Interesting piece. I would argue that there's a foundational element missing though - a common understanding of what capitalism means, and what its perceived opposite, socialism, means (after all, our society is based on elements of both). Pure capitalism, for instance, relies on the premise that our business ecosystem is "frictionless" - something I think most of us would agree is false. We throw these words around like the political axes you describe boiling a complex, interactive, ecosystem into a faulty and simplistic "black and white" dichotomy.
The other thought I had is that consumerism isn't just about purchasing things - but purchasing advantages and a freedom that unintentionally heighten inequality. Two examples spring to mind: first, public schools must provide accommodations to children with disabilities - but in order to prove those disabilities parents must often buy expensive, private evaluations and work their way painfully through a complicated, bureaucratic system. As a result, the children most likely to benefit from school services and support are more likely to be from privileged, well-educated families, creating further disparity in the public education system from the "haves and have-nots".
Second, after law school many of us felt forced to work in large corporate law firms to pay off our extensive law school loans. Those without those debts due to their backgrounds were often the ones most "free" to go into public interest or non-profit jobs. My concern with this is similar to what you discussed with philanthropy. What is the long-term impact on public interest sectors if they are disproportionally represented by those who don't come from the backgrounds or communities they represent?
Interesting reply and I agree that this is not as simple as capitalism or it's opposite. I put it differently, but danced around the same thing in my comment.
I find your comment about law-school grads interesting, as it points to have/have-not but at a higher level. Most people would not think of working in large corporate law firms as something they were forced to do; nor does it seem (to many of us) a bad thing to be able to have chosen law school and then been able to find work to pay off the student loans.
Josh, I agree with you it's not about doing away with capitalism per se but more carefully defining it. I might even argue throwing out the "isms" terms altogether and starting from with the component parts. Eg, what do we believe as a society should be part of the common goods pool, like education and universal healthcare? What should our guardrails be in terms of values / morals / adherence to the law? What does a healthy public market look like, corporate governance structure, etc?
On the law note, most of us were not "forced" into big law in that a gun wasn't held to our head. But I knew lots of people (including myself) who saw it as the only practical option given law school debts and lack of knowledge and/or access to the few programs that would pay off loans in exchange for public interest or government work.
Of course, we were privileged that this was a choice we were able to make. But many of us probably would have made different career choices that better served the public interest if there were better options. And many more may have made the choice to go to law school if the barriers to entry weren't so high.
At the individual level, so what? This isn't a boo-hoo, poor me statement. But the cumulative impact of pushing law school grads toward the unfettered capitalism side of the law is high.
After all, what are capitalism's guardrails if not the law? And I think we've all seen those legal guardrails falling in recent years. I'd argue that's in large part because we've spent decades encouraging our best and brightest legal minds to pursue careers that made them rich rather than happy. To spend their time shoring up capitalism rather than shoring up the legal infrastructure to keep capitalism and our society at least somewhat meritocrat.
The intersection of government/law and morality is a tricky place. Surely, we our laws should reflect minimum morality. Murder being illegal comes to mind as a basic example. But when morality encompasses doing good, the path for government is less clear. For example, it is reasonable for government to encourage philanthropy via tax benefits, but should government force me to give, even if you and I agree it is the morally correct thing to do? The law can proscribe various behaviors, but cannot really coerce good behavior. At best, it can provide minimal standards. Moral leadership, which I wrote elsewhere is shamefully missing from our landscape, is what is needed, so we each see examples and are encouraged to do the right thing. Let me quickly state that I'm not saying government (and thereby society) should not do more than the minimum to help those in need. We should it just becomes more tricky to define that and get buy-in because it may demand that people, through taxes, support something in which they do not believe. How and where those lines are drawn is the issue. We would do better if we had good moral leadership, good people who would make the moral argument for this or that, untainted by political motivation. Given that difficulty, I think it makes sense for government to create incentives for people to do the right thing.
The costs of college, undergrad or graduate level, are obscene. I think the problem is in the cost structure more than the loans. The loans exist only because the cost is so high. The real solution lies in addressing the costs and also in the notion that every one needs to go to college.
I live in a community, outside NYC, filled with NYC police, firemen, nurses and tradespeople. They all own their own homes and are, or will be, sending kids to college if that is the path they choose. Many of them, if not most, do not have college degrees. On the other hand, I have a grandson who graduated from Bard (not a bad school) and is working as a bartender.
The notion that everyone should go to college drives up the cost and leaves us without enough tradesfolk to build and service our infrastructure. But, college was my grandson's choice and he will pay back his loans.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Josh. I agree with many of the things you have said, particularly that we need to focus on apprenticeships rather than college as a path to success. I still believe loans are part of the equation, however, along with the structural issues you raised.
The other thing I don't agree on is that laws cannot coerce good behaviors. I am reminded of the Milgram experiment on obedience, proving that most people will choose law or authority over their conscience. It's a similar concept to parenting - when our children our young they are not equipped to determine morality but we have them follow our moral family rules, which act as moral guideposts, if you will, as their personalities and character develop.
An example of this might be paying our taxes. For years, the IRS was feared throughout America for its strict enforcement of tax law and going after tax cheats. In the last decade or so, defunding and policy shifts have greatly undermined both its ability to enforce tax laws and its own moral standing as it ignores blatant tax evasions of the rich and powerful. I don't think it's a coincidence that as the legal arm of the IRS has eroded, so too has the cultural belief that paying one's taxes is the moral or "right" thing to do.
Thank you for the fun debate - I enjoyed this break from my week! Btw, I too went to Bard for undergrad and the first thing I read there was about the Milgram experiment. Good luck to your grandson!
Abby, I like discussion and often find that folks are closer and have more in common than they originally thought. This is why I believe we need more discussion, not partisan arguing which is really about power and not solutions.
I get what you are saying about parenting and it proves both of our points. In the case of parents and children, the parents set rules and also live a certain example, which the kids absorb. In society at the moment, we lack adults (at all, I might say), specifically adults who teach what is right and live that example. Who was our last national voice for morality? Dr. King comes to mind, but no one since then -- in my view.
Back to parents. Parents have the power to coerce in a way government does not and even parents lose that power as the children grow up.
The Ten Commandments are nearly all written in the negative. Why? We cannot really command good behavior so we set a baseline of what is not acceptable. I think government should be creative in designing incentives to good behavior. By the way, I don't disagree with examples of government undermining itself through lack of enforcement. If I can get away with parking illegally, why wouldn't I? Speed limit is 55 but no one drives 55 because we all know no cop will stop us for anything under 70. We're not stupid, we learn what we can get away with so we go with that.
Agree that none of the "isms" are pure. And you're right about consuming status. Consumerism is not only about material goods or even services but using social capital you may have inherited from your parents in addition to and apart from financial capital.
The moral question comes down to a balance between capitalism and "socialism" in the form of government redistribution/creation of the right safety net. And I suppose prevention to the extent possible of corruption through industry capture of government.
Where are we on that spectrum? I'm questioning if we are close to the right balance, without reaching any conclusion. But asking the question is a big first step for me, compared to my prior beliefs.
When I read the opening paragraph, I was tempted to stop and write a comment saying that I think capitalism is neither moral nor immoral. It is a tool. Morality comes into play when we made choices about how to use capitalism. Having read the whole piece, I stand by my first thought. A knife can be used for murder or, in the hands of a skilled surgeon, to save a life. It is but a tool.
What I think government can do, should do and, to some degree, does, is encourage our use of capital for good things. A tax deduction to encourage philanthropy is, I believe, a good thing. Now, is some giving done for self-serving purposes? Sure. So? Is the giving therefore not a good thing? No. I'd argue that government should find other ways to encourage private capital being put to good use.
In non-capitalist countries, how do things get done? Someone makes a profit, even if it is illicit. No one voluntarily works for nothing. If a dam needs to be built in the land of some dictator, is everyone involved in the project doing it for nothing? I rather doubt that. Are the incentives smaller than here? Probably so, except for a few, but surely there is some pay involved, even if it only takes the form of subsistence food. In such places, capitalism is not the free market we have here, but is it not still capitalism in the sense that people work for the hope of some reward?
Duplicating comment to Abby. (It's hot and I'm feeling a but "written out").
Agree that none of the "isms" are pure. And you're right about consuming status. Consumerism is not only about material goods or even services but using social capital you may have inherited from your parents in addition to and apart from financial capital.
The moral question comes down to a balance between capitalism and "socialism" in the form of government redistribution/creation of the right safety net. And I suppose prevention to the extent possible of corruption through industry capture of government.
Where are we on that spectrum? I'm questioning if we are close to the right balance, without reaching any conclusion. But asking the question is a big first step for me, compared to my prior beliefs.
Yes, but is inheriting capital, social or financial, a bad thing? Should those who inherit it forsake it? That, of course, will not happen. So, why not do more to encourage those who have, either by inheritance or by their own earnings and investments, to do more for the less fortunate? If we eliminate, maybe even reduce the incentives, what will we lose? Forget luxuries like modern electronics, our roads, schools and hospitals were only built because there was a profit incentive to the builders including those who conceived it to those who wielded a hammer. We can, and absolutely should do more to level the field and help the less fortunate. Reducing capitalist incentives will not get us there. (By the way, I'm not opposed to higher taxes. That is not what I mean. I'm talking about not doing away with capitalism, but making it work better.)
David, it is interesting you are writing this column within 24 hours of yesterday's announcement that Monday was the hottest day in recorded history, and that scientists are "scared" at the unexpected and increasing number of heat records being broken at quicker rates than previously anticipated. Is Citizen's United a direct consequence of capitalism allowing the wealthiest people to have undue influence by perpetrating self serving laws that advantage them? I would argue that capitalism is a tool for allocating resources efficiently, and that capitalism's greatest contribution can only be achieved with proper guard rails that prevent the types of abuses that we see all too often in today's world. We cant yell fire in a theater because we understood there are limits beyond which the advantages of free speech will be occluded. As an example, if we enacted a carbon tax, it would be the single most effective tool to fight climate change and save the possibility of a bright future for future generations. By putting a price on carbon, the capitalist system would reallocate resources quicker and more efficiently than by any other means, so in that sense, capitalism is uniquely positioned to help save the future for our children, but unfettered capitalism like unfettered speech will doom our future- which will be upon us sooner than you think. Citizen's united and Social media (like Musk's twitter) that remove any reasonable safeguards will destroy all the good that Capitalism (and free speech) can have. The morals are in the establishment and policing of those guardrails. Without those guardrails that reflect the values of a society, unfettered capitalism will quite possibly drive us to distinction far more efficiently than any other organizing principle precisely because of its efficiency, without regard to morality. Thanks for exploring this critically important issue. Best Michael
The moral question comes down to a balance between capitalism and "socialism" in the form of government redistribution/creation of the right safety net. And I suppose prevention to the extent possible of corruption through industry capture of government.
Where are we on that spectrum? I'm questioning if we are close to the right balance, without reaching any conclusion. But asking the question is a big first step for me, compared to my prior beliefs.
I think your concept of guardrails is consistent with questioning where we are on the moral spectrum in protecting the environment, especially in the near term for those most vulnerable to environmental hazards.
In school, I was taught that the US runs on a combination of capitalist and socialist mechanisms. But the far right point of view: "if you're not capitalist, you're communist and unAmerican" has upset the balance of the humanitarian and moral perspective and its services we used to have. But as you pointed out, pure unadulterated capitalism requires constant growth. That's unsustainable both because we have finite resources, and, with stagnant wages and runaway inflation, dwindling means to fuel economy. I think that as a country, we have installed profit as the ultimate goal rather than any humanitarian or moral good that those profits could be used for (such as raising the floor of our standard of living, or overall health or happiness of our population). I increasingly read and hear that people who want to affect some humanitarian or ecological practices on a large-scale can't "afford" to because of a lack of economic incentive: they're not priced in to do good. I'm not saying that good people or programs should be run at a loss, but that without a national push (whether grassroots, corporate, or state), to put humanitarian goals above profit, our country will crush the middle class and deplete the planet in its worship of capitalism.
I don't agree with everything you said, but for many years (I think since Dr. King), we have lacked moral leadership. Political leaders and government officials are not, as I perceive them, motivated by moral concerns. The country needs moral leadership that is not trying to build a political following, but a moral one. Who was the last moral leader, on a national scale, since King?
If the end product of capitalism is just money.. accumulation of wealth without purpose and just for privilege, we will have a quickly dying planet. The average household out east consumes approximately 800,000 galons of water a year. The privileged are consuming 13 million gallons.
Really interesting post. I wonder whether there are parallels with solving more “economic problems” with growth, and solving more “scientific problems” with knowledge.
David Deutsch mentions we are at the beginning of infinity in that there is an infinite amount of knowledge ahead of us that we will uncover. Whilst I often agree with his take, I sometimes step back and think; and what is the motivation of wanting to know more in the first place?”
Is that curiosity for “more” knowledge inherent in us? And by extension, if we see money/economic productivity as a narrow way of knowing “more”, then can that explain our propensity for economic growth somewhat?
Without any statistics to back me up, I would still posit that Communism in China since Mao has lifted more people out of poverty in a shorter period of time than any government/system in human history. But aren’t they just trying to do the thing you rail against - grow their economy to allow their citizens to consume more? If the end result is the same, how does the economic model matter? In the end, everyone wants to consume more whether communist or capitalist. And I can’t think of a truly socialist system that works beyond the scale of a kibbutz. In the end, you’re arguing against human nature (easier to do once you’ve already ”made it”) and good luck with that!
I'm not railing against capitalism/free enterprise or advocating socialism.
I'm questioning, without concluding, whether we have taken our system too far. I think it's healthy and mind expanding to question my "priors," especially, if I've held them for so long.
I'm not railing against capitalism/free enterprise or advocating socialism.
I'm questioning, without concluding, whether we have taken our system too far. I think it's healthy and mind expanding to question my "priors," especially, if I've held them for so long.
I like the comparison you make between knowledge and wealth accumulation and the urge to keep going in both realms even when the returns diminish or even become harmful to enjoyment of life. We compare the living standards of prior, long ago eras to our own and conclude, rationally, that we would never want those standards for ourselves. But how do we know that people were not happier then, living in a world that was not "disenchanted" by so much progress.
Lifting people above $2 a day is depressingly meager, and yet also much better than not doing it. My understanding is that various higher benchmarks also show progress, although I’m not familiar with the $7 one.
Could we and should we be doing better? Yes!
Having said that, humanity has never before made more progress, and I believe the global gini coefficient is actually falling.
So it’s very confusing. I’m optimistic that progress on global wellbeing will continue to accelerate, and I think capitalism and the growth it generates are vital aspects of that. At the same time, I’m extremely disappointed in people’s lack of generosity.
That's the story i was telling myself until i took a deeper dive into the numbers and what's really been happening in the developing world. There are many flaws with the statistics as used in the story.
One is, as Charlie Tillet below correctly points out, almost all of the "lifting" has been in China due to China's economic success.
Interesting piece. I would argue that there's a foundational element missing though - a common understanding of what capitalism means, and what its perceived opposite, socialism, means (after all, our society is based on elements of both). Pure capitalism, for instance, relies on the premise that our business ecosystem is "frictionless" - something I think most of us would agree is false. We throw these words around like the political axes you describe boiling a complex, interactive, ecosystem into a faulty and simplistic "black and white" dichotomy.
The other thought I had is that consumerism isn't just about purchasing things - but purchasing advantages and a freedom that unintentionally heighten inequality. Two examples spring to mind: first, public schools must provide accommodations to children with disabilities - but in order to prove those disabilities parents must often buy expensive, private evaluations and work their way painfully through a complicated, bureaucratic system. As a result, the children most likely to benefit from school services and support are more likely to be from privileged, well-educated families, creating further disparity in the public education system from the "haves and have-nots".
Second, after law school many of us felt forced to work in large corporate law firms to pay off our extensive law school loans. Those without those debts due to their backgrounds were often the ones most "free" to go into public interest or non-profit jobs. My concern with this is similar to what you discussed with philanthropy. What is the long-term impact on public interest sectors if they are disproportionally represented by those who don't come from the backgrounds or communities they represent?
Interesting reply and I agree that this is not as simple as capitalism or it's opposite. I put it differently, but danced around the same thing in my comment.
I find your comment about law-school grads interesting, as it points to have/have-not but at a higher level. Most people would not think of working in large corporate law firms as something they were forced to do; nor does it seem (to many of us) a bad thing to be able to have chosen law school and then been able to find work to pay off the student loans.
Josh, I agree with you it's not about doing away with capitalism per se but more carefully defining it. I might even argue throwing out the "isms" terms altogether and starting from with the component parts. Eg, what do we believe as a society should be part of the common goods pool, like education and universal healthcare? What should our guardrails be in terms of values / morals / adherence to the law? What does a healthy public market look like, corporate governance structure, etc?
On the law note, most of us were not "forced" into big law in that a gun wasn't held to our head. But I knew lots of people (including myself) who saw it as the only practical option given law school debts and lack of knowledge and/or access to the few programs that would pay off loans in exchange for public interest or government work.
Of course, we were privileged that this was a choice we were able to make. But many of us probably would have made different career choices that better served the public interest if there were better options. And many more may have made the choice to go to law school if the barriers to entry weren't so high.
At the individual level, so what? This isn't a boo-hoo, poor me statement. But the cumulative impact of pushing law school grads toward the unfettered capitalism side of the law is high.
After all, what are capitalism's guardrails if not the law? And I think we've all seen those legal guardrails falling in recent years. I'd argue that's in large part because we've spent decades encouraging our best and brightest legal minds to pursue careers that made them rich rather than happy. To spend their time shoring up capitalism rather than shoring up the legal infrastructure to keep capitalism and our society at least somewhat meritocrat.
The intersection of government/law and morality is a tricky place. Surely, we our laws should reflect minimum morality. Murder being illegal comes to mind as a basic example. But when morality encompasses doing good, the path for government is less clear. For example, it is reasonable for government to encourage philanthropy via tax benefits, but should government force me to give, even if you and I agree it is the morally correct thing to do? The law can proscribe various behaviors, but cannot really coerce good behavior. At best, it can provide minimal standards. Moral leadership, which I wrote elsewhere is shamefully missing from our landscape, is what is needed, so we each see examples and are encouraged to do the right thing. Let me quickly state that I'm not saying government (and thereby society) should not do more than the minimum to help those in need. We should it just becomes more tricky to define that and get buy-in because it may demand that people, through taxes, support something in which they do not believe. How and where those lines are drawn is the issue. We would do better if we had good moral leadership, good people who would make the moral argument for this or that, untainted by political motivation. Given that difficulty, I think it makes sense for government to create incentives for people to do the right thing.
The costs of college, undergrad or graduate level, are obscene. I think the problem is in the cost structure more than the loans. The loans exist only because the cost is so high. The real solution lies in addressing the costs and also in the notion that every one needs to go to college.
I live in a community, outside NYC, filled with NYC police, firemen, nurses and tradespeople. They all own their own homes and are, or will be, sending kids to college if that is the path they choose. Many of them, if not most, do not have college degrees. On the other hand, I have a grandson who graduated from Bard (not a bad school) and is working as a bartender.
The notion that everyone should go to college drives up the cost and leaves us without enough tradesfolk to build and service our infrastructure. But, college was my grandson's choice and he will pay back his loans.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Josh. I agree with many of the things you have said, particularly that we need to focus on apprenticeships rather than college as a path to success. I still believe loans are part of the equation, however, along with the structural issues you raised.
The other thing I don't agree on is that laws cannot coerce good behaviors. I am reminded of the Milgram experiment on obedience, proving that most people will choose law or authority over their conscience. It's a similar concept to parenting - when our children our young they are not equipped to determine morality but we have them follow our moral family rules, which act as moral guideposts, if you will, as their personalities and character develop.
An example of this might be paying our taxes. For years, the IRS was feared throughout America for its strict enforcement of tax law and going after tax cheats. In the last decade or so, defunding and policy shifts have greatly undermined both its ability to enforce tax laws and its own moral standing as it ignores blatant tax evasions of the rich and powerful. I don't think it's a coincidence that as the legal arm of the IRS has eroded, so too has the cultural belief that paying one's taxes is the moral or "right" thing to do.
Thank you for the fun debate - I enjoyed this break from my week! Btw, I too went to Bard for undergrad and the first thing I read there was about the Milgram experiment. Good luck to your grandson!
Abby, I like discussion and often find that folks are closer and have more in common than they originally thought. This is why I believe we need more discussion, not partisan arguing which is really about power and not solutions.
I get what you are saying about parenting and it proves both of our points. In the case of parents and children, the parents set rules and also live a certain example, which the kids absorb. In society at the moment, we lack adults (at all, I might say), specifically adults who teach what is right and live that example. Who was our last national voice for morality? Dr. King comes to mind, but no one since then -- in my view.
Back to parents. Parents have the power to coerce in a way government does not and even parents lose that power as the children grow up.
The Ten Commandments are nearly all written in the negative. Why? We cannot really command good behavior so we set a baseline of what is not acceptable. I think government should be creative in designing incentives to good behavior. By the way, I don't disagree with examples of government undermining itself through lack of enforcement. If I can get away with parking illegally, why wouldn't I? Speed limit is 55 but no one drives 55 because we all know no cop will stop us for anything under 70. We're not stupid, we learn what we can get away with so we go with that.
Agree that none of the "isms" are pure. And you're right about consuming status. Consumerism is not only about material goods or even services but using social capital you may have inherited from your parents in addition to and apart from financial capital.
The moral question comes down to a balance between capitalism and "socialism" in the form of government redistribution/creation of the right safety net. And I suppose prevention to the extent possible of corruption through industry capture of government.
Where are we on that spectrum? I'm questioning if we are close to the right balance, without reaching any conclusion. But asking the question is a big first step for me, compared to my prior beliefs.
When I read the opening paragraph, I was tempted to stop and write a comment saying that I think capitalism is neither moral nor immoral. It is a tool. Morality comes into play when we made choices about how to use capitalism. Having read the whole piece, I stand by my first thought. A knife can be used for murder or, in the hands of a skilled surgeon, to save a life. It is but a tool.
What I think government can do, should do and, to some degree, does, is encourage our use of capital for good things. A tax deduction to encourage philanthropy is, I believe, a good thing. Now, is some giving done for self-serving purposes? Sure. So? Is the giving therefore not a good thing? No. I'd argue that government should find other ways to encourage private capital being put to good use.
In non-capitalist countries, how do things get done? Someone makes a profit, even if it is illicit. No one voluntarily works for nothing. If a dam needs to be built in the land of some dictator, is everyone involved in the project doing it for nothing? I rather doubt that. Are the incentives smaller than here? Probably so, except for a few, but surely there is some pay involved, even if it only takes the form of subsistence food. In such places, capitalism is not the free market we have here, but is it not still capitalism in the sense that people work for the hope of some reward?
Duplicating comment to Abby. (It's hot and I'm feeling a but "written out").
Agree that none of the "isms" are pure. And you're right about consuming status. Consumerism is not only about material goods or even services but using social capital you may have inherited from your parents in addition to and apart from financial capital.
The moral question comes down to a balance between capitalism and "socialism" in the form of government redistribution/creation of the right safety net. And I suppose prevention to the extent possible of corruption through industry capture of government.
Where are we on that spectrum? I'm questioning if we are close to the right balance, without reaching any conclusion. But asking the question is a big first step for me, compared to my prior beliefs.
Yes, but is inheriting capital, social or financial, a bad thing? Should those who inherit it forsake it? That, of course, will not happen. So, why not do more to encourage those who have, either by inheritance or by their own earnings and investments, to do more for the less fortunate? If we eliminate, maybe even reduce the incentives, what will we lose? Forget luxuries like modern electronics, our roads, schools and hospitals were only built because there was a profit incentive to the builders including those who conceived it to those who wielded a hammer. We can, and absolutely should do more to level the field and help the less fortunate. Reducing capitalist incentives will not get us there. (By the way, I'm not opposed to higher taxes. That is not what I mean. I'm talking about not doing away with capitalism, but making it work better.)
The question must always be: compared to what? What alternative is demonstrably superior?
It's an old question. From 1969, https://youtu.be/XG_RvYTfDk8
David, it is interesting you are writing this column within 24 hours of yesterday's announcement that Monday was the hottest day in recorded history, and that scientists are "scared" at the unexpected and increasing number of heat records being broken at quicker rates than previously anticipated. Is Citizen's United a direct consequence of capitalism allowing the wealthiest people to have undue influence by perpetrating self serving laws that advantage them? I would argue that capitalism is a tool for allocating resources efficiently, and that capitalism's greatest contribution can only be achieved with proper guard rails that prevent the types of abuses that we see all too often in today's world. We cant yell fire in a theater because we understood there are limits beyond which the advantages of free speech will be occluded. As an example, if we enacted a carbon tax, it would be the single most effective tool to fight climate change and save the possibility of a bright future for future generations. By putting a price on carbon, the capitalist system would reallocate resources quicker and more efficiently than by any other means, so in that sense, capitalism is uniquely positioned to help save the future for our children, but unfettered capitalism like unfettered speech will doom our future- which will be upon us sooner than you think. Citizen's united and Social media (like Musk's twitter) that remove any reasonable safeguards will destroy all the good that Capitalism (and free speech) can have. The morals are in the establishment and policing of those guardrails. Without those guardrails that reflect the values of a society, unfettered capitalism will quite possibly drive us to distinction far more efficiently than any other organizing principle precisely because of its efficiency, without regard to morality. Thanks for exploring this critically important issue. Best Michael
A response I made to another comment:
The moral question comes down to a balance between capitalism and "socialism" in the form of government redistribution/creation of the right safety net. And I suppose prevention to the extent possible of corruption through industry capture of government.
Where are we on that spectrum? I'm questioning if we are close to the right balance, without reaching any conclusion. But asking the question is a big first step for me, compared to my prior beliefs.
I think your concept of guardrails is consistent with questioning where we are on the moral spectrum in protecting the environment, especially in the near term for those most vulnerable to environmental hazards.
In school, I was taught that the US runs on a combination of capitalist and socialist mechanisms. But the far right point of view: "if you're not capitalist, you're communist and unAmerican" has upset the balance of the humanitarian and moral perspective and its services we used to have. But as you pointed out, pure unadulterated capitalism requires constant growth. That's unsustainable both because we have finite resources, and, with stagnant wages and runaway inflation, dwindling means to fuel economy. I think that as a country, we have installed profit as the ultimate goal rather than any humanitarian or moral good that those profits could be used for (such as raising the floor of our standard of living, or overall health or happiness of our population). I increasingly read and hear that people who want to affect some humanitarian or ecological practices on a large-scale can't "afford" to because of a lack of economic incentive: they're not priced in to do good. I'm not saying that good people or programs should be run at a loss, but that without a national push (whether grassroots, corporate, or state), to put humanitarian goals above profit, our country will crush the middle class and deplete the planet in its worship of capitalism.
I don't agree with everything you said, but for many years (I think since Dr. King), we have lacked moral leadership. Political leaders and government officials are not, as I perceive them, motivated by moral concerns. The country needs moral leadership that is not trying to build a political following, but a moral one. Who was the last moral leader, on a national scale, since King?
If the end product of capitalism is just money.. accumulation of wealth without purpose and just for privilege, we will have a quickly dying planet. The average household out east consumes approximately 800,000 galons of water a year. The privileged are consuming 13 million gallons.
Really interesting post. I wonder whether there are parallels with solving more “economic problems” with growth, and solving more “scientific problems” with knowledge.
David Deutsch mentions we are at the beginning of infinity in that there is an infinite amount of knowledge ahead of us that we will uncover. Whilst I often agree with his take, I sometimes step back and think; and what is the motivation of wanting to know more in the first place?”
Is that curiosity for “more” knowledge inherent in us? And by extension, if we see money/economic productivity as a narrow way of knowing “more”, then can that explain our propensity for economic growth somewhat?
Without any statistics to back me up, I would still posit that Communism in China since Mao has lifted more people out of poverty in a shorter period of time than any government/system in human history. But aren’t they just trying to do the thing you rail against - grow their economy to allow their citizens to consume more? If the end result is the same, how does the economic model matter? In the end, everyone wants to consume more whether communist or capitalist. And I can’t think of a truly socialist system that works beyond the scale of a kibbutz. In the end, you’re arguing against human nature (easier to do once you’ve already ”made it”) and good luck with that!
Meant to reply to you with the below:
I'm not railing against capitalism/free enterprise or advocating socialism.
I'm questioning, without concluding, whether we have taken our system too far. I think it's healthy and mind expanding to question my "priors," especially, if I've held them for so long.
I'm not railing against capitalism/free enterprise or advocating socialism.
I'm questioning, without concluding, whether we have taken our system too far. I think it's healthy and mind expanding to question my "priors," especially, if I've held them for so long.
I like the comparison you make between knowledge and wealth accumulation and the urge to keep going in both realms even when the returns diminish or even become harmful to enjoyment of life. We compare the living standards of prior, long ago eras to our own and conclude, rationally, that we would never want those standards for ourselves. But how do we know that people were not happier then, living in a world that was not "disenchanted" by so much progress.
Lifting people above $2 a day is depressingly meager, and yet also much better than not doing it. My understanding is that various higher benchmarks also show progress, although I’m not familiar with the $7 one.
Could we and should we be doing better? Yes!
Having said that, humanity has never before made more progress, and I believe the global gini coefficient is actually falling.
So it’s very confusing. I’m optimistic that progress on global wellbeing will continue to accelerate, and I think capitalism and the growth it generates are vital aspects of that. At the same time, I’m extremely disappointed in people’s lack of generosity.
That's the story i was telling myself until i took a deeper dive into the numbers and what's really been happening in the developing world. There are many flaws with the statistics as used in the story.
One is, as Charlie Tillet below correctly points out, almost all of the "lifting" has been in China due to China's economic success.