Capitalism and immorality

[teukon]

If someone comes up with a good or service that is better than anything else sure. If they try to inflate the price other people will come up with a cheaper version forcing the first group to drop prices or go out of business. Monopolies are problems when states interfere with markets.  

What if the monopoly is supply-based? E.g. I own most of the watersources in a region. Or I own all the roads surrounding area x, so everybody has to pass through them?
And it doesn't end there. There are a lot of sectors where new companies are at heavy disadvantage. E.g. industries that require a lot of infrastructure like internet providers or energy companies.

Not all of them can be beaten by competition.

Competition still applies pressure.  I concede that the mechanic is less potent in these cases than in that of a widget manufacturer, but it is there.  Should such a monopoly push its advantage too far, I believe it will be beaten by competition.

[cbeast]

If someone comes up with a good or service that is better than anything else sure. If they try to inflate the price other people will come up with a cheaper version forcing the first group to drop prices or go out of business. Monopolies are problems when states interfere with markets.  

What if the monopoly is supply-based? E.g. I own most of the watersources in a region. Or I own all the roads surrounding area x, so everybody has to pass through them?
And it doesn't end there. There are a lot of sectors where new companies are at heavy disadvantage. E.g. industries that require a lot of infrastructure like internet providers or energy companies.

Not all of them can be beaten by competition.

Competition still applies pressure.  I concede that the mechanic is less potent in these cases than in that of a widget manufacturer, but it is there.  Should such a monopoly push its advantage too far, I believe it will be beaten by competition.

You didn't address the examples of how competition can be there. They can't. They are no-win situations for competition. You are a loser in those situations. Just face it. In competition, someone has to win and someone has to lose. In a competitive world, in order for someone to live, someone else has to die.

[neofelis]

Agree with above poster, but capitalism encourages greed.

Any system that unshackles restraints on how much a person can acquire in this life promotes greed.  As it would turn out, capitalism so far has been best at it.
 
This is the core issue where morality, economics, and politics meet.  How does a country balance out that "greed" vs need for the betterment of as many of its people as it can?  Communism and fascism tried and were found to be very lacking. 

and no one has quoted Gecko yet?

Greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

That movie was intended to be a satire.

But that speech was absolutely true.  Greed drives people to produce.  I barely remember the film but I believe Gecko broke the law in his pursuit of wealth.  Capitalism places restraints on greed only in that a person's actions cannot violate the rights of any other person. As long as that rule is followed, please produce as much as your skills can allow.  It can only help me.   Plus Bitcoin will keep my purchasing power intact.  Win-win

[Birdy]

Birdy, it's all there for those that want and desire to know the facts. As for you telling me to go to sleep now? Who the heck do you think you are kid?
 Or is that just another old fool or shill attempting in vain to keep being a parasite and prey off everyone else? Your words don't ring sincere, at all. And since your a very slow reader as well as a very lame duck I suggest you do a lot of research before hopping in here barking orders that you cannot and wont be able to back up.

It was 1 a.m. and I had to go to work next day, so I didn't really read your big wall of text and just skimmed over it, wanting to give it a proper treatment today.

You don't tell me what to do. No one does. I am my own boss.

I didn't tell you to go to sleep, I told you I was too tired to read this and I was going to sleep.

But Birdy your welcome to go suck up to your corporate or government masters. Have fun!
[...]
 And some even tell people to 'go to sleep' if they don't care for what is stated.
In return I say to Birdy: off you go, go be an obedient worker slave and fool.
After all your the one barking and acting like an idiot.

Sucks to be a Bankster like you? knowing your end is near eh?
Yea, after thinking about it a moment I figure your an obvious low level banking employee.
Must suck to make so little and do the devils work for such evil.

 Get used to that Birdy. And soon to be Jail bird Birdy?

 As for the 'long wall of words' or whatever. You must be a bird brain birdy?

 Now off to sleep birdy, you still got scams to perpetrate right? Sleep well...

Wow you misread one sentence (even worse: the post contained praise for your arguments) and start a hate-tirade, what the heck is wrong with you? Drawing ridiculous conclusions from nowhere.

On a side note: No, I'm not in banking business.

[cbeast]

Agree with above poster, but capitalism encourages greed.

Any system that unshackles restraints on how much a person can acquire in this life promotes greed.  As it would turn out, capitalism so far has been best at it.
 
This is the core issue where morality, economics, and politics meet.  How does a country balance out that "greed" vs need for the betterment of as many of its people as it can?  Communism and fascism tried and were found to be very lacking. 

and no one has quoted Gecko yet?

Greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

That movie was intended to be a satire.

But that speech was absolutely true.  Greed drives people to produce.  I barely remember the film but I believe Gecko broke the law in his pursuit of wealth.  Capitalism places restraints on greed only in that a person's actions cannot violate the rights of any other person. As long as that rule is followed, please produce as much as your skills can allow.  It can only help me.   Plus Bitcoin will keep my purchasing power intact.  Win-win

The movie demonstrated that greed causes one to choose short term profits over long term profits. It was about the 1980's gutting of American manufacturing and dismantling vital infrastructure industries for short term profits. Greed is good if you don't mind killing your future profitability on the gamble that you will be able to repeat your short term easy money.

[Trading]

Greed is the motivation for the able (rich) ones. For the rest, the motivation is extreme necessity.

Think about the hell of the life of almost everyone: 9 to 5, plus 1 or 2 hours commuting. Alternative? Losing the house and having to live out of welfare or charity.

[CoinDiver]

Everyone has an innate drive to survive better than they are currently. The left has vilified that in successful people by calling it greed. Everyone also has an innate drive to survive more efficiently. The right has vilified that in poor people by calling it lazy.

[cbeast]

Everyone has an innate drive to survive better than they are currently. The left has vilified that in successful people by calling it greed. Everyone also has an innate drive to survive more efficiently. The right has vilified that in poor people by calling it lazy.

There are brain functions that can be scanned that will predict these types with a high degree of accuracy.

[Trading]

It's all in the brain.

But "success" is more related with social intelligence (good social interaction skills) than with intellectual capacity.

So money bright scientists that are losers on social terms. No family, no kids, no friends, little professional strong relations.

[ReserviorHunt]

It's easy to try and criticize capitalism. People thrive on lapping up scraps while calling themselves 'determined' or 'enlightened'

People of such color are always ready to spread their legs for whatever will help them feel better.

[arbitrage001]

Everyone has an innate drive to survive better than they are currently. The left has vilified that in successful people by calling it greed. Everyone also has an innate drive to survive more efficiently. The right has vilified that in poor people by calling it lazy.

Keen observation.

Also a good time to remind people not to judge so hastily.

[jeffersonairplane]

Capitalism is ideal. It's perfect because everyone has that goal of becoming rich, and only a few do. It's all a competition.

[Ron~Popeil]

If someone comes up with a good or service that is better than anything else sure. If they try to inflate the price other people will come up with a cheaper version forcing the first group to drop prices or go out of business. Monopolies are problems when states interfere with markets.  

What if the monopoly is supply-based? E.g. I own most of the watersources in a region. Or I own all the roads surrounding area x, so everybody has to pass through them?
And it doesn't end there. There are a lot of sectors where new companies are at heavy disadvantage. E.g. industries that require a lot of infrastructure like internet providers or energy companies.

Not all of them can be beaten by competition.

Competition still applies pressure.  I concede that the mechanic is less potent in these cases than in that of a widget manufacturer, but it is there.  Should such a monopoly push its advantage too far, I believe it will be beaten by competition.

You didn't address the examples of how competition can be there. They can't. They are no-win situations for competition. You are a loser in those situations. Just face it. In competition, someone has to win and someone has to lose. In a competitive world, in order for someone to live, someone else has to die.

No one has to "die" for someone else to live. Competition breeds progress and innovation. Innovation means not only can more people live but they can also live better. This isn't a zero sum game.

[cbeast]

If someone comes up with a good or service that is better than anything else sure. If they try to inflate the price other people will come up with a cheaper version forcing the first group to drop prices or go out of business. Monopolies are problems when states interfere with markets.  

What if the monopoly is supply-based? E.g. I own most of the watersources in a region. Or I own all the roads surrounding area x, so everybody has to pass through them?
And it doesn't end there. There are a lot of sectors where new companies are at heavy disadvantage. E.g. industries that require a lot of infrastructure like internet providers or energy companies.

Not all of them can be beaten by competition.

Competition still applies pressure.  I concede that the mechanic is less potent in these cases than in that of a widget manufacturer, but it is there.  Should such a monopoly push its advantage too far, I believe it will be beaten by competition.

You didn't address the examples of how competition can be there. They can't. They are no-win situations for competition. You are a loser in those situations. Just face it. In competition, someone has to win and someone has to lose. In a competitive world, in order for someone to live, someone else has to die.

No one has to "die" for someone else to live. Competition breeds progress and innovation. Innovation means not only can more people live but they can also live better. This isn't a zero sum game.

There are only so many resources to go around. If you are competing to deny people food and water to raise the market rates, then yes, people will die, just hopefully not enough people to cut into your profits too much. That is what capitalism is all about.

[okthen]

Capitalism is ideal. It's perfect because everyone has that goal of becoming rich, and only a few do. It's all a competition.

Not everyone has the goal of becoming rich, and I don't think any system is ideal.
But capitalism is definitely the best, as it is the one that gives us more freedom.

[Justine]

There are only so many resources to go around. If you are competing to deny people food and water to raise the market rates, then yes, people will die, just hopefully not enough people to cut into your profits too much. That is what capitalism is all about.

Don't forget competition from the supply side.

Ultimately, supply and demand will reach equilibrium in an ideal system.


What we have today is welfare state which let people breed without giving much thought. Personal responsibility isn't really in the mind of the people.

Expecting free shelter, food, cloth and education for their children is what get the US and Europe into the mess we have today.


This kind of practice is being done by local, both legal and illegal immigrant. Which make me kind of wonder how much longer the system will last.

[cbeast]

There are only so many resources to go around. If you are competing to deny people food and water to raise the market rates, then yes, people will die, just hopefully not enough people to cut into your profits too much. That is what capitalism is all about.

Don't forget competition from the supply side.

Ultimately, supply and demand will reach equilibrium in an ideal system.


What we have today is welfare state which let people breed without giving much thought. Personal responsibility isn't really in the mind of the people.

Expecting free shelter, food, cloth and education for their children is what get the US and Europe into the mess we have today.


This kind of practice is being done by local, both legal and illegal immigrant. Which make me kind of wonder how much longer the system will last.

You pulled this quote out of context. The subject was monopoly. I will not engage your strawman.

[AZwarel]

Capitalism itself has no moral standpoint, it doesn't say anymore than "money is power, try to achieve wealth by doing stuff".
It doesn't care if you achieve it by exploiting others or by being a great inventor.
But people do.
"Then, as usual, people in power started placing restrictions on citizens[...]" , you are even saying it yourself.
Guess what will happen then. The neutral capitalism will be shifted by those who gained power first.
This will lead to some form of government/restrictions for other people.
-> true unrestricted capitalism can only exist for a short timeframe.

The only moral purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, thereby increasing freedom.

By guarding a right for someone, you are also restricting someone else.
Think about this sentence: When you are born into this world all pieces of land are already owned by someone else.

I have to disagree on a few points.  Capitalism is based on a rational view of the nature of man. Man cannot exist and live as man in the absence of freedom.  That is why the dominate philosophy of this century has led to the decay of the US and western society.  That is the philosophy of altruism.  Excuse me while I channel my inner Ayn Rand…Altruism leads men to believe that it is a virtue to sacrifice oneself for others.  Even a little bit is considered noble.  This leads to man feeling guilty for not "giving more" than they already do.  We look at monks, who give everything to serve others and live in poverty, as the ideal to live up to.  This becomes a problem when men achieve political power, the power to initiate the use of force against men.  This power is given to the politicians by the very people who elect them into office.  With the philosophy of altruism permeating our society, it is now very easy for these men of power to use that power to force men who "haven't given enough" to "do the right thing."

Unrestricted capitalism will only be able to exist for a short while until the philosophy of altruism is no longer taught.  The correct philosophy for man to exist qua man (as a man and not a slave) is Objectivism.  Objectivism teaches rational self-interest and the ultimate value and virtue.  Objectivism is the only philosophy based on reason and man's use of it to guide his decisions. 

Under true and unrestricted capitalism, individual rights are the most sacred (if I can use that term) asset a country can preserve.  No law can be written that violates a man's natural rights and no man can violate the rights of another without breaking the law in doing so.  The initiation of force is given exclusively to the government and man can only use force for self defense or the defense of others. Those in power cannot pass laws that violate rights, period. This leads to a very narrow scope of government, namely police, military and a system of courts.  Any other use of government force will violate man's right to property. Everything else - education, infrastructure, social programs, etc are all immoral. To supply one little old lady with a government pension check seems like a noble deed.  But that deed is based on a million tiny little uses of force to take the money from somebody else who actually earned it.  I'll stop here.


"When you are born into this world all pieces of land are already owned by someone else."  The answer is you will get a job and earn some bitcoin and buy it from somebody who wishes to sell it. You may inherit it as well.  There is nothing wrong with inherited wealth.  I don't fret that men like BIll Gates and Warren Buffet have loads of money.  They have made our lives infinitely better through their innovations and skill.  Their massive wealth was well earned and I admire them for it.  But wait a few generations and see how much wealth the heirs of Bill Gates will have.  I predict very little.  It will get spread out through the population because few men create that kind of wealth and even fewer can keep it.  Have many Kennedys and Rockefellers have the same power and money their ancestors had?  None that I know of. 

Are you Yaron Brook? I would have so many questions, if you are 
Agree a 100%, bitcoin, just as internet, and the whole idea of decentralization is against government (the tribe elite) power.

[Ron~Popeil]

If someone comes up with a good or service that is better than anything else sure. If they try to inflate the price other people will come up with a cheaper version forcing the first group to drop prices or go out of business. Monopolies are problems when states interfere with markets.  

What if the monopoly is supply-based? E.g. I own most of the watersources in a region. Or I own all the roads surrounding area x, so everybody has to pass through them?
And it doesn't end there. There are a lot of sectors where new companies are at heavy disadvantage. E.g. industries that require a lot of infrastructure like internet providers or energy companies.

Not all of them can be beaten by competition.

Competition still applies pressure.  I concede that the mechanic is less potent in these cases than in that of a widget manufacturer, but it is there.  Should such a monopoly push its advantage too far, I believe it will be beaten by competition.

You didn't address the examples of how competition can be there. They can't. They are no-win situations for competition. You are a loser in those situations. Just face it. In competition, someone has to win and someone has to lose. In a competitive world, in order for someone to live, someone else has to die.

No one has to "die" for someone else to live. Competition breeds progress and innovation. Innovation means not only can more people live but they can also live better. This isn't a zero sum game.

There are only so many resources to go around. If you are competing to deny people food and water to raise the market rates, then yes, people will die, just hopefully not enough people to cut into your profits too much. That is what capitalism is all about.

Wow I am not even sure how to respond so such an absurd statement. You are clearly an extremist so there is no point in trying to reason with you.

[leezay]

If someone comes up with a good or service that is better than anything else sure. If they try to inflate the price other people will come up with a cheaper version forcing the first group to drop prices or go out of business. Monopolies are problems when states interfere with markets.  

What if the monopoly is supply-based? E.g. I own most of the watersources in a region. Or I own all the roads surrounding area x, so everybody has to pass through them?
And it doesn't end there. There are a lot of sectors where new companies are at heavy disadvantage. E.g. industries that require a lot of infrastructure like internet providers or energy companies.

Not all of them can be beaten by competition.

Competition still applies pressure.  I concede that the mechanic is less potent in these cases than in that of a widget manufacturer, but it is there.  Should such a monopoly push its advantage too far, I believe it will be beaten by competition.

You didn't address the examples of how competition can be there. They can't. They are no-win situations for competition. You are a loser in those situations. Just face it. In competition, someone has to win and someone has to lose. In a competitive world, in order for someone to live, someone else has to die.

No one has to "die" for someone else to live. Competition breeds progress and innovation. Innovation means not only can more people live but they can also live better. This isn't a zero sum game.

There are only so many resources to go around. If you are competing to deny people food and water to raise the market rates, then yes, people will die, just hopefully not enough people to cut into your profits too much. That is what capitalism is all about.

Wow I am not even sure how to respond so such an absurd statement. You are clearly an extremist so there is no point in trying to reason with you.

If he is talking about monopoly on essential resources, then yes, the point is valid.

Evolution and market based competition are not pretty. Some species/people need to die to make room for other, that is how the system improve itself. Otherwise, dinosaur sill still be ruling the world right now.