You might get away with it for a couple tax seasons but then the word gets around and you can’t get legitimate full-time employees even when you need them. Capitalism is amoral. There will be some good people going into business and there will be some rotten people going into business . Let me assure you the good people succeed far more often than the rottenOn the other hand, I also know plenty of businessmen who feel the opposite as well. Some don’t care about their employees and will do whats right for themselves and could care less what happens to the employees. One would hope that a Catholic businessman or woman gives some thought to the wellbeing of their employees. But there is little inherent in capitalism that would bring that about. For example, I know a CPA firm that has routinely hired accounting graduates and portrayed it as a permanent position. What they meant was permanent until the end of tax season. Now that is a sleazy thing to do in my opinion, but morality might encourage honesty about the nature of the position but capitalism won’t.
When a business closes there are far more affected than just their customers and employees. For instance if I close it affects my landlord , the company who provide utilities, the IT company I subcontract work to , the web company I deal with, the local office supply store, the people I buy my software from, etc., etc., etc. We are all dependent on each other.There is little inherent in any system that brings about altruism on the part of those who hire others. It’s not peculiar to capitalism.
But I’ll say this. It occurred to me some time ago that while people are reluctant to part with money, especially for a service, they’ll do it readily if they perceive that what they’re getting is worth what they’re giving for it. To whatever degree one’s product may be unique, the producer satisfies a need or want that would not otherwise be satisfied.
When it comes to a service, the same is true. People hire others to perform services they could not perform themselves, or don’t want to perform. And they’ll part with money to have one do it. That, frankly, is to me a high compliment, one of the highest one person can give to another.
And so, when it comes to Estesbob’s business which I understand to be accounting, it isn’t as if there are no competitors for his service. Yet, some number of people go to Estesbob, meaning they value what he can give them more than what some other can give them. Now, maybe they’re mistaken in that belief, but maybe they’re not.
If Estesbob, then, sells his business or liquidates it, is it a zero sum game? Yes, his employees can go get another job, and his clients can go to someone else. But for his devoted clients, it sure isn’t a zero sum game. They will be obliged to go to some person who has not had years of understanding their situation and will never do things quite the way Bob did.
So to me, as long as a business is run reasonably on the square, and as long as Bob is reasonably decent in his support, by money and otherwise, of activities that help the less fortunate, there is no moral fault in failing to sell it up and giving the proceeds to the poor.
At least some people will be better off if he doesn’t.
It very well could not be a zero sum game, but some people will always suffer in any sort of transition. I have a friend who left a professional practice to become a priest. Some of his clients really miss him, but we can’t really say he did the wrong thing.If Estesbob, then, sells his business or liquidates it, is it a zero sum game? Yes, his employees can go get another job, and his clients can go to someone else. But for his devoted clients, it sure isn’t a zero sum game. They will be obliged to go to some person who has not had years of understanding their situation and will never do things quite the way Bob did.
I would say there is nothing necessarily immoral about running a business. But, that doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit may not be prompting the business owner to sell the business and give the money to the poor. We usually can’t judge from a distance what he ought or ought not to do, but when making decisions I think we need to consider all the possibilities, including those that seem preposterous to the rest of the world.So to me, as long as a business is run reasonably on the square, and as long as Bob is reasonably decent in his support, by money and otherwise, of activities that help the less fortunate, there is no moral fault in failing to sell it up and giving the proceeds to the poor.
At least some people will be better off if he doesn’t.
You are not a capitalist (although you might be capitalistic if you aspire to own more capital), you are a petit bourgeoisie with conservative sympathies.Let me see. I am a greedy capitalistic business owner. I employ 7 people-all of whom depend upon my business for their livelihood. Would it better if I fired all them, sold my business and gave the money to the poor?
“petit bourgeoisie”? I like that. I might put on my business cardYou are not a capitalist (although you might be capitalistic if you aspire to own more capital), you are a petit bourgeoisie with conservative sympathies.
Or you could try to match yourself here. You may be L2 or L1.
I do not like to associate specific people with cupidity.
No, capitalism, in all it’s multifarious variations, is never amoral. It’s just not the morality that some prefer.Capitalism is amoral.
Capitalism is so vaguely defined that we cannot define it as moral or immoral. Starting and running a business is usually not immoral, unless you are starting something like an abortion clinic. On the other hand, once you start interacting with others there is the temptation for immorality that capitalism as a system does not necessarily discourage.No, capitalism, in all it’s multifarious variations, is never amoral. It’s just not the morality that some prefer.
Government meddling and the handing out of favors is not capitalism.I think there is a lot of blame to go around for the financial crisis. I agree that both republicans and democrats acted badly, the power of our special interest groups does not encourage good behavior. Which of course may be one of the reasons Pope Francis is critical of capitalism. The question is, can you have a capitalist system where the large players don’t capture the government regulatory apparatus? That is far from clear.
Or if you were a leftist politician or activist who thought he knew a better way to spend his constituents money than they did. Most leftists think they are smarter than the people whose money they pilfer.I did not say YOU thought you were better than your employees or those without money. I said IF you did and MIGHT be influenced by Calvinist principles or Social Darwinism.
Where does capitalism exist?Government meddling and the handing out of favors is not capitalism.
Actually, taxation is not pilfering.Or if you were a leftist politician or activist who thought he knew a better way to spend his constituents money than they did. Most leftists think they are smarter than the people whose money they pilfer.
That “capitalism” is ill defined, or multiply defined is a big problem. It often means something quite different to those attacking and defending it.Capitalism is so vaguely defined that we cannot define it as moral or immoral. Starting and running a business is usually not immoral, unless you are starting something like an abortion clinic. On the other hand, once you start interacting with others there is the temptation for immorality that capitalism as a system does not necessarily discourage.
Capitalism doesn’t exist anywhere in a pure form.Where does capitalism exist?
Often it is.Actually, taxation is not pilfering.
Capitalism is, in a nutshell, a system of state sponsored usury; a system in which the government enforces the validity of usurious contracts.That “capitalism” is ill defined, or multiply defined is a big problem. It often means something quite different to those attacking and defending it.
This makes it harder, but not impossible, to discuss the morality of capitalism.
There is no need for government enforcement to have capitalism, although it helps to have a government that enforces contracts.Capitalism is, in a nutshell, a system of state sponsored usury; a system in which the government enforces the validity of usurious contracts.
What other kind of government pilfering is there?Often it is.
I didn’t mention taxation, by the way.
That’s a new one by me. I’ll add that to my list of definitions.Capitalism is, in a nutshell, a system of state sponsored usury; a system in which the government enforces the validity of usurious contracts.
I doubt the capitalist system would exist without government to enforce it; and I said usurious contracts, not unspecified contracts. That makes all the difference in the world.There is no need for government enforcement to have capitalism, although it helps to have a government that enforces contracts.
Not all taxation is pilfering.What other kind of government pilfering is there?