T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
bostonreview.net/BR37.3/ndf_sandel_markets_morals.php
Click on the people’s names to read the different opinions.
- Status
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
It is important to note that the proposition is not that markets always crowd out morals, but that if uncontrolled, they can crowd out morals. While reading the reference, it appeared that these two different hypotheses were being confused.
E
edwest2
Guest
I suggest the following:
amazon.com/The-Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption/dp/1581824599
Peace,
Ed
amazon.com/The-Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption/dp/1581824599
Peace,
Ed
E
exnihilo
Guest
It seems to me a misunderstanding to think of it this way. Markets are excellent, in fact the best, at providing people with what they want. But the key here is ‘what they want’. Morality is a wholly separate and superior issue. Morals inform what people want. A totally debased people in a market society will have lots of immorality. That is not due to the markets; it is due to the desire of the people. If you want good morals and lots of goods, in a market economy, then you work on the morals and virtue of the people. We have only to look to the communist system with its twisted and depraved morality to see that a command economy is no better at providing morality since it is disordered at its core.
E
edwest2
Guest
I think this is the wrong way to look at the providers of goods and services. If you look up the Opium Wars of the 1800s, the British and Americans were making money off of something they knew was addictive and would have negative health consequences. Not to mention money leaving China, which the Chinese government fought against.
Catholics, at least, should understand that millions of dollars were spent in the 1970s for the hiring of models, photographers, filmmakers, printing and distribution, plus the purchase or leasing of buildings to create the new Opium Dens. Along with topless bars and strip clubs. The planned addiction pattern occurred.
I was there just before this happened. We, the People, were not asking for:
Graphic photos or films of prostitutes.
Topless go-go bars.
Strip clubs that were marketed as Gentlemen’s Clubs - to make them sound “classy.”
In 1968, the raciest newsstand publication you could get was Playboy, and that only featured nude and partially nude women. Even the few magazines that were sold under the counter, usually at liquor stores, were pretty much the same.
And to me, what was more damaging, in some ways, were thick Swingers magazines filled with hundreds of ads from people looking for no-strings attached sex, usually accompanied by a nude or partially nude photo.
Once the “markets,” and organized crime, realized how much money was coming in, the next step was to turn a morally, socially and emotionally harmful addiction into something OK, or average or even “mainstream,” whatever that means.
Everyone should understand that the underlying goal over the last 40 years was to very gradually convince people that sexual pleasure was the most important thing. Families, relationships and commitment gradually became entirely optional, and even unnecessary as we see actors on TV today referring to their brief sexual encounter as ‘just sex,’ like going to the bathroom. It took that long - by telling those ‘religious nuts’ to shut up for decades, by threatening them with their lawyers, and citing their First Amendment right to do all this. It was their right to free expression - a fake term for exploiting and degrading mostly women.
Peace,
Ed
Catholics, at least, should understand that millions of dollars were spent in the 1970s for the hiring of models, photographers, filmmakers, printing and distribution, plus the purchase or leasing of buildings to create the new Opium Dens. Along with topless bars and strip clubs. The planned addiction pattern occurred.
I was there just before this happened. We, the People, were not asking for:
Graphic photos or films of prostitutes.
Topless go-go bars.
Strip clubs that were marketed as Gentlemen’s Clubs - to make them sound “classy.”
In 1968, the raciest newsstand publication you could get was Playboy, and that only featured nude and partially nude women. Even the few magazines that were sold under the counter, usually at liquor stores, were pretty much the same.
And to me, what was more damaging, in some ways, were thick Swingers magazines filled with hundreds of ads from people looking for no-strings attached sex, usually accompanied by a nude or partially nude photo.
Once the “markets,” and organized crime, realized how much money was coming in, the next step was to turn a morally, socially and emotionally harmful addiction into something OK, or average or even “mainstream,” whatever that means.
Everyone should understand that the underlying goal over the last 40 years was to very gradually convince people that sexual pleasure was the most important thing. Families, relationships and commitment gradually became entirely optional, and even unnecessary as we see actors on TV today referring to their brief sexual encounter as ‘just sex,’ like going to the bathroom. It took that long - by telling those ‘religious nuts’ to shut up for decades, by threatening them with their lawyers, and citing their First Amendment right to do all this. It was their right to free expression - a fake term for exploiting and degrading mostly women.
Peace,
Ed
J
JaKael02
Guest
I see what your saying. Interesting.
I agrue that you can not seperate morality from anything, including markets.
Capital markets do support and reward, “Greed”. Capital markets do seem to be leading to excess materialism. That concept should be discussed in greater detail.
You mentioned, “then you work on the morals and virtue of the people.” Who is you?
Kind Regards,
James
E
exnihilo
Guest
I agree. Morality is the highest concern.
I’m not sure that greed is reward specifically by capital markets. A poor person can be greedy. A bureaucrat in a communist country can be greedy. Greed is a human condition. I do think that the success of market economies can be a danger, like every good thing, in that it can dispose you to materialism and possibly greed in as much as it flows from materialism.
You, me, the Church and all men of good morals.
F
FaithBuild18
Guest
This is brilliant. I’ve been saying things like this for awhile now. Hopefully it catches on!
Clean up our culture and the economy will take care of itself.
J
JaKael02
Guest
I agree, you have thought out and written what I had wanted to say much more eloquently.
Regards,
James
A
ACCT
Guest
Socialist governments “crowd out morals.” Sociaslist governenments have built a world without God. However, there is no future without Jesus!
“We are again recognizing the dangers of an over-governed society, coming to understand that good objectives can be perverted by bad means, that reliance on the freedom of people to control their own lives in accordance with their own values is the surest way to achieve the full potential of a great society.” - Dr. Milton Friedman
“We are again recognizing the dangers of an over-governed society, coming to understand that good objectives can be perverted by bad means, that reliance on the freedom of people to control their own lives in accordance with their own values is the surest way to achieve the full potential of a great society.” - Dr. Milton Friedman
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
So you must believe that gay marriage is essential to achieving “the full potential of a great society.” After all, denying gay people the freedom “to control their own lives in accordance with their own values” would be disastrous.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Wow - thanks! This is why I don’t believe the solution to our problems is political. In fact I think in many ways we get the government we deserve. I think if we clean up the people then the government will follow. This would seem to be so since in the US and many places we elect the government. I too believe we have to work on the faith and philosophy of the people. If we can improve that the rest will as you say follow.This is brilliant. I’ve been saying things like this for awhile now. Hopefully it catches on!
Clean up our culture and the economy will take care of itself.
And thank you. My head is getting big!
A
ACCT
Guest
Homosexuality is a sin, period. Those who complain against the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality want to commit the sin.
Now back to the subject of free markets: The two ideas of human freedom and economic freedom working together came to their greatest fruition in the United States. We have been forgetting the basic truth that the greatest threat to human freedom is the concentration of power, whether in the hands of government or anyone else. We have persuaded ourselves that it is safe to grant power, provided it is for good purposes. - Dr. Milton Friedman
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
Do you recall that in the Res Publica the ideal government is described as one governed by a philosopher king? There are downsides do any form of government, and any form of government can be done poorly. There are monarchies that govern justly (think King Arthur) and democracies that govern poorly (e.g. current Russia/Greece.)
Might we not say that in a market, money is power? Therefore, markets are an equitable system unless money is granted excessively to particular individuals. However, in capitalism, the goal is always to maximize profits. Therefore, we could say that capitalism defines people who get excessive amounts of money as winners.
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
Why wouldn’t we say that in ANY economic system, people who get excessing amounts of money are winners. By the way, what is ‘excessive’? It sounds like a word that is ripe for subjective definitions, which don’t help much in philosophical discussions.
A
ACCT
Guest
I think that you are confusing market capitalism with socialism. In pure competition excessive profits creates ruinous competition. Competition drives down prices until $1 is excessive profit. **Therefore, in market capitalism (pure competition) buyers are the winners! ** Socialism, such as we have in the United States, creates monopolies with excessive profits and a decline in service.
In a market economy, the forces of supply and demand rule. **Price is the mechanism that regulates resource allocation. ** Prices are a signal, which directs the behavior of suppliers (sellers) and demanders (buyers).
In market capitalism, most of society’s resources are privately owned, and the owners of these resources can use them as they please within legal limits. Incentive is the key difference between capitalism (private ownership of resources) and socialism (state ownership of resources). Private ownership boosts incentive, while public ownership retards it.
All of us are affected by economic conditions and can benefit from a better understanding of local, national, and global economic forces. For example, 500 workers at a paper mill in Northern New York lost their jobs because they didn’t understand the economic forces affecting their industry. These workers decided to go on strike for higher wages. In response, the company replaced them. This was possible because the paper industry in Northern New York, as well as in New York State and the U.S. has suffered large layoffs, and consequently, there are plenty of unemployed paper mill workers looking for work. The strikers were never rehired, even though their union accepted cuts in pay and benefits amounting to about $10,000 per year per employee. This was devastating to the strikers because, given their skills, most have little hope of finding jobs with comparable pay and benefits. In addition, the small town of Glens Falls has been damaged economically and divided socially. If the union leaders had been more aware of the high level of both foreign and domestic competition (and taken a college economics class) this fiasco might have been avoided!
S
SCRAM
Guest
“The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy” by Thomas Woods is a good defense of free markets from a Catholic point of view.
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
Certainly there do exist government-granted monopolies. However to say that market capitalism is immune to them is willfully ignorant of historical examples.
I would ask this “What makes a company successful in a market capitalism?” The answer is large profits. How can a company guarantee large profits? By gaining a monopoly. Essentially, a monopoly is the unspoken goal of any company in a free market. Moreover, in a sufficiently free market, political power is a commodity like any other.
And in a perfect world, things would work perfectly. However, the market system all but designed to create people with greater buying power than others, and as you so strongly emphasized: “the greatest threat to human freedom is the concentration of power.”
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I would not agree that “a monopoly is the unspoken goal of any company in a free market…” Monopolies are difficult to establish in a truly free market, and usually require some kind of government intervention to allow them to become monopolies or oligopolies.
What the “free market” really is, is a system by which “A” gives some resource to “B” in exchange for what “A” values more than the resource he gives to “B”. “B”, in turn, does the same with “A”. But “A” has to be careful because if he demands too much or if his product isn’t very good, “B” might buy from “C”.
Now, let’s say “A”'s product is cherry ice cream. “A” might perceive that if he corners the market in cherries, he will have a monopoly on cherry ice cream and can demand any price he sets for it. He finds that there are lots of cherries out in the world, but he manages to get most cherry orchards under his contracts. But that causes other people to plant cherry trees so they can sell them to "A"s rival “C” who makes ice cream but can’t get enough cherries because “A” has cornered the cherry market, or enough of it to make it impossible for “C” to get enough cherries to compete.
“A” is desperate to preserve his monopoly. Moreover all of the new cherry tree plantings threaten to cause the price of cherries (thus cherry ice cream) to plummet. So “A” goes to the government and, because he has lots of money, persuades the government to issue stringent regulations on cherry growing; in the name of the environment or something. The regulations are so difficult to comply with that nobody can get past them other than a handful of big growers who don’t want the competition from startup growers either. Theoretically, “C” can make cherry ice cream, but he can’t get cherries. All the little would-be growers can’t meet all the regulations the government has imposed. So “A” keeps his monopoly, and the free market is thwarted. “B” continues to buy cherry ice cream from “A”, but at a higher price than would otherwise be the case.
That’s how monopolies happen.
B
boclucky14
Guest
Your close to what makes a company successful is large profits, but it’s not right. The goal of any firm is to maximize profits, namely for the owner, so that the owner has a no opportunity cost - it’s the best way to make money with his own time and money.
Having large profits is not necessary for this to be true. As long as the company is as profitable to the owner as the next best opportunity (this, by theory, could be a the same as compared to, say, the best career he could get), then it’s enough for the company to remain in business.
EDIT: Actually, you don’t even need that much. You just need for the marginal revenue to cover the variable costs. Otherwise, the business shuts down (at least temporarily).
The reason a monopoly can form boils down to a few assumptions, with the primary being Barriers to Entry/Exit:
- Government Regulation (Ex. Patents)
- Economy of Scale (More you make, cheaper it is, but before to long, Diseconomies of Scales, which is the effect of a large overhead, etc. comes into effect, allowing competition to remain more competitive)
- Indivisibility (I can’t think of an honest example)
- Control of essential (name removed by moderator)ut (Ex. De Beers)
I’m willing to say the #1 reason for any monopoly, present or past, is because of government regulation.
- Status