Is it ludicrous to think that the world will remain Capitalistic?

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Capitalism is slavery!!! It’s not really based on voluntary participation, but most of us are forced to participate or become homeless!!!

Blasphemy!!!

Capitalism cannot work with slave labor. It was the agrarian, feudal American South that maintained slavery in this country. It was the industrial, Capitalistic North that wiped it out—as Capitalism wiped out slavery and serfdom in the whole civilized world of the nineteenth century.

You are not forced at the point of a gun to enjoy the benefits of Capitalism. If you don’t want to work there is always “the dole”. Remember that it is the hard working productive Capitalist who is forced to support the government dole…at the point of a gun.

 

[nmgauss]

An entrepreneur hopes he can sell enough of his product at a high enough price to pay for his hired labor and his own salary. In fact his own salary is included as an expense in his profit-loss statement. There is no guarantee that he will receive the salary he has planned for. It all depends on how well he can market his product to keep up with his expenses. If there is any excess, it becomes profit, which can then be plowed back into the company or given away to charity. The bottom line is that if there is no profit, there is no charity.

In the meantime, he is obligated to pay his employees whether or not he receives his own salary. If he becomes homeless because his business is not successful, he still is obligated to pay his employees. Of course, declaring bankruptcy liquidates his means of production, and his creditors including unpaid employees pick up the pieces.

Thus starting a business is a high-risk venture, and there is no guarantee that the entrepreneur will be able to make a living from it. In fact, he is obligated to endeavor that his employees will be able to make a living, even at the sacrifice of his own living.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If one investigates the psychology of religion, and love is considered, there first has to be a feeling of love and then a demonstration that love is being felt by the giver. It is the demonstration of love that confuses you. To love is to have an emotional state. To show love is a demonstration of your emotion.

To give to the poor because someone tells you to do so or face the consequences (socialism or taxation), the effect is the same as if you did it from a standpoint of love. Either way, alms to the poor will result in benefits to them.

The “psychology of religion” would do well to study what religions actually teach before superficially definining what they mean by those teachings. If the “psychology of religion” touted by someone or other really says what you say it does, it could not possibly be more wrong.

From a Christian perspective, “love”, in its truest sense, and as Christ spoke of it in charging us to “love our neighbor” or “love our enemies” is an act of the will, not of the intellect (I’ll be punished if I don’t give) or the emotions (Oh, how sad that is. Here’s a handout for you"). “To love” might or might not be accompanied by an intellectual conclusion or an emotional state, but does not require it. In the Christian sense, pure love is motivated by none of the other things variously called “love”.

Language usage in common parlence often causes confusion, which is why Church teachings distinguish among the various uses of words like “love” in the English (or any other) language. This might be of help. catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9375

This is not to say the Church does not recognize the various meanings of the word “love” in common parlence. But it does clearly distinguish the kind of love Jesus was talking about from, e.g., the kind of “love” I might have for my motorcycle or my girlfriend.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Thus starting a business is a high-risk venture, and there is no guarantee that the entrepreneur will be able to make a living from it. In fact, he is obligated to endeavor that his employees will be able to make a living, even at the sacrifice of his own living.

Virtually every beginning entrepreneur does that, at least at first. Been there, done that. More than once, in fact.

 

[Robert_Sock]

If one investigates the psychology of religion, and love is considered, there first has to be a feeling of love and then a demonstration that love is being felt by the giver. It is the demonstration of love that confuses you. To love is to have an emotional state. To show love is a demonstration of your emotion.

God is LOVE! Does that mean that He is also an emotion?

 

[TEPO]

What’s love got to do with it? What’s love, but a second-hand emotion?

 

[TEPO]

Who needs a heart, when a heart can be broken?

 

[nmgauss]

God is LOVE! Does that mean that He is also an emotion?

This is a distortion of the word LOVE. How can the master of the universe be LOVE? He causes malformed babies, premature death, pain, and suffering as well as volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, drought, plague, etc. How is this LOVE?

 

[TEPO]

This is a distortion of the word LOVE. How can the master of the universe be LOVE? He causes malformed babies, premature death, pain, and suffering as well as volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, drought, plague, etc. How is this LOVE?

Yes, yes… Undistorted apostasy! Humanism leads to apostasy -see Robert…?

 

[minkymurph]

I get the impression that you consider profit to be some sort of “evil”. Lately the word “profit” suggests stealing or theft…by leftist definition.
I wish I had another word for it…but “profit” will have to do.
There is nothing morally or intrinsically wrong with profit. A person who works for wages is essentially “selling his valuable time” for a profit.

I do not think profit is evil. What I think is making a profit at someone else’s expense and having no conscience about it is at least questionable.

My argument is very true and history bears it out. Capitalism is the system that raised the standard of living of its poorest citizens to heights no collectivist system has ever begun to equal. Remember the difference between East and West Germany before the "Wall" came down?

Sure, those with “property/business rights” prospered, but by doing so, everyone prospered.
Some may call this “Trickle Down Economy”…but it sure beats “Trickle up Poverty”.

But surely West Germany was not what you would describe as a ‘real’ capitalist society? If West Germany had a ‘Trickle Down’ Economy it is news to me. I believe their welfare system was, and still is, quite generous.

 I have said it before...real true pure Capitalism does not exist in the world today. All I can point to to the example of the Pilgrims I posted back in thread number 629.

Everyone prospered…what could be more humanitarian than that?

Even the native Americans? The Indians? Where they wiped out by the Welfare State?

If the pilgrims are the only example you can give than I would say your evidence is insufficient.

Franlky, I see no weaknesses, only strengths.

There is no such thing as a human ideal or economic model that has no weaknesses at all.

I would say it is more likely the case there are no weaknesses you want to admit to, or any that matter because none of them affected you as individual.

I think I have established that profit is a good and necessary thing.

As to welfare…

There would be NO welfare without profit.

So who’s arguing there should be no profit at all?

Government interfering with the Free Market for humanitarian reasons would not only never be necessary…it would be unthinkable.

And what about in the interim period? While we’re waiting for this ‘real’ capitalist utopia to take off globally?

 

[minkymurph]

Blasphemy!!!

Capitalism cannot work with slave labor. It was the agrarian, feudal American South that maintained slavery in this country. It was the industrial, Capitalistic North that wiped it out—as Capitalism wiped out slavery and serfdom in the whole civilized world of the nineteenth century.

You are not forced at the point of a gun to enjoy the benefits of Capitalism. If you don’t want to work there is always “the dole”. Remember that it is the hard working productive Capitalist who is forced to support the government dole…at the point of a gun.

That depends on your definition of slavery. By your definition one would have to conclude all women who work as prostitutes are doing so voluntarily and people in sweat shops are not being exploited. I think you’ll find the UN has changed the 1929 definition of slavery to accommodate such and similar situations and new laws have been written that recognize slavery as having powers or control over another that attach to ownership rights.

But perhaps things such as human trafficking and sweat shops can be blamed on the welfare state rather than capitalism given that capitalism has no weaknesses.

 

[nmgauss]

Minkymurph: You said.
I do not think profit is evil. What I think is making a profit at someone else’s expense and having no conscience about it is at least questionable

How do you determine “at someone else’s expense”? If there were no “sweat shops” these people would have no jobs? If they have no jobs, that can be interpreted as at someone’s else’s expense.

Look at single-family rice farmers. They manage to eke out a living and get paid nothing for their efforts. Look at all the goat and sheep herders who must manage their flocks 24/7and get no salary. Not even overtime.

 

[minkymurph]

Minkymurph: You said.
I do not think profit is evil. What I think is making a profit at someone else’s expense and having no conscience about it is at least questionable

How do you determine “at someone else’s expense”? If there were no “sweat shops” these people would have no jobs? If they have no jobs, that can be interpreted as at someone’s else’s expense.

Exploitation. I would not want my children working in those conditions for such a meagre wage, so it would be hypocritical and certainly not humanitarian, which is the subject of the thread, to say it’s OK for someone else’s child.

Unsafe working practices, unsafe machinery, an unhealthy working environment, the threat of the sack if someone objects to working all the hours God sends, and paying someone infinitely less than can be afforded or is deserved cannot be justified by, ‘well they have a job.’ What’s wrong with giving them decent wages and conditions? I’ll tell you what’s wrong - doing so would mean less profit.

Look at single-family rice farmers. They manage to eke out a living and get paid nothing for their efforts. Look at all the goat and sheep herders who must manage their flocks 24/7and get no salary. Not even overtime.

And your point is? How does this relate to, ‘is capitalism or socialism more humanitarian?’

 

[nmgauss]

Exploitation. I would not want my children working in those conditions for such a meagre wage, so it would be hypocritical and certainly not humanitarian, which is the subject of the thread, to say it’s OK for someone else’s child.

Unsafe working practices, unsafe machinery, an unhealthy working environment, the threat of the sack if someone objects to working all the hours God sends, and paying someone infinitely less than can be afforded or is deserved cannot be justified by, ‘well they have a job.’ What’s wrong with giving them decent wages and conditions? I’ll tell you what’s wrong - doing so would mean less profit.
’

What if less profit would mean failure of the business and loss of all those jobs? If that happened, people would be out on the street homeless and begging.

I you lived in a small town and the sweat shop were the only place where jobs were available, would you say “no thanks” and starve, or would you endure the poor working conditions so that you could live another day?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I do not think profit is evil. What I think is making a profit at someone else’s expense and having no conscience about it is at least questionable.

I am glad we agree.

However, I would say that “making a profit at someone else’s expense” is just plain wrong…and leave conscience out of it.

An honest Capitalist would never profit at his employee’s expense or that of his suppliers.

Of course, a Capitalist who provides a better product or service at a better price than his fellow Capitalist, could profit at the other Capitalist’s expense. But that is the risk we take and the rule of the game we play. In a true Capitalist economy there would be no hard feelings.

Trouble begins with government involvement. When the losing Capitalist can run to a government and cry “foul” and demand government concessions or controls in the name of equality or fairness…then we have a problem and the Free Market is free no longer.

The honest, efficient Capitalist is taxed or regulated into raising his prices and lowering his standards to “equal” his competition. This only affects the consumer, who now has to pay more for less and blames the greedy Capitalists for making profits.

In a true Free Market…the farther government stays away…the better.

But surely West Germany was not what you would describe as a ‘real’ capitalist society? If West Germany had a ‘Trickle Down’ Economy it is news to me. I believe their welfare system was, and still is, quite generous.

I am not saying that West Germany had a real Capitalist economy…I am pointing out the difference between the FREE West and the socialist EAST.
Good heavens!!! The communists had to build a wall to keep their people IN. Whatever they had in West Germany was better than East Germany at that time.

Even the native Americans? The Indians? Where they wiped out by the Welfare State?

If the pilgrims are the only example you can give than I would say your evidence is insufficient.

I use the Pilgrims because it is the best example and one that is constantly twisted by revisionist statist historians.
The Industrial Revolution in England and Europe is a prime example. Standards of living increased, life spans increased and the birth rate began to climb.

The American Indian has been wiped out…by the welfare state…precisely.

The cruelest thing we ever did to the Indians was to not allow them to assimilate into our society. Since 1831 Indians have been considered “wards” of the U.S. government. Today, they live in squalor on reservations in dilapidated government housing. Alcoholism and illiteracy remain at record levels. Supporters of Indians call for more government money. More government housing is provided and it goes to ruin in no time. Indians have no reason to work…they are cared for by the government from cradle to the grave. The few who have pursued higher education, assimilated into “the white man’s world” have been successful and do well on their own. They are the first to condemn the reservation system.

I find it a real tribute(sarcastic font) to government welfare when I see a once noble warrior sleeping in a recliner outside a ruined trailer house surrounded by empty beer cans.

There is no such thing as a human ideal or economic model that has no weaknesses at all.

Then I will have to defer to you to point out any weaknesses. (try to find any that are not related to government intervention)

And what about in the interim period? While we’re waiting for this ‘real’ capitalist utopia to take off globally?

If an interim period HAS to occur … we will just have to make the best of it and suffer through.

 

[minkymurph]

What if less profit would mean failure of the business and loss of all those jobs? If that happened, people would be out on the street homeless and begging.

And who would they beg off? Presumably other people who had a job? People employed by a more efficient businessman? Or one that was prepared to exploit people to a greater degree?

Given this sort of thing happens in the capitalist West all the time, businesses closing as a consequence of failing profits, hundreds of people finding themselves out of a job, does this mean there is an abundance of homeless people begging in the street throughout the West? Should the government do anything about it? Should society do anything about it? Or should we just ignore them?

Are you saying if people received a decent wage and good working conditions businesses would fail because they couldn’t make a profit? Is it the case this efficient, superior and humanitarian capitalist system can only run at a profit and function efficiently if people are exploited?

I you lived in a small town and the sweat shop were the only place where jobs were available, would you say “no thanks” and starve, or would you endure the poor working conditions so that you could live another day?

I’m quite sure I would endure the poor working conditions, but if I owned the business I would like to think I would not stand back and let another human being suffer unnecessarily when it is within my power to do something about it simply because easing their suffering would affect my profit. If I owned the business I would like to think I would not justify another’s unnecessary suffering in the name of personal profit, and I would certainly not like to think I would call it humanitarian.

There are affluent businessmen who have gone out to African countries and set up numerous projects, such as water supplies out of their own pocket. They could easily set up sweat shops. They choose not to, yet they continue to be affluent businessmen. Why do you think that is?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Minkymurph: You said.
I do not think profit is evil. What I think is making a profit at someone else’s expense and having no conscience about it is at least questionable

How do you determine “at someone else’s expense”? If there were no “sweat shops” these people would have no jobs? If they have no jobs, that can be interpreted as at someone’s else’s expense.

Look at single-family rice farmers. They manage to eke out a living and get paid nothing for their efforts. Look at all the goat and sheep herders who must manage their flocks 24/7and get no salary. Not even overtime.

This reminded me of my recent conversation with a fellow who immigrated here from Macedonia. He told me that over there, the work is hard and all you get for it is enough to keep yourself fed. That’s nearly as true for the employer as for the employee where he came from. Anyway, he came here, learned English, got his “green card”, paid his taxes and applied for citizenship. He was so proud of what he did, when he was asked to produce his tax returns for two years (as immigration apparently does) he produced all ten years. He was told he only had to correctly answer six of the questions on the exam, but insisted on answering all ten, even though he passed with the first six.

In the meanwhile, his father in Macedonia “picked out” a bride for him and the families shipped her here. The couple were engaged before they had ever met. Regardless, they married and have remained married. They both worked in restaurants until they saved up enough money to rent a place to run a restaurant themselves. After awhile they bought the building as well. The couple flies an illuminated American flag on their restaurant, and are very quick to say how proud and glad they are to be Americans now.

So, sometimes, bad wages are a product of where a person is, or of the ability of the employer to pay.

I do like the way Augustine and Aquinas defined “justice in trade”. A trade is just when i trade that which I value less for that which I value more, and the other party does the same thing. When one thinks about it, that’s largely true at least in this country, in almost every transaction. Probably it was true in Macedonia too, but on a much lower level.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That depends on your definition of slavery. By your definition one would have to conclude all women who work as prostitutes are doing so voluntarily and people in sweat shops are not being exploited.

My definition of slavery is pretty simple. A person PHYSICALLY FORCED to do work is a slave. A person who works for no reward is also a slave. (a stupid slave)

By my definition…yes…“all women who WORK(and are paid) as prostitutes are doing so voluntarily” and some of them do very well.
People who WORK in sweatshops may be exploited but if they are paid…they are not slaves.

I think you’ll find the UN has changed the 1929 definition of slavery to accommodate such and similar situations and new laws have been written that recognize slavery as having powers or control over another that attach to ownership rights.

I’m sure the UN means well but until they do some serious condemnation of the major countries STILL involved in REAL slavery…they should refrain from defining anything.

But perhaps things such as human trafficking and sweat shops can be blamed on the welfare state rather than capitalism given that capitalism has no weaknesses.

Slavery cannot exist in a Capitalist Society

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force.

In a Capitalist society, no person or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting people’s rights and protecting them from physical force. The government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.

 

[minkymurph]

However, I would say that “making a profit at someone else’s expense” is just plain wrong…and leave conscience out of it.

I don’t understand what you mean here?

An honest Capitalist would never profit at his employee’s expense or that of his suppliers.

I would say I’m a lot more cynical than you, but I would argue more realistic. Honest, decent people wouldn’t do lots of things, but if you are saying there are all these nice, honest businessmen out there who don’t exploit people don’t make a profit at their employees expense, I really do think you see the world through rose-coloured glasses.

Of course, a Capitalist who provides a better product or service at a better price than his fellow Capitalist, could profit at the other Capitalist’s expense. But that is the risk we take and the rule of the game we play. In a true Capitalist economy there would be no hard feelings.

I use the Pilgrims because it is the best example and one that is constantly twisted by revisionist statist historians.
The Industrial Revolution in England and Europe is a prime example. Standards of living increased, life spans increased and the birth rate began to climb.

The American Indian has been wiped out…by the welfare state…precisely.

How exactly do you come to that conclusion?
Zoltan Cobalt;11797335:

The cruelest thing we ever did to the Indians was to not allow them to assimilate
into our society.

I wouldn’t claim to be an authority on Native Americans but I HATE assimilation theories. Maybe they didn’t want to assimilate and why should they have had to?

I find it a real tribute

(sarcastic font) to government welfare when I see a once noble warrior sleeping in a recliner outside a ruined trailer house surrounded by empty beer cans.

And what do you think would have prevented that from happening and what do you think could be done now to turn it around?

Then I will have to defer to you to point out any weaknesses. (try to find any that are not related to government intervention)

No. I was generous enough to state what I thought were the weaknesses of socialism. Anyone can say, ‘you tell me what the weaknesses are,’ but anyone needs to say that either doesn’t understand the theory the endorse because EVERY theory has one irrespective of how good it is, or genuinely or intentionally can’t see things from any perspective other than their own.

If an interim period HAS to occur … we will just have to make the best of it and suffer through.

Given that you have said there are no ‘real’ capitalist societies that is now. Is your approach to sit back and wait until someone else makes the world the way you want it to be? If so, is that what you describe as humanitarian?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Gal 5:13 (Douay Rheims)
13 For you, brethren, have been called unto liberty: only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh, but by charity of the spirit serve one another.

Is Capitalism or Socialism better suited to put the above type of liberty into practice?

Is the pursuit of happiness justifiable based on our Catholic teachings?

“Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him.”
-1 John 2:15