38 ms·

> The point behind capitalism is the assumption that people are motivated by money but that the profit motive can be channeled toward ultimately being good for

> The point behind capitalism is the assumption that people are motivated by money but that the profit motive can be channeled toward ultimately being good for the public. Uh... who makes this assumption? As far as I know, no economist has ever assumed capitalism was for the "commmon good". The problem with even mentioning the "common good" is that it's subjective. It's sounds great in theory, but exactly who decides what's "good" for everyone else? imho, Laissez-Faire is like Democracy, except people vote with dollars. So the whole "adults will be adults" idea is actually more accurate.

gpcz 13y ago
Milton Friedman asserts in Capitalism and Freedom that capitalism results in increased product made possible by division of labor and specialization of function, and then goes on to say that freedom itself relies on capitalist society. There's also Ayn Rand's money speech, where Francisco d'Anconia says, "And when men live by trade -- with reason, not force, as their final arbiter–it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability–and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?" When I said "good," I meant in terms of freedom, quality of products, and diversity of products. I know those are vague terms as well, but I don't think there's much benefit to going any further into it than that.
- Double_Cast 13y ago
  But when you say "freedom", I guess that doesn't include "the freedom to buy and sell meth"? To clarify my position: * I agree that specialization increases productivity. * I agree increased productivity is good. * I agree meth is bad. * I agree people have moral obligations to society. * I agree ethics should influence macroeconomic policy. * I don't see how Capitalism (an economic system) imposes (in top-down fashion) a moral obligation on what a company can and can't sell. My issue is one of scope resolution. I think you're confusing "good" with "demand". Per pg, Capitalism tries to supply people with what they want. But what people want isn't always the best for them. E.g. I ate a doughnut the other day. Given I could have eaten a healthier yet equally tasty apple, eating the doughnut probably wasn't the best possible decision. But I wanted it, so I ate it. When I ate that doughnut, not once did I think "Capitalism. Therefore, I shouldn't eat it." Nor do I imagine that Dunking Donuts ever thought "Capitalism. Therefore, I shouldn't sell it." A subsequent comment of yours suggests you didn't intend to imply an intrinsic between capitalism and the common good. But the way you originally framed your sentence strongly suggests otherwise.

gpcz 13y ago

Milton Friedman asserts in Capitalism and Freedom that capitalism results in increased product made possible by division of labor and specialization of function, and then goes on to say that freedom itself relies on capitalist society. There's also Ayn Rand's money speech, where Francisco d'Anconia says, "And when men live by trade -- with reason, not force, as their final arbiter–it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability–and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?" When I said "good," I meant in terms of freedom, quality of products, and diversity of products. I know those are vague terms as well, but I don't think there's much benefit to going any further into it than that.

Double_Cast 13y ago
But when you say "freedom", I guess that doesn't include "the freedom to buy and sell meth"? To clarify my position: * I agree that specialization increases productivity. * I agree increased productivity is good. * I agree meth is bad. * I agree people have moral obligations to society. * I agree ethics should influence macroeconomic policy. * I don't see how Capitalism (an economic system) imposes (in top-down fashion) a moral obligation on what a company can and can't sell. My issue is one of scope resolution. I think you're confusing "good" with "demand". Per pg, Capitalism tries to supply people with what they want. But what people want isn't always the best for them. E.g. I ate a doughnut the other day. Given I could have eaten a healthier yet equally tasty apple, eating the doughnut probably wasn't the best possible decision. But I wanted it, so I ate it. When I ate that doughnut, not once did I think "Capitalism. Therefore, I shouldn't eat it." Nor do I imagine that Dunking Donuts ever thought "Capitalism. Therefore, I shouldn't sell it." A subsequent comment of yours suggests you didn't intend to imply an intrinsic between capitalism and the common good. But the way you originally framed your sentence strongly suggests otherwise.