It's not the rich that take your money without asking

So what is your point? There are quite a few millionaires who lost everything also; do they count?

This notion that we should be envious of wealth can only be expressed through ignorance and as a direct result of the epic failure of our educational institutions which promote such nonsense infested with intellectual morons who have never had to work a day in their lives in the real world, are living off the wealth of the universities alumni and enjoying security through tenure.

 

The above illustrates the epic failure of our educational systems; thank you for providing an excellent example of it.

Carry on.

 

Capitalism is a great engine of innovation and economic growth that works by providing fabulous rewards to those who provide what the market wants. These rewards incentive work, effort, and risk taking that provides innovation and efficiency. We should not destroy that element.

The problem with capitalism is that it does not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about people who, because of age, infirmity, illness, mental condition or just temporary market conditions, do not have market value that provides a basic level of subsistence. Capitalism doesn't care if they starve to death or bleed to death because they couldn't afford health insurance. Capitalism is only interested in profit. Capitalism doesn't care if our skies and waters and beaches are polluted or that our resources are mismanaged or that the unprotected are abused. Capitalism just cares about profit.

"Leftists" like me recognize that profit and incentive are important and need to be maintained for an effective economy. But we also believe people have a value that is not simply based upon the current market value for their skills or services. We recognize that clean air and water have values over just profit margins. We like the fact that hordes of the aged or infirm or temporarily down on their luck are not living under freeways begging for food at stoplights, that our air and water are cleaner, that workers and investors and consumers have some basic rights and protections against sweatshops and ripoff and frauds, that people don't bleed to death outside a hospital because they don't have health care coverage, and that a little boy doesn't have to forego education because his parent is too poor. And so we believe that society is enhanced when you provide social programs and regulations that limit some of the defects of laizzes-faire capitalism.

And you can have a system that both provides tremendous rewards, but also provides tax revenues to support the safety nets and regulations that limit those defects of laizzes-faire capitalism.

That is why I support government "plunder". Other leftists can speak for themselves.

 

TD says, parroting idiot RNC rhetoric.

 

The only issue I take with any of this is the concept that abstract terms ought to be personified. Capitalism and the market don't want anything, they can't, they're simply an allocation mechanism and a the best of a lot of less than ideal choices.

I just don't think we should
a) confuse markets with capitalism
b) personify markets or
c) create a false dichotomy between providing public goods and capitalism

 

Are you suggesting my post does that? How?

 

It's guilty of B at the very least based on this statement:

It doesn't care, it can't care, it's no more capable of caring than the keyboard I'm typing on. It's not that it "doesn't care", it's simply not an objective for it.

You also state that it "cares about profits" -- it doesn't though, it's a means to achieve profits, and along those lines it's in capitalism's best interest to maintain clean air and waterways because their destruction erodes long term profitability, but this is no different for publicly held resources, see Tragedy of the Commons.

I think you're also guilty of C, in that you seem to imply that profitability comes with sacrificing public good provision (benefits, green initiatives), while these can be perfectly in line with a profit motive, particularly with regards to welfare benefits and the multiplier effect that occurs when those dollars are eventually spent.

 

That is not me personalizing the market. To the contrary, I'm pointing out that the markets are impersonal. That is the point.

What's the difference?

The goal of a capitalist system is fundamentally creating profits for the owners of enterprise.

They can be. But often they are not. The fundamental objective if profit.

 

I suppose my issue is with the term "care". Caring is something unique to sentient beings, markets, capitalism and climate aren't capable of care.

I'd agree but would exchange the world enterprise for capital.

And by virtue of that, the desire to sustain those profits over the long term as that yields greater returns. This can have both positive and negative externalities.

 

Exactly my point why it think we need social systems and regulation within a capitalist system.

OK

 

It is always refreshing to see people who get it; outstanding post!