Is capitalism moral?

WaPo Opinions ^ | 3-15-2013 | Steven Pearlstein

[Sir Napsalot]

Careening from debt-ceiling crisis to sequestration to a looming government shutdown, the nation is caught up in a historic debate over the proper size and role of government.

That’s certainly one way to think about it. Another is that we are caught up in a historic debate over free-market capitalism. After all, if markets were making most of us better off, regulating their own excesses, guaranteeing equal opportunity and fairly dividing the economic pie, then we wouldn’t need government to take on all the things it does.

For most of the past 30 years, the world has been moving in the direction of markets. The grand experiment with communism has been thoroughly discredited, a billion people have been lifted from poverty through free-market competition, and even European socialists have given up on state ownership and the nanny state.

Here at home, large swaths of the economy have been deregulated, and tax rates have been cut. A good portion of what is left of government has been outsourced, while even education is moving toward school choice. In embracing welfare reform, Americans have acknowledged that numerous programs meant to lift up the poor instead trapped them in permanent dependency and poverty.

But more recently, we’ve seen another side of free markets: stagnant incomes, gaping inequality, a string of crippling financial crises and 20-somethings still living in their parents’ basements. These realities are forcing free-market advocates and their allies in the Republican Party to pursue a new strategy. Instead of arguing that free markets are good for you, they’re saying that they’re good — mounting a moral defense of free-market capitalism.

[Sir Napsalot]

Note: Steven Pearlstein is a Washington Post business and economics columnist and a professor of public and international affairs at George Mason University.

A long philosophical rambling. (more excerpt from author)

The traditional liberal defense of redistribution, of course, is that a lot of what passes for economic success derives not only from hard work or ingenuity but also from good fortune — the good fortune to be born with the right genes and to the right parents, to grow up in the right community, to attend the right schools, to meet and be helped by the right people, or simply to be at the right place at the right time. A market system should reward virtue, they argue, not dumb luck.

So this is the basis we should now 'regulate good genes and equalize opportunities'?

[cripplecreek]

A truly free market is the greatest social equalizer ever devised by man.

[Texas Fossil]

Is socialism moral? No, Socialism is evil.

Totalitarianism in all it’s forms is Evil. (Socialism, Progressivism, Marxism, Communism, Fascism and Dictatorships)

[IbJensen]

Yes.

Jesus/God isn’t a Marxist, but believes in the ‘worker’. His earthly father was a carpenter who trained his Heavenly Son in that trade.

The people who habituated the Holy Land didn’t lay back on their backsides and wait for a handout from Caesar; rather they worked for their daily bread.

[saganite]

What an amazing article! Government is being downsized and contracted out and all our ills are because there aren’t enough constraints on Capitalism. Wow! Stunning in its utter stupidity but certain to be accepted as fact by readers of that rag.

[Sir Napsalot]

Another gem: A paper by economists Peter Diamond of MIT and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley now making the rounds in the liberal blogosphere claims to show that the optimal level of marginal taxation of the rich is 73 percent. By “optimal,” Diamond and Saez have in mind a narrow definition: maximizing government revenue.

France tried that just now (73% optimal on the rich), shouldn't we and the two geniuses from MIT and Berkeley ask if the French government really maximized their revenue?

[popdonnelly]

We have socialism under the present Administration, and it’s not going to work.

[Sir Napsalot]

>>> What an amazing article!

I agree.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

Capitalism pulled more people out of poverty than any other idea or system ever created in human history. I don’t know how anyone can say it isn’t moral. Look at the individual standard of living in 1750 compared to 1900. It increased in countries with capitalism exponentially. How is that not moral?

[Chode]

morality has as much to do with capitalism, as it does with arithmetic... NOTHING!!!

[Fee]

GOP blind trust in corporations failed, and Dem blind trust in big gov failed, there is a third way, and it is Main Street First. GOP support of free trade impoverished the middle class. Dem support for green energy impoverished the middle class. GOP blind trust of Wall Street bankers resulted in toxic liar loans forcing the Fed Reserve to drop interest rates to the point savers are punished impoverished the middle class. Dem policy of high taxes impoverished the middle class. The lessons of the last 50 years finally has come to home to roost. Capitalism and free markets will work if we have moral people at the helm of big business. Since that is not possible, we do not need more regulations but more monitoring by gov to make sure businessmen do not cheat the people and use their huge wealth to corrupt gov officials. Dem support of more regs, more fees, more taxes hurt Main Street business more before it ever impact large corporations. In fact big corporations do not mind some cumbersome regs because it kills off the small and upcoming companies that may compete with them in the future. What also is needed is simplicity. Limit the size of banks and corporations, and limit the tools they use to manipulate finances. Gov should force corporations to keep their operations simple so they cannot use complexity to camouflage fraudulent schemes. Hold CEO and CFO personally liable for corporate malfeasance with huge wealth destructive fines (fines based on percentage of wealth vs a set sum).

[mountainlion]

The Puritan ethic was if yo don’t work you don’t eat.

Liberalism is in no way moral. Killing 5,000 babies a year is not moral. Telling everyone what they approve every level of life is horrible. Business runs best when government keeps its nose out of business. The last 100 years have been a down hill ride under the thumb of the liberal/progressive theocracy.

[Fzob]

Functioning markets are based on two pillars. 1, Greed, and 2. Risk. They must equally support the functioning of the market. Capitalism ie private ownership of capital and the means of production, is the foundation that the pillars sit upon. IMHO we do not have functioning markets because the government instead of regulation that ensure greed and risk are the same for all players in the market, it strives to equalize outcomes for all, by subsiding risk hence allowing greed to go unchecked. The very antithesis of functional markets. The question "is capitalism moral" is a red herring in my view. The moral question is does our capitalism protect property rights and ALL players in the market? The answer right now is hard to tell. But not looking good.

[cripplecreek]

Parts of the civil rights amendment have been extremely damaging to the free market and given government a foot inside the door of all of them.

If a businessman doesn’t want to cater to blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, Muslims or whatever, I have zero problem with it. I can go to a business that doesn’t discriminate against me and others can choose where they want to do business as well.

[Truth2012]

Yes. Capitalism is God’s plan. Crony Capitalism is from Hell.

People need to understand the difference between the two.

Obama’s government- and marxisim IS crony Capitalism.

[palmer]

Capitalism and free markets will work if we have moral people at the helm of big business. Since that is not possible, we do not need more regulations but more monitoring by gov to make sure businessmen do not cheat the people and use their huge wealth to corrupt gov official

"...more monitoring by gov..... corrupt gov ..." Do you realize what you are asking for is impossible? The correct response to corruption is to reduce or remove the corrupting influence, in this case the government, specifically the Fed, since they are the root cause of most finance market corruption. Do not expect government to solve problems caused by government in the first place.

[InterceptPoint]

GOP blind trust in corporations failed, and Dem blind trust in big gov failed, there is a third way, and it is Main Street First. GOP support of free trade impoverished the middle class. Dem support for green energy impoverished the middle class. GOP blind trust of Wall Street bankers resulted in toxic liar loans forcing the Fed Reserve to drop interest rates to the point savers are punished impoverished the middle class. Dem policy of high taxes impoverished the middle class. The lessons of the last 50 years finally has come to home to roost. Capitalism and free markets will work if we have moral people at the helm of big business. Since that is not possible, we do not need more regulations but more monitoring by gov to make sure businessmen do not cheat the people and use their huge wealth to corrupt gov officials. Dem support of more regs, more fees, more taxes hurt Main Street business more before it ever impact large corporations. In fact big corporations do not mind some cumbersome regs because it kills off the small and upcoming companies that may compete with them in the future. What also is needed is simplicity. Limit the size of banks and corporations, and limit the tools they use to manipulate finances. Gov should force corporations to keep their operations simple so they cannot use complexity to camouflage fraudulent schemes. Hold CEO and CFO personally liable for corporate malfeasance with huge wealth destructive fines (fines based on percentage of wealth vs a set sum).

Where to start?

Well firstly, the Middle Class in this country is not "impoverished". Could things be better? Of course. But declaring that large swath of the population "impoverished" is just nonsense.

"GOP support for Free Trade impoverished the Middle Class." I don't think so. You can argue until you are blue in the face that the jobs lost to Free Trade are not balanced by the inexpensive goods we purchase at Walmart and you will not convince me. Tariffs have never worked. Government setting prices doesn't work. Free Trade works. The pie is not a fixed size. It grows with Free Trade. Limiting Free Trade just limits the size of the pie.

"GOP blind trust of Wall Street bankers resulted in toxic liar loans ...". Tell that to Chris Dodd, Bill Clinton and Barney Frank. They are the deserving Triad.

I could go on but ...

[cripplecreek]

Plenty of crony capitalism on the republican side as well. They just slather lipstick on the pig and call it “Public private partnership”

[spokeshave]

But more recently, we’ve seen another side of free markets: stagnant incomes, gaping inequality, a string of crippling financial crises and 20-somethings still living in their parents’ basements

It's called Obamanomics....and Obama will get a second Nobel prize.

Note: Islamics and communists unite to cut off Adam Smith'e invisible hand

[DManA]

Is the state of freedom more moral than slavery?

Markets are what naturally develop when people are free.

By all means let’s debate this.