[+Donny]

I have seen more than one comment from Christians in this forum against capitalism. What exactly do you mean when you say you oppose capitalism, and why? foreignerlori posted one such comments, and I think I remember some from others.

[Dice]

Unrestricted capitalism is the cause of poverty.

[+Donny]

What do you mean by that?

And what do you mean by the cause? Is it the only cause, or just a primary one?

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by +Donny

What do you mean by that?

And what do you mean by the cause? Is it the only cause, or just a primary one?

Capitalism, unchecked will lead to more and more wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Unchecked it could lead to a very large and very poor working class. However, that is why we have such things as minimum wage, unions, laws on monopolies, and laws on how business is conducted.

[Dice]

Capitalism, unchecked will lead to more and more wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Unchecked it could lead to a very large and very poor working class. However, that is why we have such things as minimum wage, unions, laws on monopolies, and laws on how business is conducted.

In regards to our country, yes. But we fail to realize that we are working on a global economy and need to take responsibility for what we do to other countries. Our imperialistic habits are crushing the world. In constrast, semi-socialist france is a primary contributor to stabilizing the entire eurpoean economy. I'm not saying socialism is the answer, especially since most people hear that word and think of pathetic applications of the principle, but it's just a simple matter of responsibility with the economic powerhouses you harbor due to your capitalism.

[+Donny]

Capitalism, unchecked will lead to more and more wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Unchecked it could lead to a very large and very poor working class. However, that is why we have such things as minimum wage, unions, laws on monopolies, and laws on how business is conducted.

If "unchecked" has the connotation of immorality, then this is true of any system of government.
If not, then you are not taking into account charity, which is a vital part of righteousness.

[GORP006]

True capitalism works only on a local level. Think of a farmer's market, or the comodity markets, maybe a small fish market. Those are forms of true capitalism. People come together, each selling goods, and the supply and demand relationship is allowed to set the price for the goods. In most cases, the product being sold at one stand is indistinguishable from another, so the stand with lower prices will get more business, thus forcing the stands to find an equilibrium where they sell enough to be satisfied at a price that the consumer will accept.

On a National level, we're not even close to capitalism. Most products aren't conducive to capitalism. Think of a computer chip. A lot of work went into developing that chip, and the company selling the chip wants to make that effort up by selling their product with a large markup over the actual manufacturing cost. This is possible due to patents, which inhibit the true free-market practice. In a patent-free market, when a product is created, any other producer is free to manufacture the same product and sell it for less. This is why generic Drugs are so much cheaper once they are allowed after the patent runs out.

Essentially, a true capitalist economy will create a flat class structure, since no individual or company will be able to corner the market on any product. However, innovation is difficult, because the motivation is not as strong without any kind of intellectual property protection. The American Economy is capitalism based, but not a pure capitalist economy. It's the low level of government regulation that allows a few people to gain incredible wealth...As for the middle and lower class, that generally pertains to the labor market, which we now see going overseas. In this case, it's the capitalism of free trade that allows these jobs to leave America, and causes a lowering of the standard of living in America...in my opinion...

[JerryLove]

True capitalism works only on a local level. Think of a farmer's market, or the comodity markets, maybe a small fish market.

You run into the same monopolies and market dicotomies you get elsewhere.

Those are forms of true capitalism. People come together, each selling goods, and the supply and demand relationship is allowed to set the price for the goods. In most cases, the product being sold at one stand is indistinguishable from another, so the stand with lower prices will get more business, thus forcing the stands to find an equilibrium where they sell enough to be satisfied at a price that the consumer will accept.

Till the stand with the lower prices buys out a neighbor, letting him function at lower prices due to an economy of scale, then using that advantage to buy out more neighbors until one farm owns a monopoly on the reasources and can sell at a low enough price to form an effective barrier to entry.

The same happens in a manufacturing system. Be the first with a big printing press, and people would be foolish to go to someone who has to hand scribe... depending on the price of the printing press, it may for another barrier to entry (like in the modern world, the *huge* costs of getting music on the radio and in the stores helps keep new distributors from entering the music industry)

On a National level, we're not even close to capitalism. Most products aren't conducive to capitalism. Think of a computer chip. A lot of work went into developing that chip, and the company selling the chip wants to make that effort up by selling their product with a large markup over the actual manufacturing cost. This is possible due to patents, which inhibit the true free-market practice.

OK. Let's look at the computer chip. There are three primary players in the CPU market right now (which, BTW, is lower than historically): IBM, Intel, and AMD. There are also several successful "lesser" players, Via, TI, and a small slew of others whose names I cannot remember (who makes the processor for the PalmPilot? Who besides intel for the WinCE palms?)

The graphics industry has Intel, ATI, NVidia (and all of her associates), VIA, Matrox, Elsa, PNY, IBM, a couple of the Northbridge manufacturers (SiS for example), and (again) a few more than I can name.

In a patent-free market, when a product is created, any other producer is free to manufacture the same product and sell it for less. This is why generic Drugs are so much cheaper once they are allowed after the patent runs out.

Of course, in a patent-free market, there is no reason to invest in developing new drugs in the first place. No advantage.

Essentially, a true capitalist economy will create a flat class structure, since no individual or company will be able to corner the market on any product.

Firstly, people != compaines. Secondly, as I pointed out, the basic statement is not true. Monopolies are easy to come by in unregulated capitalist economies.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by +Donny

I have seen more than one comment from Christians in this forum against capitalism. What exactly do you mean when you say you oppose capitalism, and why? foreignerlori posted one such comments, and I think I remember some from others.

I'm against capitalism in a theoretical sense. America could potentially provide for the whole world with its natural resources, so why can't we even provide for our own? Because we have to make money. What would happen though if we let farmers and other producers flood the market with more supply than the American people could possibly have a demand for? Well, the prices would drop substantially and no one would be making any money. So, since money trumps providing for the poor, we plow under our produce and throw away more food and resources than I care to think about.

In a perfect world, anything but communism would be nonsense. Unfortunetly, we don't live in a perfect world, so communism will always fail. Granted, capitalism will always fail too, but I think it gives your average Joe a better chance for success than the USSR did when it was around.

Of course, you could always go with a sort of capitalistic communism like on Star Trek. Everyone has equal access to food and other basic necessities regardless of their job (communism), yet people are still at different ranks and positions based on the effort they put in and the skills they possess (capitalism). Actually, I think the Star Trek system would be the perfect one.

In fact, it sort of gives me an idea for how our own government should work. In matters of basic necessity--food, shelter, education--everyone should have equal access regardless what they do. In matters such as occupational opportunity (in other words, who gets to run the country and who gets to clean toilets), people should be judged on their ability and effort.

[+Donny]

I'm against capitalism in a theoretical sense. America could potentially provide for the whole world with its natural resources, so why can't we even provide for our own? Because we have to make money. What would happen though if we let farmers and other producers flood the market with more supply than the American people could possibly have a demand for? Well, the prices would drop substantially and no one would be making any money. So, since money trumps providing for the poor, we plow under our produce and throw away more food and resources than I care to think about.

It's not that simple. If we took away the government aid to farmers and just let them go at it, I highly doubt they would flood the market, precisely because prices would be too low. How is the free market in regards to international agricultural trade? I'm sure they could sell to third world countries.
And our throwing away of resources and things is a consequence of having an abundance, not necessarily a consequence of not caring for the poor. I'm willing to bet we are more profitable if we spend time working and producing than if we spend time making sure we recycle and don't use too much water.
Of course, you seem to look at profit in a bad light. Don't. If someone is profiting, unless they have some sort of monopoly, they are doing so because they are providing goods to their customers at an acceptable price. In short, they are providing what people want. This is a bad thing? The money is a reward for getting people what they want/need, not some sort of evil capitalist theivery.

In a perfect world, anything but communism would be nonsense. Unfortunetly, we don't live in a perfect world, so communism will always fail. Granted, capitalism will always fail too, but I think it gives your average Joe a better chance for success than the USSR did when it was around.

Why? Why does it not make sense to make profit according to your success at providing for your customers?

Of course, you could always go with a sort of capitalistic communism like on Star Trek. Everyone has equal access to food and other basic necessities regardless of their job (communism), yet people are still at different ranks and positions based on the effort they put in and the skills they possess (capitalism). Actually, I think the Star Trek system would be the perfect one.

I'm guessing this would require some sort of state-run monopoly over the necessities of life, which is exactly what people complain about in capitalism (well, the monopoly part, not the state-run part). In monopolies, the lack of competition tends to reduce the drive for innovation and better products.

In fact, it sort of gives me an idea for how our own government should work. In matters of basic necessity--food, shelter, education--everyone should have equal access regardless what they do. In matters such as occupational opportunity (in other words, who gets to run the country and who gets to clean toilets), people should be judged on their ability and effort.

But what does that even mean? If they are judged by their ability and effort in regards to occupation, they will move up and get payed more, and when payed more, then will buy better food and better clothing, which means there is no longer equal access to the necessities of life. Of course, the only way to prevent this would be to force clothing and food companies to only create simple, cheap products or not to pay people more for better work, the former seeming just plain odd and the latter seeming unfair.

Ultimately, this concept of everyone having equal access actually denies fair treatment. If you treat everyone equally, you will have difference results and classes of people, because people are different. To make everyone equal in regards to wealth and class, you have to treat them differently, not the same.

And I actually think the principles behind the free market are perfectly biblical because profit, except in cases of monopolies and shrewd business practices, is based on how much you please your customers. If you make it your goal to put others above yourself, you will work to give them what they want, meaning they will purchase your product. If capitalism is based on a selfishness, it leads to the corruptions that people hate about it, but if it is based on self-sacrifice, it leads to advance and success.

And what about the poor? If we have a Christian attitude toward them, employers will seek to find spots for them in their company, charities will give them the necessities of life, and churches and families will provide for them.

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by +Donny

If "unchecked" has the connotation of immorality, then this is true of any system of government.
If not, then you are not taking into account charity, which is a vital part of righteousness.

By unchecked I mean that you would have a very very small number of people controlling the entire wealth of the country/world. Look at the history of business in North America. Smaller, family owned stores are giving way to Home Depot's and Walmart's across the continent. A hundred years ago, you would have tons of businesses making shoes, for example. Now, you have relatively few companies producing shoes on a massive scale. Because of this you also have exploitation of the workers.

[+Donny]

By unchecked I mean that you would have a very very small number of people controlling the entire wealth of the country/world. Look at the history of business in North America. Smaller, family owned stores are giving way to Home Depot's and Walmart's across the continent. A hundred years ago, you would have tons of businesses making shoes, for example. Now, you have relatively few companies producing shoes on a massive scale.

That is because larger companies are more efficient. I talked to a CEO of a local company who regularly moves into markets with a bunch of smaller businesses and buys them out, building a larger corporation (I know this is common, but I know nothing about business, so I don't know what this is called). He explained to me that every market naturally moves in this trend because larger companies have more income at their disposable and can be more efficient.
I have even noticed this trend in a small way in the business I work in. We supply medical supplies to midwives. It is an incredibly small market, but still, in the past 7-8 years, the small number of companies have grown smaller as buy outs have occurred.

Because of this you also have exploitation of the workers.

This is where morality comes in. No system of economics works if we assume immorality, so this critique isn't fair.

[JerryLove]

It's not that simple. If we took away the government aid to farmers and just let them go at it, I highly doubt they would flood the market, precisely because prices would be too low. How is the free market in regards to international agricultural trade? I'm sure they could sell to third world countries.

Read up on it a bit (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap8.htm).

BTW, Third-wold countries can't afford to buy food, ship it across an ocean, and distribute it.

And our throwing away of resources and things is a consequence of having an abundance, not necessarily a consequence of not caring for the poor. I'm willing to bet we are more profitable if we spend time working and producing than if we spend time making sure we recycle and don't use too much water.

Productivity is not enough. There must be a market for what you produce. As to recycling, that has far less to do with productivity and for more to do with limited reasources. Waste enough water and you die of thirst.

Of course, you seem to look at profit in a bad light. Don't. If someone is profiting, unless they have some sort of monopoly, they are doing so because they are providing goods to their customers at an acceptable price. In short, they are providing what people want. This is a bad thing? The money is a reward for getting people what they want/need, not some sort of evil capitalist theivery.

Ideally that's exactly what happens. Some entity provides a service at a fair price making a fair profit.

Without regulation, this is rarely the case. What happens is you get someone with a monoply of sorts (whether from a barrier to entry like Microsoft, or a natural monopoly like the local phone provider, or due to control of a reasource (like a patent, or owning all the uranium mines). They then fail to pay a fair wage (it's a long process where companies pay less and less untile their employees live in shanty towns), while charging the public more and more (for examples, see US Oil and Standard Steel, to a lesser extent more modern places like TicketMaster... also, look up the history of "profiteering" and "price gouging", particularly during disaster).

The other thing that tends to occur is price-fixing (which you see in the music industry for example). Companies together relresent a monopoly on goods or their distribution, and arrange to all sell at anti-competitive prices.

Why? Why does it not make sense to make profit according to your success at providing for your customers?

Why would you need/want profit in a perfect world? Do you imagine there is money in heaven?

I'm guessing this would require some sort of state-run monopoly over the necessities of life, which is exactly what people complain about in capitalism (well, the monopoly part, not the state-run part). In monopolies, the lack of competition tends to reduce the drive for innovation and better products.

In unregulated markets, the lack of IP tends to reduce drive for innovation.

BTW, if you would like an example of capitalism resulting in a lack of innovation nor improvement despite "competition", I would suggest you look at the US auto industr up until the 80s.

Note also that the industry response to upstarts with better products was *not* to improve their own product, but to attack the competitor (Delorian's drug charges that went away when his company collapsed), or just undercut them till they die (Shelby).

But what does that even mean? If they are judged by their ability and effort in regards to occupation, they will move up and get payed more, and when payed more, then will buy better food and better clothing, which means there is no longer equal access to the necessities of life. Of course, the only way to prevent this would be to force clothing and food companies to only create simple, cheap products or not to pay people more for better work, the former seeming just plain odd and the latter seeming unfair.

I don't believe that he's worried who can get caviar or Armani. I believe he's after you being able to get whatever you need from Publix or Burdines without your lot in life being a factor. What you are thinking of as "better", he classifies as a luxury.

Ultimately, this concept of everyone having equal access actually denies fair treatment. If you treat everyone equally, you will have difference results and classes of people, because people are different. To make everyone equal in regards to wealth and class, you have to treat them differently, not the same.

So if I have a company party, and I give everyone one free drink, then I'm not treating everyone equally?

And I actually think the principles behind the free market are perfectly biblical because profit, except in cases of monopolies and shrewd business practices, is based on how much you please your customers.

How much do you think the money-changers / lenders in the temple pleased their customers?

And what about the poor? If we have a Christian attitude toward them, employers will seek to find spots for them in their company, charities will give them the necessities of life, and churches and families will provide for them.

So rather than have the government tax your money away for the poor, you would have corporations charge more for products, and take income from their stockholders in order to give to them? Interesting.

Of course, the reality is that individual/church charity doesn't work for the masses. In thousands of years, it's never worked.

[JerryLove]

That is because larger companies are more efficient. I talked to a CEO of a local company who regularly moves into markets with a bunch of smaller businesses and buys them out, building a larger corporation (I know this is common, but I know nothing about business, so I don't know what this is called). He explained to me that every market naturally moves in this trend because larger companies have more income at their disposable and can be more efficient.

You are drawing a relation for no reason. Having more money does not equate to more efficient.

Let's take a recent example. Ford was hemoraging because of outdated plants, poor quality assurance, and a general lack of efficeincy.

Mazda was a far more efficient comany than ford, but far newer to the market.

Ford, having borrowed billions from the government, baught Mazda.

I have even noticed this trend in a small way in the business I work in. We supply medical supplies to midwives. It is an incredibly small market, but still, in the past 7-8 years, the small number of companies have grown smaller as buy outs have occurred.

And if Ford wanted to buy you they could. Does this mean that you are less efficient than Ford?

This is where morality comes in. No system of economics works if we assume immorality, so this critique isn't fair.

And if we assume morality than Anarchy makes the most sense. There is no need for government because we will control ourselves and help each other.

The minute you have a justice system in your government, you have assumed that people are immoral.

[+Donny]

Read up on it a bit (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap8.htm).

BTW, Third-wold countries can't afford to buy food, ship it across an ocean, and distribute it.

I had thought that might be the case regarding third-world countries.

Productivity is not enough. There must be a market for what you produce. As to recycling, that has far less to do with productivity and for more to do with limited reasources. Waste enough water and you die of thirst.

Yes, this is true.

Ideally that's exactly what happens. Some entity provides a service at a fair price making a fair profit.

Without regulation, this is rarely the case. What happens is you get someone with a monoply of sorts (whether from a barrier to entry like Microsoft, or a natural monopoly like the local phone provider, or due to control of a reasource (like a patent, or owning all the uranium mines). They then fail to pay a fair wage (it's a long process where companies pay less and less untile their employees live in shanty towns), while charging the public more and more (for examples, see US Oil and Standard Steel, to a lesser extent more modern places like TicketMaster... also, look up the history of "profiteering" and "price gouging", particularly during disaster).

The other thing that tends to occur is price-fixing (which you see in the music industry for example). Companies together relresent a monopoly on goods or their distribution, and arrange to all sell at anti-competitive prices.

THis will be addressed below in the morality section.

Why would you need/want profit in a perfect world? Do you imagine there is money in heaven?

How is that relevant?

In unregulated markets, the lack of IP tends to reduce drive for innovation.

BTW, if you would like an example of capitalism resulting in a lack of innovation nor improvement despite "competition", I would suggest you look at the US auto industr up until the 80s.

Note also that the industry response to upstarts with better products was *not* to improve their own product, but to attack the competitor (Delorian's drug charges that went away when his company collapsed), or just undercut them till they die (Shelby).

I was told that American automobiles got better in response to foreign competition. What are you referring to?

I don't believe that he's worried who can get caviar or Armani. I believe he's after you being able to get whatever you need from Publix or Burdines without your lot in life being a factor. What you are thinking of as "better", he classifies as a luxury.

So then how would he suggest that this be done? Government control of low-quality food, clothing, and real estate with free market control of anything above necessity?

So if I have a company party, and I give everyone one free drink, then I'm not treating everyone equally?

No, you are treating everyone equally, and you will get different results. If you have more than one type of drink available, some will choose different drinks than others. If they are alcoholic, someone might get drunk, and others will remain sober. Some may not be thirsty. Equal treatment to different people results in varying results.

How much do you think the money-changers / lenders in the temple pleased their customers?

When did I ever say capitalism couldn't be abused?

So rather than have the government tax your money away for the poor, you would have corporations charge more for products, and take income from their stockholders in order to give to them? Interesting.

How are they taking money away from stockholders by charging more for products?

Of course, the reality is that individual/church charity doesn't work for the masses. In thousands of years, it's never worked.

That is an oversimplification. You can't just say, "You can't point to a time when it didn't work, so it must not work." You would have to examine how it was applied, what other factors there were, how poor the nation was, etc. You would have to do the same for state-run welfare.

You are drawing a relation for no reason. Having more money does not equate to more efficient.

I was referring to investors. In a corporation, you can pull money from other people, take bigger loans, etc., meaning that certain costs of technological advancements will be handled easier.

And if Ford wanted to buy you they could. Does this mean that you are less efficient than Ford?

Which is more efficient and can provide goods to people cheaper, a bunch of family-owned supply shops, or a couple larger, corporation sized supply companies? Generally, the latter, as they will be able to invest in advancements better, buy in more bulk, reducing cost, etc.

And if we assume morality than Anarchy makes the most sense. There is no need for government because we will control ourselves and help each other.

The minute you have a justice system in your government, you have assumed that people are immoral.

I did not mean absolute, perfect morality, otherwise you would be correct. This is also why pure capitalism doesn't work. If we assume widespread immorality, capitalism won't work, but neither will socialism or communism. If we assume widespread morality, capitalism will work, and so will socialism and communism. The issue is which will work best.