Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that the free market works within certain boundaries of scale. At the small to medium scale supply & demand hover around an equilibrium, prices are rational and everyone is rewarded for effort & risk.
But global corporations have a size & gravity that's so large that they can distort normal market behaviors. Take labor, for example: when the local supply of labor falls below demand, wages should rise. But for multinational businesses, they can avoid the S-D curve altogether source their labor in a lower-cost location, like China. This is one example of how size distorts the market.
Free market economics are kinda like physics...the normal Newtonian mechanics work nicely within a certain scale. But go very big or very small, and the whole framework falls apart.
But to keep it going... you hold to the belief that the free market is a system where people generally "get what they deserve..." "Deservingness" is obviously subjective, but how does this reconcile with the fact that the ranks of the wealthy are disproportionately made up of people who were born wealthy, just as the ranks of the poor are disproportionately made up of those who were born poor? How much of a meritocracy do we really have?
Is a 'meritocracy' the same thing as people 'getting what they deserve'? It could be, but since we established that deservingness is subjective, then it doesn't have to be.
Anyway, I think that the wealthy are more likely to develop intrapersonal/social skills, education, financial skills, and any number of things that employers consider valuable. So in that sense, it is a meritocracy.
It seems that your question is one of class & mobility in society, and poor people acquiring the necessary skills. We have a meritocracy (more or less), but not everyone has the same opportunity to acquire skills.
So do you believe that economically we should move closer to pure capitalism, stay approximately where we are now, or shift to the left in some areas?
If I could answer that question with a firm long term knowledge of how corrupt our government will be and our big businesses would be, I could give a solid answer. Any system or combination can be futile and bad if the wrong people are pulling the strings.
Is a 'meritocracy' the same thing as people 'getting what they deserve'? It could be, but since we established that deservingness is subjective, then it doesn't have to be.
Maybe...
Quote:
Anyway, I think that the wealthy are more likely to develop intrapersonal/social skills, education, financial skills, and any number of things that employers consider valuable. So in that sense, it is a meritocracy.
So your argument seems to be that social class at birth helps to determine status later on more as a function of social environment more than inheritance or economic advantage early on? I think social factors would play a part (There's probably more motivation to "succeed" when one is raised largely around "successful people"), but economic factors surely play a role as well... equal effort and skills are inevitably going to bring different economic outcomes if the initial economic conditions are different, and people growing up in wealthier families would be more likely to have connections to people providing higher-paying job opportunities... public school funding tends to be unequal between poorer and richer areas, and access to college education would be another dividing issue.
Even with the behavioral factors, though... should factors like motivation and skills that are more available to people in higher income strata be considered to indicate "merit" or "deservingness," or do they simply indicate unequal opportunity through unequal conditioning?
Capitalism shows the most respect for private property and liberty of contract. Life, liberty and property rights are fundamental. Violating them is, in my opinion, immoral. I see no morality in taking the property of one and giving it to another.
It is not the establishment of one economic system or another that is moral or immoral. It is the effects of the system that produce moral or immoral results. In order to accomplish a non-capitalist system one must condone stealing in order to "fairly" distribute property.
Winston Churchill had a good statement regarding Capitalism.I dont remember the exact words maybe someone can post it but the jist of it was Capitalism is not fair toward everyone while Socialism makes everybody equally poor..or miserable or something to that effect.
So your argument seems to be that social class at birth helps to determine status later on more as a function of social environment more than inheritance or economic advantage early on?
I think social factors would play a part (There's probably more motivation to "succeed" when one is raised largely around "successful people"), but economic factors surely play a role as well...
I wasn't making any distinction between social and economic advantage. They are very closely intertwined. I consider both to be a product of one's parents, and part of the gap between a rich kid and a poor kid.
When I refer to 'social skills', I'm thinking of it in the context of the business world. In other words, one kid might be likable, but is 'rough around the edges.' Another kid might not have many friends, but knows how to navigate through complex business and political situations. That's the social part of the gap.
You touched on the economic aspect, which I generally agree with. However, I think family connections are less important than you suggest. Economics affects access to schools and various tangible things that money can buy. But also intangible "social" things, like learning how to mingle with educated & successful people, knowing what to do, what to say, learning how to manage money - is still strongly related to one's financial situation.
Quote:
Even with the behavioral factors, though... should factors like motivation and skills that are more available to people in higher income strata be considered to indicate "merit" or "deservingness," or do they simply indicate unequal opportunity through unequal conditioning?
Unequal opportunity through unequal conditioning. Like I said earlier, merit is not synonymous with 'hard work'. You have to work smart, too, which for the poor, IMO, is where the main disadvantage lies.
LionKing that's the quote I think you were referring to: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries". I believe in a benevolent form of capitalism. I do believe that rampant capitalism is a form of social abuse towards the less fortunate and leads to profound and immoral exploitation of workers and producers. Our Western economy relies on an imperialistic morality where profits are there for the taking without any thought for the way it affects people. Huge corporations now rely on low paid workers , most of them working under a virtual system of slavery. How anyone could tell me that a pair of Nike sold for $200 , made by 9 year olds in Pakistan , who are paid less than $1 a day is anything but morally and ethically repugnant is beyond me.
As human beings I believe we need to remember social justice and workers rights whether in our own countries or abroad where most goods are produced. We need more socially aware and responsible corporations AND customers who do not close their eyes to the appalling breach of human rights perpetrated by multinationals. Profits are one thing, obscene profits are an entirely different thing. Our Western civilisation has relied on people's slave labour since its industrialisation and it is wrong. Some companies manage to find a balance and still do very well. The Free market is only free for the rich and only enslaves the poorest and most vulnerable further. It is not a free market but a license to exploit. I cannot believe we worship money over human beings and their right to a living wage, clean and safe living and working conditions ,accessible healthcare and free education. If people really got what they deserved the president of most multinational corporations would be in the Hague for crimes against humanity. The survival of the fittest might be fine for lions but I thought we were supposed to be evolved and have compassion ? What makes us humans is our innate ability to empathize and sympathise with other people's plight, yet this ability is squandered and discarded in favour of a few more bucks. Human suffering is not something we should condone or heartily condone.
LionKing that's the quote I think you were referring to: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries". I believe in a benevolent form of capitalism. I do believe that rampant capitalism is a form of social abuse towards the less fortunate and leads to profound and immoral exploitation of workers and producers. Our Western economy relies on an imperialistic morality where profits are there for the taking without any thought for the way it affects people. Huge corporations now rely on low paid workers , most of them working under a virtual system of slavery. How anyone could tell me that a pair of Nike sold for $200 , made by 9 year olds in Pakistan , who are paid less than $1 a day is anything but morally and ethically repugnant is beyond me.
As human beings I believe we need to remember social justice and workers rights whether in our own countries or abroad where most goods are produced. We need more socially aware and responsible corporations AND customers who do not close their eyes to the appalling breach of human rights perpetrated by multinationals. Profits are one thing, obscene profits are an entirely different thing. Our Western civilisation has relied on people's slave labour since its industrialisation and it is wrong. Some companies manage to find a balance and still do very well. The Free market is only free for the rich and only enslaves the poorest and most vulnerable further. It is not a free market but a license to exploit. I cannot believe we worship money over human beings and their right to a living wage, clean and safe living and working conditions ,accessible healthcare and free education. If people really got what they deserved the president of most multinational corporations would be in the Hague for crimes against humanity. The survival of the fittest might be fine for lions but I thought we were supposed to be evolved and have compassion ? What makes us humans is our innate ability to empathize and sympathise with other people's plight, yet this ability is squandered and discarded in favour of a few more bucks. Human suffering is not something we should condone or heartily condone.
That's something I think about... hardcore free-marketers tend to hold capitalism as the maximization of individual liberty, but there are different versions of "liberty" for different people. Government isn't the only force in the world with coercive power... the threat of unemployment, homelessness or (in some countries) starvation can make some "voluntary contracts" voluntary in name only. Take away labor rights and you can leave many workers with a lot fewer choices.
Last edited by fishmonger; 05-11-2007 at 02:10 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The survival of the fittest might be fine for lions but I thought we were supposed to be evolved and have compassion ? What makes us humans is our innate ability to empathize and sympathise with other people's plight, yet this ability is squandered and discarded in favour of a few more bucks. Human suffering is not something we should condone or heartily condone.
