Capitalist ethos

[Delbert]

 

...I would prefer that such objectives be aligned with our values of defending freedom of speech, separation of church and state, due process under the law, rights of minorities, etc, rather than the economic agenda of stockbrokers at the New York Stock Exchange.

Okay, accepting what you say how would you prevent stockbrokers doing what they do? I recall someone saying it all stated in a coffee shop, bartering and exchanging holdings. You know, buying and selling like perhaps we all do in a free society.

 

Stopping individuals from trading, or in this case trading in certain commodities, is contrary to a free society.

[john5746]

Stopping individuals from trading, or in this case trading in certain commodities, is contrary to a free society.

Having a trading system that favors the wealthy is contrary to a free and just society.

 

edit: I'll take that further

 

Having a trading system that doesn't attempt to compensate for the advantages that the wealthy have is contrary to a free and just society.

Edited November 14, 2013 by john5746

[Bill Angel]

Okay, accepting what you say how would you prevent stockbrokers doing what they do? I recall someone saying it all stated in a coffee shop, bartering and exchanging holdings. You know, buying and selling like perhaps we all do in a free society.

 

Stopping individuals from trading, or in this case trading in certain commodities, is contrary to a free society.

 

It's not that I'd like to prevent stockbrokers from trading the equities based on what they perceive their valuation to be, but I confess to registering a reaction of shock and disbelief at a story in this morning's paper:

 

Snapchat turns down $3 billion Facebook offer in the hope it will receive a higher bid

 

Snapchat, a next generation messaging service, is two years old and was started by 23-year-old Evan Spiegel and Bobby Murphy

The California-based company has no sales or business model but its app delivers around 350 million temporary messages a day

Snapchat has previously turned down another offer from Facebook, which is keen to entice young teenagers to its network

Read more: here

 

Valuing a company that has no sales or business model at 3 billion dollars is crap, and asking the military to risk their lives to prop up such state of affairs is also crap.

I'd like to see the stock market crash, if for no other reason to deflate such speculative bubbles that are being passed off as investment decisions.

[overtone]

The taking of land by force was not invented by capitalists, and every economic system we create anywhere on this planet is going to be based somehow on the land distribution patterns established by force in the recent past and maintained by force to this day.

 

So the origins of much modern capitalist enterprise in piracy, theft, etc, do not condemn the economic structure itself. Market exchange, where it can be reasonably arranged, has much to recommend it.

 

What they do help us avoid is a curious tendency to replace the divine right of kings with some kind of inherent right of capital - some presumption that large piles of money are inherently justified in their origin and influence, indicate by their mere existence their origins in a free market exchange and their embodiment of all the virtues and beneficial consequences accruing to such.

[Delbert]

Having a trading system that favors the wealthy is contrary to a free and just society.

 

edit: I'll take that further

 

Having a trading system that doesn't attempt to compensate for the advantages that the wealthy have is contrary to a free and just society.

Favours the wealthy? So, presumably there'd have to be some sort of red line defining what you refer or define to be wealthy - perhaps like: I say you over there, you can't trade because we've decided you've got too much. Doesn't sound anything like a free society to me, more like an oppressive authoritarian one.

 

I'm sorry, but what you describe is nothing more than what it appears we all experience every day - it's just the ups and downs of a free society. I for one find countless things to be unfair, but to someone else they're viewed as right and just. And like free speech, I'd defend it with my life. Unfairness is a viewpoint depending where you are and what you're doing, and things do push, pull and seesaw, but so long as we have the democratic system imposing checks and balances calling the elected to account, perceived excesses will be countered.

 

Perhaps an example of unfairness: yesterday I noticed a long queue outside a shop, apparently it's the first day and the shop is offering heavy introductory discounts - the queue must have been about an eighth of a mile long! Now that clearly favours only those who are able to spend time queuing, but disfavours those working hard at work and unable to queue - how unfair is that? Now that might be a minor example, but if you look around I suggest there are countless others. You might not like stockbrokers (I'm not too keen on them either), but they are no worse than countless other things and all part of a free society.

 

Valuing a company that has no sales or business model at 3 billion dollars is crap, and asking the military to risk their lives to prop up such state of affairs is also crap.

I'd like to see the stock market crash, if for no other reason to deflate such speculative bubbles that are being passed off as investment decisions.

More fool those parting with money to buy the stock, I say. I believe someone paid £90,000,000 the other day for a triptych! Frankly, it appeared to me the painter must have been blindfolded when painting the thing! But nonetheless, someone bought it of their own free will - although they didn't want to be identified!

[john5746]

Favours the wealthy? So, presumably there'd have to be some sort of red line defining what you refer or define to be wealthy - perhaps like: I say you over there, you can't trade because we've decided you've got too much. Doesn't sound anything like a free society to me, more like an oppressive authoritarian one.

 

How about no capital gains tax on certain level of profits/income and then more progressive as profits increase? There is this thing called math that can help. You don't just have to waive your hands and say its too complicated.

 

How about funds that have first dibs for buying into IPOs for small investors?

 

Why do you think other countries seem to have less inequality than the US? Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. Are they less free? Are they just better? Are they fools?

 

I invite you to watch the following video

 

He talks about how our irrational behaviour leads to greater immorality and how wall street is a great breeding ground. The environment matters. It isn't just a few bad apples. We can improve. It isn't either every man for himself or no freedom.

[ralfy]

The glut of energy used by people in the US is IMO unethical. While you may have inferred otherwise, I have not implied otherwise. Moreover, using energy indiscriminately is unnecessary to maintain a high standard of living, and the fact that corporations are implementing energy saving measures demonstrates that fact. It is my contention that people walking more and driving less would be better for everyone both ecologically and healthfully. The design of cities to promote driving is absurd. The capitalistic ethos has created a bizarre culture and is overall a disaster; although, there are some benefits.

 

I can accept that capitalism has been necessary in the evolution of human culture, but do not accept that it is the best we can possibly achieve.

A "high standard of living" requires high energy returns. Also, a global capitalist system "energy saving measures" do not lead to more energy or resources used as they are used elsewhere for more profits.

 

These points were explained in the thread about peak oil.

No, you're missing the point. My initial comment was in reply to your apparent conclusion that land (or whatever) was initially obtained by force, with the inference that in some way it is the underlying foundation with what you seem to conclude is a problem today. I'm agreeing that it did it happen long ago, but arguing it is just as prevalent today. We may not like that thought, but I suggest if we examine events, if not the things we all do to some degree, it's there.

No, that's not what happened. Rather, you acknowledged the presence of violence and then tried to explain it away as part of "human nature." After that, you argued that it had nothing to do with problems today, which negates your claim about violence being "natural." Finally, you started looking at my motives, which not only has nothing to do with the topic but negates your first two points.

 

In fact, the same errors can even be seen in your paragraph above. See for yourself: in your first sentence, you imply that force used in the past is not "a problem today." And yet you argue the opposite in your next sentence: "it is just as prevalent today." In fact, you even validate your second point by stating that "it's there."

 

You need to make up your mind on this before we continue the discussion. And I suggest that you don't bring in anything about motives or whether or not anyone who raises these points should "surrender" what they own, etc.

 

Another coincidence, because to me your view is naï[/size]ve.

My view is naive and yet you acknowledge it!

 

 

Naï[/size]ve because you appear to have some sort of idea that there's a system out there that's all peace and love. I'd be interested to know what it is?

No, I didn't say that. Why are you trying to change the subject?

 

Presumably some sort of system whereby everything considered of value is shared out equally to all. How that would prevent friction, discord and eventual conflict, not to mention getting anything done, I've really no idea. Presumably you'd have a police force to enforce order - oh dear a system supported by force!! And furthermore, who does the sharing - now that's unfair straightaway because someone or a group have power over others. Not to mention the loss of aspiration, desire, progress or even the need to simply do sod all! After all, why should anyone make or do anymore than they really have to, because they aren't going to get anything more than their allotted share if they did? So, one individual doesn't perform quite as much as he is supposed to, his neighbour then sees that in comparison he's now doing more, so he then reduces his output - ditto until collapse. Now that's summing it up too simplistically I know. But in a nutshell that's the philosophy. I think there is a place where they tried a system something like that after the second world war, and in the fullness of time it fell apart in disorder and destitution - if not disorder, destitution and poverty long before it collapsed. Not to mention maintained by oppressive heavy state control.

No, there is no such thing.

 

And "oppressive heavy state control" will not help as that's based on state capitalism.

[EdEarl]

A "high standard of living" requires high energy returns. Also, a global capitalist system "energy saving measures" do not lead to more energy or resources used as they are used elsewhere for more profits.

Your statement only tells that your definition of high standard of living and mine are different. Once a person has food, clothing, shelter, and health care, money is of little consequence IMO. And, using outrageous amounts of energy is unnecessary, and IMO unethical. Wearing a 100 caret diamond or 10 pounds of gold will make you fearful and possibly paranoid. Living alone in a 100,000 sq ft fortress is not a high standard of living. A luxury life style is not really good for your health. What you say you want is IMO the antithesis of living a good life.

 

 

Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.[my emphasis]

Robert F. Kennedy Address, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, March 18, 1968

Edited November 17, 2013 by EdEarl

[Amanbir Singh Grewal]

they failed because they tried to jeopardize my studies. england gambles.

 

and what do you mean when you say 'they failed us'? tridimity. they don't represent you. who are you

[DevilSolution]

they failed because they tried to jeopardize my studies. england gambles.

 

and what do you mean when you say 'they failed us'? tridimity. they don't represent you. who are you

 

Are you gambling on them or are they gambling on you?

[EdEarl]

 

Fortunately, sun and wind provide sufficient energy, the ocean is not claimed by anyone, and the ocean and the ocean floor have sufficient resources, regardless of how much land is owned by capitalists. People can live on floating farms near the equator, where there are no violent storms. The potential for livable surface is vast.

They don't due to lower energy returns. This was explained to you in another thread about peak oil.

 

I also found the following information about energy returns that contradicts your contention that EROI for oil is far better than renewable energy sources.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/its-not-just-alternative-energy-versus-fossil-fuels-or-nuclear-energy-has-to-become-decentralized.html

 

So what does this mean? Comparing Professor Hall’s two graphs, we can see that virtually all forms of alternative energy – wind, geothermal, photovoltaic, and hydro – have greater or equal EROI than fossil fuels and nuclear. Passive solar might be lower, unless it is incorporated into original building construction.

If the payback period is five years and the house lasts for 50 then the EROI [for solar thermal heating] would be, apparently, 10:1.

[Delbert]

 

How about no capital gains tax on certain level of profits/income and then more progressive as profits increase? There is this thing called math that can help. You don't just have to waive your hands and say its too complicated.

I thought you referred to wealthy or wealth? As for tax on profits, I think we already have such. And as for a punitive tax (which is what you appear to be saying), I think there is one European country trying just that. And if what I read is correct, such a system is not only becoming very unpopular but the financial model is all falling to bits.

 

And what did I read the other day? A south American country that's been following a policy which I think you're advocating has now got to the stage of government encouraged looting!!! Looting apparently on the basis that if there's something in a shop window that you haven't got, then just take it!!! Presumably, the next step when that policy is exhausted and there's nothing left in the shops, is government encouraged burglary. Perhaps like looting, government policy will be: if someone has something that you haven't got, just burgle their house! Apparently all justified on the principle of equality!

 

 

Why do you think other countries seem to have less inequality than the US? Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. Are they less free? Are they just better? Are they fools?

Inequality in the US is an opinion. I don't live in the US, so I wouldn't know. And I thought Japan is and has been in recession for about ten years!

[overtone]

 

 

Inequality in the US is an opinion.

No, it's a measured economic statistic.

 

And I thought Japan is and has been in recession for about ten years!

No, they've been stagnating - their economy is growing, but too slowly. Their initial difficulty was a banking crisis built around unethical financial manipulations and a real estate bubble (their banks were never regulated as the US learned to do in 1929, and forgot in 1999).

 

 

 

And what did I read the other day? A south American country that's been following a policy which I think you're advocating has now got to the stage of government encouraged looting!!!

You need to find some more ethical source of news - capitalism may have no ethics a human being would recognize as such, but journalism does.

[ralfy]

Your statement only tells that your definition of high standard of living and mine are different. Once a person has food, clothing, shelter, and health care, money is of little consequence IMO. And, using outrageous amounts of energy is unnecessary, and IMO unethical. Wearing a 100 caret diamond or 10 pounds of gold will make you fearful and possibly paranoid. Living alone in a 100,000 sq ft fortress is not a high standard of living. A luxury life style is not really good for your health. What you say you want is IMO the antithesis of living a good life.

As explained to you in the other thread, the type of lifestyle that you envision, i.e., that of Costa Rica, requires an ecological footprint above bio-capacity. And that's assuming that the global population will not increase further and that no more environmental damage will take place.

 

The type of lifestyle that will fit the current global biocapacity is that of Cuba, but that again assumes that the current global population will not increase further and that no environmental damage or resource shortage will take place.

 

So, you see, I did not give a "definition of high standard of living." Rather, I used what you proposed.

 

Finally, what is most ironic about your example is that given its own biocapacity, Costa Rica is already at overshoot. That is, it will require resource inputs from other countries to maintain its current lifestyle.

I also found the following information about energy returns that contradicts your contention that EROI for oil is far better than renewable energy sources.

You missed his point. What Charles Hall said is that we need a certain level of EROEI to maintain a particular lifestyle. You will find more details in the SciAm article linked in the other thread.

 

The catch is that oil used to have a far better energy return than renewable energy, but now it is almost as low as that of the latter.

 

Do you understand the argument? We need high energy returns to maintain the current middle class lifestyle and, ironically, the same "capitalist ethos" discussed in this thread. The six decades of economic progress, not to mention meeting the needs of a growing global middle class, required "cheap" oil or oil with high energy returns, something that met an energy increase demand of 2 pct per annum the last three decades, or the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years. If you want more details, then read the IEA Outlook 2010 report which was linked to earlier in the other thread.

 

Remember, a "capitalist ethos" requires ever-increasing energy and resource use to maintain continuous economic growth. That can't happen if the energy returns for oil are now almost as low as that of renewable energy. What makes matters worse is that even the infrastructure and resources needed to make renewable energy possible still require fossil fuels, especially as petrochemicals. And although theoretically it is possible to transition completely from fossil fuels, it will take decades plus meeting an energy trap to do so. Again, these points were explained carefully to you in the other thread.

 

Given these, the global middle class will have to lower standards significantly to that of Costa Rica, which you suggested. But as explained to you in the other thread and in my previous message, even the living standards of Costa Rica are above both global biocapacity and even the biocapacity of Costa Rica itself.

 

The implication is that given that plus increasing population plus the effects of environmental damage and global warming, then the ave. ecological footprint will have to drop even further, even lower than that of Cuba.

 

Finally, will the capitalist elite, which controls much of the global economy and much of whose wealth consists of numbers in bank hard drives, allow for that? How about military forces that require increasing use of resources to maintain operations? Most of the human population that can barely meet even the living standards of Costa Rica?

[EdEarl]

As I said previously:

At some point, the Earth will complain enough to get everyone's attention.

 

And, the Earth will force us to live within its ability to provide essential resources. What that means is not clear, but it will be different than the way people in the US live today. Nor will people live as they once did, because technology has changed our way of life and will continue to change it further, including 3D printing and robotics. These technologies also promise to change the need for some kinds of factories and in some industries may reduce the economic benefits of huge corporations. If personal tools are capable making anything a person needs, then industry as we know it will be obsolete, along with the capitalist ethos. Though, all we know is that things will change.

[Delbert]

You need to find some more ethical source of news - capitalism may have no ethics a human being would recognize as such, but journalism does.

Semantics. One persons ethics is another's evil morals.

 

As I think I mentioned previously, what you seem to call nasty capitalism is something we possibly all do everyday. For example, I presume from what you're saying you wouldn't cover up the cracks, the damp patch, woodworm, faulty plumbing, the leaking cracked sewer, termites in the woodwork, won't mention the noisy and rowdy neighbours and all the other possible defects when selling your house? And not forgetting seeking out and bargaining for the best item at the lowest possible price during normal everyday activity. I'm sure you don't do any of those.

My view is naive and yet you acknowledge it!

 

So we're in agreement, your view is naïve.

[overtone]

 

You need to find some more ethical source of news - capitalism may have no ethics a human being would recognize as such, but journalism does.

Semantics. One persons ethics is another's evil morals.

"Semantics" is also known as "what words mean". You do intend to communicate via language, don't you?

 

Ethics are not morals, evil or otherwise.

 

 

 

As I think I mentioned previously, what you seem to call nasty capitalism is something we possibly all do everyday.

I don't seem to call anything "nasty" capitalism. In fact, I specifically pointed out that "capitalism" in itself is not an ethical or moral entity at all - however it's set up in a particular polity, it's a legal structure. It cannot change itself, or choose to be set up differently, or operate other than as set up.

 

And I don't see the point of excusing the disasters of unregulated capitalistic enterprise on the grounds that people do bad things to each other in their private lives. There's all kinds of things I do and allow done by my neighbors that Wal Mart and Exxon should never be allowed to even threaten. They aren't people, and they are too big to safely accommodate as people.

[ralfy]

As I said previously:

 

And, the Earth will force us to live within its ability to provide essential resources. What that means is not clear, but it will be different than the way people in the US live today. Nor will people live as they once did, because technology has changed our way of life and will continue to change it further, including 3D printing and robotics. These technologies also promise to change the need for some kinds of factories and in some industries may reduce the economic benefits of huge corporations. If personal tools are capable making anything a person needs, then industry as we know it will be obsolete, along with the capitalist ethos. Though, all we know is that things will change.

In reality, the ave. ecological footprint has been beyond biocapacity for some time. See the links about ecological footprint shared in the other thread for details.

 

Also, in a "capitalist ethos," technologies do not only make previous ones obsolete they lead to a ramp up of resource use. This was also explained in previous messages and in the other thread.

So we're in agreement, your view is naï[/size]ve.

No, we're not in agreement. Rather, you're not in agreement with your own views. You argue that what I say is naive and yet you support it. That's it.

[Delbert]

.

And I don't see the point of excusing the disasters of unregulated capitalistic enterprise on the grounds that people do bad things to each other in their private lives.

I'm sorry, but I think you will find it's exactly the same. Some do these things within what you call capitalism, and others may do it in their daily activities. Naturally, we view what we do as individuals as perfectly right and proper. But that's what humans do: what we do is considered right, but what others do is wrong even thought we're doing the same.

 

Hiding defects or imperfections in something, and or embellishing something to be what it isn't when selling it, for example, is deception - plain and simple. Nothing more than what I think you're complaining about with capitalism. Pots and kettles come to mind.

 

No, we're not in agreement. Rather, you're not in agreement with your own views. You argue that what I say is naive and yet you support it. That's it.

Again no, I think I've tried to say more than once that what you're appear to be complaining about with capitalism is nothing more than what we probably all do every day. But like the humans we are, when others do it it's wrong. It's only right when we do it. As above: pot and kettles.

[john5746]

I'm sorry, but I think you will find it's exactly the same. Some do these things within what you call capitalism, and others may do it in their daily activities. Naturally, we view what we do as individuals as perfectly right and proper. But that's what humans do: what we do is considered right, but what others do is wrong even thought we're doing the same.

This is exactly the argument for regulation and restraint. Humans are fallible, we will cheat a little if we can get awaywith it. We will cheat more if we see others getting away with it. The more abstract "money" becomes, the easier it is to horde it and feel justified. Very few would take food from poor people, but mortgage backed derivatives? This is the point of rules and punishments. Voluntary taxes won't work.

 

You obviously feel that less restrictions are better, probably oblivious to many of those restrictions that benefit you. But it is an ongoing battle, a balancing act, so there is an argument as to what and how much. But to try an make a blanket statement either way is foley, IMO.

Edited November 20, 2013 by john5746

[ralfy]

Again no, I think I've tried to say more than once that what you're appear to be complaining about with capitalism is nothing more than what we probably all do every day. But like the humans we are, when others do it it's wrong. It's only right when we do it. As above: pot and kettles.

Again, you're not challenging my arguments in any way but trying to change the topic by talking about me.

 

Given that, I see no relevance whatsoever in your posts and will be putting you in my ignore list.

[Delbert]

Again, you're not challenging my arguments in any way but trying to change the topic by talking about me.

Challenge your arguments!!! Certainly not. Who am I to do such a thing? I wouldn't be so presumptuous.

 

.

Given that, I see no relevance whatsoever in your posts and will be putting you in my ignore list.

Thanks be for that!

 

This is the point of rules and punishments. Voluntary taxes won't work.

Exactly. And who sets the rules and punishments? The government mayhap? And how does a government get into power? Is it the case that the people vote for it, mayhap?

 

Ask yourself: would people vote for a government with presumably the policies that you would like to see enacted?

 

The colour of government is what the people want, and they express their preference through the voting system. And the capitalist system you seem to identify is the result.

 

I believe there is at least one party espousing the values which I think appears to be in keeping with your ideas, and possibly ideals. So the people have the option if they so wish. If they don't, it is because they don't want it.

[Tridimity]

I believe there is at least one party espousing the values which I think appears to be in keeping with your ideas, and possibly ideals. So the people have the option if they so wish. If they don't, it is because they don't want it.

 

 

This only holds true under proportional representation (PR) systems which does not operate in either the UK or US

[overtone]

I'm sorry, but I think you will find it's exactly the same. Some do these things within what you call capitalism, and others may do it in their daily activities. Naturally, we view what we do as individuals as perfectly right and proper. But that's what humans do: what we do is considered right, but what others do is wrong even thought we're doing the same.

If you can't tell the difference between an individual human being and a collection of piles of capital, you have no future in a discussion of "ethos" of any kind.

 

Wal Mart is not a human being.

 

 

 

Ask yourself: would people vote for a government with presumably the policies that you would like to see enacted?

Hard to say. According to every reputable poll taken of US voters, they would - single payer universally available basic medical care, onerously progressive income taxation on all income alike, careful and stringent regulation of large financial operations, smaller and less obtrusive military establishments, strict curbs on governmental privacy incursions, some common sense regulation of firearm possession and use, occupational health and safety regulations and other protections of employees, serious and rigorous environmental safeguarding, prompt and well-supported large scale emergency or disaster response, and so forth and so on - there's a very, very long list of publically supported policies that have not been represented in any government that US people can vote for. Whether or not they would, if they had the chance, I don't know.

 

 

 

I believe there is at least one party espousing the values which I think appears to be in keeping with your ideas, and possibly ideals

Your belief is in error - fairly flagrant error, actually.

Edited November 21, 2013 by overtone

[Delbert]

 

This only holds true under proportional representation (PR) systems which does not operate in either the UK or US

Well, that again is up to the elected representatives. Here in the UK I seem to recall a couple of years ago we have referendum on - I think it was called - an AV system. I also seem to recall it was defeated by a substantial figure. The people expressed their view, and in simple terms, they didn't want it.

 

 

Your belief is in error - fairly flagrant error, actually.Well, obviously I don't know in absolute terms, it was just my understanding.

Well, obviously I don't know in absolute terms, it was just my assumption.