Capitalism is killing our morals, our future

Fairly regulated capitalism that ignores lobbyists, doesn't get subsidized, doesn't get bailed out, can't start monopolies, and can't harm the public (so basically, keep it from collapsing on itself as unregulated capitalism does) can produce a more prosperous society than anything you and your socialist friends think is better.

I don't care if you think the way a business makes its money is immoral or whatever - if it's legal, it's fair game. Make your own money. The only alternatives you have are fascism (business and the government team up to rule the public) and "communism" (I'll use that term even though it's not correct), where the government takes over the entire economy. Look at how those turned out.

 

They were just parroting the more informed complaints of Ron Paul supporters, but with less understanding and comprehension than their libertarian counterparts. For instance, most libertarians know that we are not actually a "capitalist" economy. In "capitalist" economies, the central government doesn't monopolize and plan the money supply, or replace free markets with a convoluted patchwork of government welfare programs and bureaucracies. We've been living under convoluted socialism for decades and the results are endless debt and authoritarian government.

 

We've done the exact opposite. Over time, more and more power has been concentrated in Washington DC. The US Dollar is itself a centrally-planned monopoly.

You can thank the "demand side" Keynesians who have been parroting consumption and debt for decades.

This is amazing. You are blaming capitalism (which doesn't actually exist in this country) for the problems that socialism has caused. Amazing!

All that debt and consumerism is the byproduct of big government socialists who push "demand side" theories about economics. They are the ones always pushing for "stimulus" and debt spending. Get your facts straight.

 

I wouldn't blame pure capitalism but rather the cronyist version of it that develops in most societies.

It's not the concept of capitalism overall that is the problem -- it's what happens when an elite class takes control of the system through a combination of controlling key resources and government.

One of the scarier aspects to what determines quality of life is how it's so dependent on the actions of the elite. The elite of Norway, for example, clearly rule their system much more in the interests of their common people than the elite of our system.

No matter what system you devise, an elite class will form. It's only human nature and the principles discussed by Nietzsche between the ubermenschen and the untermenschen. Most people are naturally followers. This isn't a bad thing, but it does mean that society must depend heavily on its leadership for sustainability and compassion.

 

Yes it does. Capitalism is based upon private property rights, which are themselves moral constructs.

 

Under a "capitalist" system, the property rights of all, weak and strong, are of paramount importance to the efficient and proper operation of markets, which is why capitalism as a system tends to raise everyone's standard of living.

The "government" has ever been the scourge of the weak. Anytime you look at genocide and oppression, a centralized government was the culprit. Your "solution" is to let the fox into the hen-house.

Mind explaining this unsupportable speculation?

In other words, you lack an objective and consistent philosophy and just go with your gut feeling.

 

Ok well let's look at history our morals have been digrading since the 60s and since the60 we have been moving tword socialism. Captalism was much stronger before the 60s and we are moving away from it and to socialism an entitlement society so simple logic would dictate that socialism is degrading our morals.

Also since the 60s we have been moving away from and are in some cases even demonizeing Christianity.

 

Liberals dont care about morality. When they talk about it like they are worried you automatically know they are on about lies.

 

The point of the article is that capitalism without moral values to guide it is destructive.
It also contends that the mentality of capitalism is affecting other areas of life that should not be pursuing capitalist values.
The tragic part is the pessimistic idea that only a massive collapse will lead to meaningful reforms since the entrenched interests are never going to give up control willingly.

 

I agree that property rights are an element of capitalism. However, capitalism in and of itself is not a system of moral behavior.

 

I would agree that some sort of moral basis is needed for a culture to survive, but if the Nordic countries are any indication, it's mostly just a matter of having a sense of community.

The most successful economic systems incorporate a combination of capitalism and socialism.

 

And capitalism itself is not a system of immoral behavior

The system is not inherintly good or evil

 

We've had several socialized amenities since before that. Roads have been socialized for quite a while. Running water is usually provided by a socialized public enterprise.

Even in the cases where public franchises are used (like electricity), the companies involved are private, but they are effectively socialized by government preventing other utilities from entering the market.

 

The point of the article is to confirm the idea that only someone from Harvard could get away with saying the people that want to change our morals are the ones that want to protect them, while the people that want to support our morals, are the ones causing the erosion.

 

It appears that we agree on this. It's nice to find agreements from time to time.

 

While we're on the topic of Morals in America, can anyone identify the peak of American moral integrity and when it started to decline?

Interested in people's interpretation of history

 

From one perspective and in that alternative, why shouldn't we be able to purchase the best morals money can buy with an official Mint at our disposal?

 

I will happily sell you a written copy of my morals for $10 plus shipping and handling.

No refunds.

 

Indeed. Some things run better in a capitalist framework and some work better as a communal effort.
The whole idea of community is that we are in it together rather than on our own.

 

I believe I may be able to purchase "better" morals for 9.99 plus free shipping and handling.

 

We knew all that 200 years ago, from almost the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when the rich seized the production of others and claimed they created the science that is the only real capital. The problem remains because Socialism was a false alternative. The reason is that both Capitalism and Socialism are just extensions of feudalism's society based on birth and not worth. The solution is to cut off the children of the rich from Daddy's Money at age 18. Those in power will have to change what they put the rest of us through if their own children are subject to the same conditions. This won't be a free society until the children of the rich have the same chance of becoming blue-collar workers that the children of blue-collar workers have. Then the capitalists will demand higher wages for their lower-echelon workers because their own sons will be among them, subject to wage-gouging for the first time. The reason that hereditary capitalists are crooks and thieves is that if they believe in the justice of hereditary privileges, they themselves must have made their money through luck and cheating. No matter how much spin they give to the claim that they earned it and deserve it more than people who didn't do what they did to get it, they show they are disingenuous by having no problem with handing it down to people who never earned any of it. Also, the corruption of their personal lives and personalities is demonstrated by the fact that they have to buy the love of their neglected or disgusted children through giving them money, throwing money at the problem of the dysfunctional family created by workoholic, greedhead zombies like themselves.

I'd dismiss any revelation from college professors. Harvard especially is a class-biased institution, but all colleges demand a permanently damaging four years of work without pay, which is only part of the system because the children of the rich live off healthy allowances from Daddy. Any officer is this academic system is disqualified from having anything to say about it worth listening to. All aristocrats and their flunkies are disqualified from a democratic society, which is absolute rule by the majority.

 

The modern Capitalist is a dumb jock bully, just like the mythical Atlas was, as primitive as the Incredible Hulk. The Boss howls at the moon, thumps his chest, grunts, and whacks his employees over the head with his club.

 

Enh, I'd be careful with the socialist part of that equation. Regulation? Yes. Capitalism needs it because it is inherently designed to destroy itself and become a monopoly. However, places like Europe take it too far. Keep people safe and the like, but be very careful not to trample entrepeneurship with red tape, or have the government start deciding who should and should not be in business (unless, you know, they commit fraud or kill people or something). Government subsidies and bail outs already do that and they keep businesses with bad practices who don't deserve to be in business on their feet.

 

There are no morals better than mine. I guarantee it.