Capitalism Is Perfect Or Not?

[Winchester]

Yes it was.  It was an attempt at a reductio ad absurdum.  

This is America. Speak English, Karl.

[havok579257]

To clarify my position, I'd like to say that I agree with this, but where I disagree with many people is that any force may be wielded to stop this. I hold that the just wage is that which is agreed upon, provided there is no deception by either party (this is a position held by the Late Scholastics). 

 

But Catholics are called to be not merely just, but also compassionate. The answer to paying poorly producing workers beyond their production level (meaning they represent a loss to the business) is for the more productive employees and the employer to voluntarily subsidize their jobs. But realistically, there is a limit to this. Everyone will be worse off if a business runs itself into the ground.

 

 

would you consider financial fines as a form of force?  how would be a way to hold employers to giving their employees a just and fair wage?  

Edited March 18, 2014 by havok579257

[Winchester]

would you consider financial fines as a form of force?  how would be a way to hold employers to giving their employees a just and fair wage?  

If the fines were based on a breach of contract, no. There remains a sort of gray area where one might believe that there was some form of exploitation of someone without a clear act of fraud. For instance, someone hiring a person with a mental disability of some sort. To me, if you really believe some form of evil was committed and you feel violence is in order, then go for it. However, you have no right to enlist others in your quest under threat of violence.

 

But this prohibition extends even to clear crimes. Let's say you see someone being mugged. I would entirely support you intervening with physical violence. However, I would not support you forcing others to intervene. Morally, that is. Emotionally, I might cave in the heat of the moment and threaten someone to help, or else. I would not believe my action in that regard to be morally acceptable, however expedient it might be.

 

 

I should clarify further that it's initiation of force that's the problem, not force itself. To restate the above: A sees B assaulting C and wishes to intervene. This is acceptable. What is not acceptable is for A to force D to help, since this would be an initiation of force. Further, if it later comes out that B was not initiating force, then A is liable for his mistaken intervention.

[NotreDame]

[...]

 

So since this is more an ideology imposing a system, to me it is more a political question... It's scary to me really, how orwellian Belloc, who I enjoy, begins to sound (source here):

 

“Three provisos must be kept clearly in mind before we approach the problem and attempt its practical solution.

 

“The first proviso is that in the restoration of property we are not attempting, and could never reach, a mechanical perfection.  We are only attempting to change the general tone of society and restore property as a commonly present, not a universal, institution.

 

“The second proviso is that we cannot even begin such a reform unless there is a favorable state of mind present in society, a desire to own property, sufficient to support and maintain the movement and to nourish institutions which will make it permanent.

 

 â€œThe third proviso is that in this attempt to restore Economic Freedom, the powers of the State must be invoked”17.

 

So to paraphrase "in order to restore property rights, we first must over-ride them."  (Personally, I'd rather skip the second portion and just respect property rights.)  This is what scares me so much with these sorts of top-down ideologies is that ultimately you'd hand over incredible power to the state to implement the ideas, because no group would ever arrive at them on their own.  This is power which would likely never be relinquished.  Power which would likely be abused beginning on day one.  (Read Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" for an overview on that - for though distributism has different ends than marxism, the necessary means have much in common.)

 

I may have misunderstood distributivism or simplified some of it's arguments - and if I did I apologize - but to it's proponents I would encourage a different approach.  Don't start with some sort of utopian end in mind and work backwards.  That never ends well.  Take the world as it was, is, and will be.  Then add your values on top of that as a framework.

 

For example, "making everyone a property owner" and "eliminating companies" sounds great, but it would be hard to get from here to there without totalitarianism, and the ending would likely disappoint. 

 

[...]

 

After some further research into distributivism it appears my suspicions were correct.  Belloc later veered toward facism and totalitarianism, seeing in Mussolini, for example, the kind of power and "great man" that could bring about the crazy economic system he envisioned.

 

(this is just a sample, there is a lot more out there) From http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/j025htBelloc_Fascism.htm :

 

     “Italy has done better [than other nations after World War I]: but only under the stress of a threatened dissolution. Society in Italy had to reach the point of acute peril before that reaction took place which saved the country; but what a fine reaction it was, not only in its virtues, but, what is more important, in its spirit! What a strong critical sense Italy had shown! What intelligence in rejection of sophistry, and what virility in execution! May it last! But will it last? Even in Italy? (p. 163)

    “No newspaper here [England] either foresaw or, when it arrived, made comprehensible the Italian movement which led to the resurrection of the country by Mussolini.” (p. 268)
 

As I pointed out in my earlier post (partially quoted above), this is exactly what I would have expected.  Distributivism as a set of values, or a bottoms-up voluntary practice is fine and commendable. However, Distributivism as an actual system and some sort of political or economic third-way would end badly.

Edited March 18, 2014 by NotreDame

[havok579257]

After some further research into distributivism it appears my suspicions were correct.  Belloc later veered toward facism and totalitarianism, seeing in Mussolini, for example, the kind of power and "great man" that could bring about the crazy economic system he envisioned.

 

(this is just a sample, there is a lot more out there) From http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/j025htBelloc_Fascism.htm :

 

     “Italy has done better [than other nations after World War I]: but only under the stress of a threatened dissolution. Society in Italy had to reach the point of acute peril before that reaction took place which saved the country; but what a fine reaction it was, not only in its virtues, but, what is more important, in its spirit! What a strong critical sense Italy had shown! What intelligence in rejection of sophistry, and what virility in execution! May it last! But will it last? Even in Italy? (p. 163)

    “No newspaper here [England] either foresaw or, when it arrived, made comprehensible the Italian movement which led to the resurrection of the country by Mussolini.” (p. 268)
 

As I pointed out in my earlier post (partially quoted above), this is exactly what I would have expected.  Distributivism as a set of values, or a bottoms-up voluntary practice is fine and commendable. However, Distributivism as an actual system and some sort of political or economic third-way would end badly.

 

 

just because people warped to distributinism was run by bad people and warped to be bad does not mean it would turn out this way again.  distributionism is a better idea than capitalism and socialism.

[NotreDame]

distributionism is a better idea than capitalism and socialism.

 

Define capitalism and socialism as you understand them, then define distributionism and explain why it would be better.

 

As I've explained in my posts, distributionism seems to ignore even the most basic economics and top-down distributionism seems pretty totalitarian.

 

 

[Pliny]

and your delusional if you think Walmart is just barely getting by on its profits.  in 2011 walmart made 15.7 billion in profits.  man, those poor guys.  barely getting by.  i mean who can survive on profits of 15.7 billion.  oh wait, i forgot to add, that's just their profits in america.  that doesn't even take into account their profits out of america.  the ceo of walmart received a pay package of 18.1 million dollars in 2011.  but again their are just getting by.  i mean you can't pay liveable wages or offer health insurance or cut hours to keep them under full time status but hey paying a ceo only 18.1 million is unjust.  i mean how dare  they consider paying him ever so slightly less so they can not stiff their employees by cutting hours and not paying a liveable wage.  how will the ceo ever survive on 10 million dollars a year.  oh the humanity.

 

they are morally bound to provide a liveable wage to its employees according to the catholic church.  unless you believe capitalism trumps church teaching.  although i don't expect you to understand it since capitalism seems to trump all for you.  

 

You should strive to put your figures in context.  A text without a context is a pretext.

 

For example, do you have any idea of how much more each employee in the US would earn if you could have your dream of cutting the CEO's pay to zero and redistributing it among the employees?  

 

Also, do you know that 70% of Wal-Mart employees turn over within a year, so obviously many of them see it as a stepping stone or a place to work temporarily while waiting for another job.

 

Nobody is morally bound to provide a living wage.  That's hogwash and puts an unfair burden on the employer who is not to blame for the economic environment, especially one in which everyone's buying power is reduced due to onerous taxes and supporting those who don't work.

[havok579257]

You should strive to put your figures in context.  A text without a context is a pretext.

 

For example, do you have any idea of how much more each employee in the US would earn if you could have your dream of cutting the CEO's pay to zero and redistributing it among the employees?  

 

Also, do you know that 70% of Wal-Mart employees turn over within a year, so obviously many of them see it as a stepping stone or a place to work temporarily while waiting for another job.

 

Nobody is morally bound to provide a living wage.  That's hogwash and puts an unfair burden on the employer who is not to blame for the economic environment, especially one in which everyone's buying power is reduced due to onerous taxes and supporting those who don't work.

 

 

well it seems you actually don't want to have an honest conversation but instead before to throw out false claims.  Cause its a flat out lie to accuse me of wanting to cut ceo's pay to zero and redistribute wealth when I never said anything of the such.  Good to know though that your incapable of having an honest conversation

 

 

well the catholic church disagrees with you that nobody is morally bound to provide a liveable wage.  if you choose to pick capitalism over church teaching, that's your choice.

[Pliny]

I beg your pardon but you implied it was "unjust."

 

For the sake of argument, then, if the CEO were to redistribute his salary to all employees in the US, how much more do you think each would make?  Just make a guess if you don't know.

[havok579257]

I beg your pardon but you implied it was "unjust."

 

For the sake of argument, then, if the CEO were to redistribute his salary to all employees in the US, how much more do you think each would make?  Just make a guess if you don't know.

 

 

nice cover but i never implied support for socialism.  i mentioned numerous times how bad it was.  honestly your coming off as a typical right wing conservative.  if someone disagree's with your opinion it must mean they are all about socialism, redistribution of wealth and taking all the rich people's money.

 

let me ask you, do you disagree with church's stance that employers are morally responsible to provide a liveable wage for their employees?

[Pliny]

Who says you can't live on what Wal-Mart pays?  Does the Church define a standard of living too?

 

There is no way an employer can be responsible for economic conditions which are out of his control.  There are many other factors that prevent "livable" wages, such as having 50% of our income confiscated by a greedy government.

 

 

[havok579257]

Who says you can't live on what Wal-Mart pays?  Does the Church define a standard of living too?

 

There is no way an employer can be responsible for economic conditions which are out of his control.  There are many other factors that prevent "livable" wages, such as having 50% of our income confiscated by a greedy government.

 

 

On September 4, 2008, the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice ruled that Wal-Mart de Mexico, the Mexican subsidiary of Walmart, must cease paying its employees in part with vouchers redeemable only at Wal-Mart stores. source wiki....

 

well i guess your right.  i mean who couldn't live off walmart vouchers as pay.  providing honest wages right there.

 

In 2008, Walmart agreed to pay at least $352 million to settle lawsuits claiming that it forced employees to work off the clock. "Several lawyers described it as the largest settlement ever for lawsuits over wage violations source wiki

 

yep, that's an honest wage right there.  forcing workers to work for free.  what's more honest than that?

 

 

 

but let's move on to your question of if its a liveable wage.  

 

Walmart’s average sale Associate makes $8.81 per hour, according to IBISWorld, an independent market research group. This translates to annual pay of $15,576, based upon Walmart’s full-time status of 34 hours per week1. This is significantly below the 2010 Federal Poverty Level of $22,050 for a family of four.

 

although some contend walmart can't raise salaries or it would lose money or cost the consumer to much.  here's something else to look at

 

According to a 2011 report (PDF), if Walmart started paying a $12/hour minimum wage, its workers currently earning less than $9 per hour could each earn $3,250 to $6,500 more per year before taxes. If Walmart were to pass this cost directly to shoppers, the average consumer would need to pay only 46 cents more per shopping trip, or $12.50 per year.

 

source....http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/factsheet/walmart-watch-fact-sheets/fact-sheet-wages/

 

 

so do you still think you can live off of a walmart yearly salary of just over 15,000?

[havok579257]

Who says you can't live on what Wal-Mart pays?  Does the Church define a standard of living too?

 

There is no way an employer can be responsible for economic conditions which are out of his control.  There are many other factors that prevent "livable" wages, such as having 50% of our income confiscated by a greedy government.

 

 

it really shouldn't be to hard to determine a standard of living in america.  If someone works a job they should be able to at the very least feed themselves without having to eat so unhealthy its detremential to their health, provide a roof over their head with heat and a/c(something that those without could and do die from), water, cleaning supplies, be able to afford healthcare costs and be able to have money for transportation to their job, a phone(cause honestly your not working for the vast majority of employers if they can never get a hold of you, so its something most jobs require), money to purchese clothes(nothing special but enough so your not running around naked or dressing inappropriotly for work) . 

 

Although those are the bare necessities for a single person.  Obviously for a person who has a family, their bare necessities are more such as providing for a child.

[havok579257]

Who says you can't live on what Wal-Mart pays?  Does the Church define a standard of living too?

 

There is no way an employer can be responsible for economic conditions which are out of his control.  There are many other factors that prevent "livable" wages, such as having 50% of our income confiscated by a greedy government.

 

 

So is it your contention that the top 100 Fortune 500 companies(let's just make it easy) are barely making it that they are unable to provide liveable wages to their employees who don't receive liveable wages?  

[KnightofChrist]

Define capitalism and socialism as you understand them, then define distributionism and explain why it would be better.

 

As I've explained in my posts, distributionism seems to ignore even the most basic economics and top-down distributionism seems pretty totalitarian.

 

Good question.