"Recovery!" WHAT Recovery??

Seems to me in some ways the 1980-81 recession was worse. Unemployment was about the same, but interest rates and inflation were much higher than in the present scenario. The doom-and-gloomers were out in full force back then too.
 
We don't have 20-25% unemployment. We don't have the government skyrocketing taxes on business and "the rich", i.e. those who provide jobs.

It's nothing like the 1930s.
 
Beerina said:
We don't have 20-25% unemployment. We don't have the government skyrocketing taxes on business and "the rich", i.e. those who provide jobs.

It's nothing like the 1930s.
Click to expand...


If the OP had done any reading on the Great Depression, he would understand that this has been nothing at all like that was. Of course, he didn't, so it's a moot point.
 
dudalb said:
I got a feeling the you grudingly accept that a profit motive is necessary for an economy to function, but really,really, deep down you think it is immoral.
Click to expand...

I think profit motive is a powerful economic incentive that, alone, carries no moral component.

In certain industries it leads to immoral results, health care for example.

We can rationally study the economy and realize that clean, drinkable water should just be accessible, regardless of ability to profit, while, say, novel writing or economically viable space flight are great activities to promote by allowing people to profit from their effort.

Somehow we've adopted the perverse Randian notion that the maximization of profit potential is, itself, moral, as the Masters of the Universe, the John Galts, will pull along all the poor saps with their superior abilities. And that amazing talent can only be realized if people can make money in excess of what they could spend in a thousand lifetimes.
 
TraneWreck said:
I think profit motive is a powerful economic incentive that, alone, carries no moral component.

In certain industries it leads to immoral results, health care for example.

We can rationally study the economy and realize that clean, drinkable water should just be accessible, regardless of ability to profit, while, say, novel writing or economically viable space flight are great activities to promote by allowing people to profit from their effort.

Somehow we've adopted the perverse Randian notion that the maximization of profit potential is, itself, moral, as the Masters of the Universe, the John Galts, will pull along all the poor saps with their superior abilities. And that amazing talent can only be realized if people can make money in excess of what they could spend in a thousand lifetimes.
Click to expand...

I would be one of the ones who argues that profit maximization is moral. To be less efficient intentionally would be immoral. To do so would be intentionally making the world less productive/solving less problems/feeding less people/creating more suffering.

What you chose to do with your increased productivity can then either be moral or immoral - for instance, deciding that you will donate no money, despite having a fortune, to charity, I would deem immoral. Most would agree with me.

But not maximizing profit, or creating a policy that inhibits growth and productivity is absolutely immoral.

I think that's an opinion, bordering on fact.
 
kevinquinnyo said:
I would be one of the ones who argues that profit maximization is moral. To be less efficient intentionally would be immoral. To do so would be intentionally making the world less productive/solving less problems/feeding less people/creating more suffering.

What you chose to do with your increased productivity can then either be moral or immoral - for instance, deciding that you will donate no money, despite having a fortune, to charity, I would deem immoral. Most would agree with me.

But not maximizing profit, or creating a policy that inhibits growth and productivity is absolutely immoral.

I think that's an opinion, bordering on fact.
Click to expand...

But there are plenty of instances, many fresh in our memory, where the urge to maximize profit ITSELF caused massive amounts of damage. The entire premise of the derivative swapping, the exotic instruments like credit default swaps, and the insane leveraging of mortgage-backed securities caused incredible damage. All of that was done to maximize profit.

BP tried to maximize profit so they spent all their effort figuring out how to extract oil from new areas without bothering to prepare for the worst.

But "productivity" isn't moral or immoral. We are productive, Stalin was insanely productive during the last years of WWII. Productivity is simply a means to an end, and we don't spend enough time evaluating that end. Kicking people off of health care plans will maximize the profitability of insurance companies, I consider that deeply immoral.
 
TraneWreck said:
But there are plenty of instances, many fresh in our memory, where the urge to maximize profit ITSELF caused massive amounts of damage. The entire premise of the derivative swapping, the exotic instruments like credit default swaps, and the insane leveraging of mortgage-backed securities caused incredible damage. All of that was done to maximize profit.

BP tried to maximize profit so they spent all their effort figuring out how to extract oil from new areas without bothering to prepare for the worst.

But "productivity" isn't moral or immoral. We are productive, Stalin was insanely productive during the last years of WWII. Productivity is simply a means to an end, and we don't spend enough time evaluating that end. Kicking people off of health care plans will maximize the profitability of insurance companies, I consider that deeply immoral.
Click to expand...

Whether or not the creation of these exotic instruments in the financial realm are a result of market failure, or something else is entirely up for debate, but what's not up for debate, IMO, is the morality of profit maximization. The result is clearly non-utilitarian. No question about that.

But you are claiming that profit maximization is the problem. I say BS.

We should always maximize profit. We should always strive to get the most out of a dollar, or a unit of energy, or a resource.

To not do so would be wasteful, and thus, IMO, immoral.

Sorry if it sounds pedantic, but you're attributing the current reccession/depression.whatever we want to call it, to profit maximization, which, is not to blame. Profit maximization should be celebrated always.
 
I don't think capitalism should be a moral issue. That turns economics into religion. Then people make simplistic emotional arguments like you can never have too much freedom or too little taxes, and that pure capitalism is ideal. I would rather economics be more like science. My belief in capitalism is based on the fact that we performed an experiment that determined that capitalism is superior to communism. I don't care about arguments from first principles. I want to see experimental results. I don't care about doctrinal purity. I want to know what works.
 
kevinquinnyo said:
Whether or not the creation of these exotic instruments in the financial realm are a result of market failure, or something else is entirely up for debate, but what's not up for debate, IMO, is the morality of profit maximization. The result is clearly non-utilitarian. No question about that.

But you are claiming that profit maximization is the problem. I say BS.

We should always maximize profit. We should always strive to get the most out of a dollar, or a unit of energy, or a resource.

To not do so would be wasteful, and thus, IMO, immoral.

Sorry if it sounds pedantic, but you're attributing the current reccession/depression.whatever we want to call it, to profit maximization, which, is not to blame. Profit maximization should be celebrated always.
Click to expand...

Does that mean a doctor should make maximum profit out of his patient rather than most efficiently cure his problem?
how does that solve problems?
 
Aepervius said:
Communism was never really attempted earnestly. All those so-called communist state were actually mostly dictatorship with a few privileged (what is the antithesis of communism ideal). Now whether true communism as decsribed can exists is another matter (I would argue that due to human nature that cannot ever exists) but you can't really tell commnism failed. it was never really started to begin with.
Click to expand...


I think it is way past time to put that tired old excuse to rest. Everywhere that Communism has been tried, it had failed, horribly. This excuse has been trotted out to dismiss previous failures, when new attempts were to be made.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. —Rita Mae Brown—​

Every time Communism has been tried, it has produced the same results. Those who believe that it is ever possible to try it, and get a different result, are insane.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I think it is way past time to put that tired old excuse to rest. Everywhere that Communism has been tried, it had failed, horribly. This excuse has been trotted out to dismiss previous failures, when new attempts were to be made.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. —Rita Mae Brown—​

Every time Communism has been tried, it has produced the same results. Those who believe that it is ever possible to try it, and get a different result, are insane.
Click to expand...

What results has capitalism produced?

A world on the brink of ecological catastrophe and economic collapse.

Shall we keep trying capitalism?
 
Wowbagger said:
From what I heard: The very concept of "true communism" was based on bad assumptions of economic sciences. It probably would not have worked, even if it was earnestly tried.

Capitalism seems to be more compatible with how human nature happened to have evolved. (Though, it was only discovered to be compatible by accident. I don't think the founding fathers knew much about the science of human evolution.)
Click to expand...
perhaps thats the point. We aren't aware we are evolving as such. Perhaps capitalism succeeded (in terms of the previaling global economic model - not in terms of it succeede in and of itself, which I guess is arguable) because it was bound to be chosen because we have evolved that way. If that makes sense.
 
And of course natural selection can be cruel.
 
Last edited:
ideogram said:
I don't think capitalism should be a moral issue. That turns economics into religion. Then people make simplistic emotional arguments like you can never have too much freedom or too little taxes, and that pure capitalism is ideal. I would rather economics be more like science. My belief in capitalism is based on the fact that we performed an experiment that determined that capitalism is superior to communism. I don't care about arguments from first principles. I want to see experimental results. I don't care about doctrinal purity. I want to know what works.
Click to expand...

Discussion of morals are still relevant for atheists and are very much in the realm of science. Take GM Foods - is it immoral not to use them to save people from starvation, not to mention the cloning issue, development of the atomic bomb etc etc.

For capitilism to work, you will always have unemployment and poverty IMO.

Albert EinsteinProduction is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
Click to expand...


Now, I accept its reasonable to argue against this postion. But to suggest capitilism has no moral question I cant agree with.
 
Last edited:
kevinquinnyo said:
Whether or not the creation of these exotic instruments in the financial realm are a result of market failure, or something else is entirely up for debate, but what's not up for debate, IMO, is the morality of profit maximization. The result is clearly non-utilitarian. No question about that.

But you are claiming that profit maximization is the problem. I say BS.

We should always maximize profit. We should always strive to get the most out of a dollar, or a unit of energy, or a resource.

To not do so would be wasteful, and thus, IMO, immoral.

Sorry if it sounds pedantic, but you're attributing the current reccession/depression.whatever we want to call it, to profit maximization, which, is not to blame. Profit maximization should be celebrated always.
Click to expand...

You didn't really answer any of the challenges presented to you, you just reiterated your initial claim.

Is it moral for an insurance company to maximize their profits by denying coverage to a paying customer because they're able to find a pre-existing condition?

Like this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/26/health/main6335430.shtml

Of course, that lazy baby hadn't paid into the system, and thus the insurance company was able to maximize that profit by refusing to cover the heart surgery.

How about the defense contractors who maximize their profits by sending cheap, substandard products to our troops overseas?

a subcontractor of Sikorsky agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle a FCA claim. Ceradyne, Inc., of Costa Mesa, CA, allegedly failed to ballistically test armor plating it installed near the pilot and copilot in Black Hawk helicopters.
Click to expand...
http://quitamteam.com/blog/military-contractor-fraud-triumvirate/

That ballistics testing is expensive. The company cannot maximize profit and test simultaneously. Thus, according to you, they chose ethically, endangering troops in order to save money.
 
ideogram said:
I don't think capitalism should be a moral issue. That turns economics into religion. Then people make simplistic emotional arguments like you can never have too much freedom or too little taxes, and that pure capitalism is ideal. I would rather economics be more like science. My belief in capitalism is based on the fact that we performed an experiment that determined that capitalism is superior to communism. I don't care about arguments from first principles. I want to see experimental results. I don't care about doctrinal purity. I want to know what works.
Click to expand...

Yes, and Europe performed an experiment that showed capitalism constrained by well-funded socialist programs is better for a nation's people.

You're childishly trying to establish the tired, trite false dichotomy of capitalism vs. communism. No one here is arguing for communism, not even close.

Understanding what capitalism does well (motivate and reward innovation) and what it does poorly (provide necessities for all people) allows one to rationally establish a system that balances profit motive with ensuring the basic needs of a country's population.

Here are two interesting experiments for you: The Great Depression and the current economic crisis. In both cases capitalism failed miserably. Without significant government interference, the system simply couldn't survive. It's incredible that only two years removed from the latest example of the failure of laissez-faire policies, a failure generated by incredible greed, we get more arguments about the "morality" of profit.
 
TraneWreck said:
Yes, and Europe performed an experiment that showed capitalism constrained by well-funded socialist programs is better for a nation's people.

You're childishly trying to establish the tired, trite false dichotomy of capitalism vs. communism. No one here is arguing for communism, not even close.

Understanding what capitalism does well (motivate and reward innovation) and what it does poorly (provide necessities for all people) allows one to rationally establish a system that balances profit motive with ensuring the basic needs of a country's population.

Here are two interesting experiments for you: The Great Depression and the current economic crisis. In both cases capitalism failed miserably. Without significant government interference, the system simply couldn't survive. It's incredible that only two years removed from the latest example of the failure of laissez-faire policies, a failure generated by incredible greed, we get more arguments about the "morality" of profit.
Click to expand...
wow, well said.
 
ideogram said:
I don't think capitalism should be a moral issue. That turns economics into religion. Then people make simplistic emotional arguments like you can never have too much freedom or too little taxes, and that pure capitalism is ideal. I would rather economics be more like science. My belief in capitalism is based on the fact that we performed an experiment that determined that capitalism is superior to communism. I don't care about arguments from first principles. I want to see experimental results. I don't care about doctrinal purity. I want to know what works.
Click to expand...

The experiments are done and the results are in. Full Laissez-faire Capitalism fares no better then Communism. What does work is well regulated capitalism where government acts to contain monopolies, block/remove externalities and focus competition of tools and techniques that are more productive and efficient rather then allowing companies to compete on the basis of who can pay it’s workers the least
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom