernard de Mandeville was well ahead of him with The Fable of the Bees. I found Hayek enlightening to read: http://chester.id.au/2012/12/07/review-the-essence-of-hayek-1/ http://chester.id.au/2012/12/07/review-the-essence-of-hayek-...

ekianjo 14y ago

Adam Smith is not the only person to read to understand Capitalism. No need to be pretentious. > An obtuse comment considering he's a leading scientist. So what? Since when being recognized in one field makes you competent in another? A widespread fallacy.

hackerboos 14y ago
You were being obtuse because since his opinion differs from yours he must have had problems 'understanding' capitalism.
- ekianjo 14y ago
  Yeah, because Capitalism is a system that has put millions/billions of people out of misery and starvation throughout the world (and you can see that, proven again when Communist China started to inject some capitalism in its economy in the 1990s), and summarizing is as simply "greed" just does not do much justice to it.
  - hackerboos 14y ago
    If only it was as simple as that.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - unalone 14y ago
    > because Capitalism is a system that has put millions/billions of people out of misery and starvation throughout the world And meanwhile, it has systematized the misery and starvation of millions and billions of people itself, while – cruelly – being so opportunistic, so seemingly advantageous to the resourceful individual, that it teaches us to despise those who suffer, to see them as somehow beneath us. The contempt that was once the property of those few at the very, very top has become democratized, so that we may all join in in feeling it. I'm not purely anti-capitalist, but your dismissal of the possibility that capitalism could have possibly done anything as horribly wrong to the world as its critics claim is pretty one-dimensional itself. There's a good argument to be made that capitalism hand-in-hand with the mass-production mindset of the Industrial Revolution led to a society in which the value of individuals is reduced rather than enhanced, and that this is one of the central crises of the 20th and early 21st centuries. Your abrupt dismissal of that possibility doesn't make it go away; it just makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about.
    - ekianjo 14y ago
      > Your abrupt dismissal of that possibility doesn't make it go away; it just makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about. Yet you write this on a computer, a smartphone or a tablet, which has been provided to you at a very low, affordable price thanks to this capitalistic model you seem to despise. And you are the one who is accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about.
      - unalone 14y ago
        Yeah, see, this is the sort of argument that even freshmen College Democrats think isn't worth arguing. Yeah, my computer's a result of that capitalistic model. That computer was made in a factory that attracted a lot of controversy for having working conditions so poor that employees literally killed themselves. That factory is the result of a line of thinking that dates back to Henry Ford, which is: let's find exactly the price that we can pay people to get them doing monotonous, soul-deadening work for eight to sixteen hours a day without them walking out. And the more these factories become the norm, the less we'll have to pay, because the fewer other places they can go. What amuses me about this is that I am not a radical critic of capitalism. As far as people who think capitalism's less than perfect goes, I am so far along being okay with capitalism that my radical friends make fun of me for it. Your treating me like I'm some idiot who doesn't know the first thing about history suggests you haven't had many conversations about this, because trust me, nothing I'm saying is controversial in the least. The way I see it, capitalism is a very sensible model for creating new things, for innovating, for encouraging systematic change in the directions of optimization and consumer satisfaction. But this model is only as effective, basically, as the freedoms which you're given within it – same as any system, right? In capitalism, the biggest threat is basically that those with the means of production and wealth hold all the reins, and they can inflict horrible suffering upon lots of people without punishment. I'm not just talking about paying people cruel wages to work at factories – I'm talking TV networks producing terrible bottom-of-the-rung shows, and opposing competition from cable networks who'd like to offer quality programming. Or a music industry that is so determined to squeeze as much money as possible out of super-celebrity bands that it's hurt the ability of smaller, local bands to support themselves. The scale at which mass production operates is literally inhuman: that is, it is so large that we are mentally incapable of processing it without a whole lot of effort. And because of that, it's led to a lot of nastiness that's hurt a bunch of people, not even because the people inflicting the pain are evil, but because they can't comprehend the extent of their actions. And, of course, they have incentives to look only at the good their actions create, and not at all at the bad – much like you with your silly "YOU USE COMPUTERS TOO" argument. Now, the reason I'm not a radical anarchist like some of my friends is that I feel people attempting to revise capitalism can still achieve something from within the system. I also think that capitalism is better enough than the old alternatives that its shittiness can be, not forgiven, but understood within the greater historical context. My radical friends would disagree with this: they'd argue that enough freedom was lost in the 20th century that we're worse off now than ever before. I suspect they're wrong. They'd also argue that capitalism cannot be fixed without outright revolution – I disagree with that too. But I think it's pretty obvious that "capitalism unto itself" is an outdated economic model with some blatant flaws, and that we'll see the world slowly adopting more humane systems. And again, this is not a controversial thought except among those who've rationalized the deaths and sufferings of all the people who go into making this comfortable system for we lucky few. I'm conflicted about how stuck I am with the system that currently exists, about how little alternative I have. I hope that tech manufacturers figure out a way to offer me good products with much less human suffering behind their manufacturing; I'd pay a premium for that, in fact. And capitalism allows for that too, so I can criticize the state of our capitalist world today without rejecting capitalism outright and going to live in the woods. I like civilization. I just happen to think that capitalism is not quite so civilized as you'd like to believe it is for convenience's sake.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - cryptoz 14y ago
    Capitalism has also annihilated entire species from the face of the Earth and is a leading, driving force in causing global climate change. Summarizing it as having put billions of people out of misery is not doing it justice.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      Capitalism is a symptom, not a root cause as you are suggesting. Communism has (and has had) a similar record of environmental and climatic effects. To me, the root cause is ... us. As Pogo (Walt Kelly) famously said, "We have met the enemy... and he is us": http://www.igopogo.com/we_have_met.htm http://www.igopogo.com/we_have_met.htm
    - ekianjo 14y ago
      You probably prefer other systems who focuses on the annihilation of the human race above all ? If you were born in a "capitalist" country you are probably owing to that system the right to be alive nowadays, well fed and educated. Look at how people fare in countries where there is no entrepreneurship, no free markets and no way to invest the fruits of your labor. You ought to travel a little more.
      - cryptoz 14y ago
        I've spent as much time travelling in Eastern Europe as my bank account can afford. It's insulting and rude to suggest I don't have world knowledge merely because I can see pitfalls of capitalism.
  - rmk2 14y ago
    > Yeah, because Capitalism is a system that has put millions/billions of people out of misery and starvation throughout the world So has Stalin!!![1] I am not sure you are aware of the precious, precious ambiguity in your use of the idiom "putting someone out of their misery"... http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/put+out+of+misery http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/put+out+of+misery [1]: Tell me, is what I wrote positive or negative? Either way, I'm sure Capitalism did!

jacques_chester 14y ago

Adam Smith said a lot of things -- he was a philosopher of morals before he wrote about what we today call economics. While he recommended the necessity of basic state institutions, I think would be a reach to say that he would justify the whole of the modern state, as some people nowadays try to imply. He'd probably be considered thoroughly minimalist by today's standards. Smith's most important contribution was popularising the observation that greed can lead to positive outcomes, so long as it is hedged with some carefully chosen rules. It's inevitable, so there's no much point getting upset about it. Why not turn it to largely positive ends? He wasn't first. Bernard de Mandeville was well ahead of him with The Fable of the Bees. I found Hayek enlightening to read: http://chester.id.au/2012/12/07/review-the-essence-of-hayek-1/ http://chester.id.au/2012/12/07/review-the-essence-of-hayek-...