If I read this paragraph correctly, compared to what does capitalism not do well at the distribution of wealth?

Here is something that has been nagging at me:

ok.  People are good at different things.  Everybody has different skill sets.  The woman who is good with people can also be really poor at accounting.  Or the guy that paints equisitely is really poor at dealing with people.  And so on.  So, some people are good with money, they know how to make more of it.  So, there are people who aren't good with money.  The following is the nagging thing:  how much should a civiilization require those that are good at making money be responsible for those who aren't as good at making money?  Is there some kind of 'sweet spot' where people are still given incentives to make money while still helping out others?

Just a Self-writing poem,

InannaWhimsey

The demands of capitalism are limitless consumption and the exploitation of an economic underclass.  This 'underclass' could be underpaid workers in a local economy or an overseas labour force in a global capitalist economy.  Some people get rich without producing anything or without doing anything socially beneficial because an oppressed group of labourers is underpaid or unpaid.  This kind of economic exploitation is the lifeblood of capitalism and the system cannot tolerate anything that opposes the "principles of The Market".

A forest has intrinsic value as an essential part of Earth's biosphere.  It produces oxygen, consumes carbon dioxide, and shelters life that forms the interconnected natural system on which we all depend.  The capitalist, following the dictates of The Market, sees only a wasteland with no financial profit.  Nobody's making money off the forest and the capitalist thinks that's a 'sin' .

All the money in the world is worthless if the air and water are poisonous and the Earth cannot produce food.  You can't eat money, you can't wear it, and if the economic system is not sustained by a true value of the material world it must inevitably collapse and money will be just meaningless numbers.

 If economic justice is not a priority the results will inevitably be economic collapse, war, famine, and plagues as desperate populations struggle to survive on a poisoned Earth.

i wrote an essay last month on The Moral Ecology of Markets, by Dan Finn.  A Roman Catholic theologian. He strongly argues that the of the four things that an economy needs to do 

 allocation, distribution, scale, and the quality of relations.

Capitalism and greed work well for allocation. However it fails miserable at the other three. Thus it will not last unless it comes up with a way to deal well with the other 3 things an economy must do.

     He identifies a fifth problem "the necessity of investing resources simply to maintain the capacity of one already possesses"[ii]. This problem is integral to the other four.  Businesses need to be able to replace their equipment, the environment must be preserved, and humans must retain their ability to deal with each other.

    It is important to note that allocation means how to create productive capacity to allocate resources to produce goods for people. Distribution deals with wages and government expenditures on things like public insurance, and welfare.  Scale deals with how large an economy can get. Is it sustainable, does it deplete our natural resources, and is it having an environmental impact, like global warming? Human relationships deal with how we relate to each other when in the work place, or at home. Also it deals what kind of person we become by being in the work place. All four areas also have an impact on the other.

 The first thing he tackles is that he says that the question “are markets just?"[i] is the wrong question we need to ask. This is because the economy cannot be understood without referring to its context. One cannot evaluate justice in the marketplace by solely looking at the market. So we must understand not only the internal mechanisms of the market but also we must address the economic, political, and cultural context of markets. There is what Finn calls the moral ecology of markets.  It is by only understanding the moral ecology of the markets that we can judge if markets are just or not. So he concludes that we should be asking is "under what conditions are the outcomes of markets just?"[ii]

     He illustrates this point well, by comparing two different situations, one where self interest leads to the common good, like not buying damaged goods, and the other situation where self interest in buying cheaper goods produced by child slave labour, does not lead to the common good. 

One thing that Finn blasts is the how economics is taught in school, and presented in the press.  He say that economist have become polarised to the point where the left and the right do not true engage in a dialogue.

They also stereotype each other.

The right for example, keeps insisting that the left wing economics is all the same and has been  discredited by the Soviet Union.  the Press just repeats what the right wing (monetarists) teach, and ignore things like the benefits that social welfare spending does.

Why should people who are good at making money provide for those who aren't?

My answer isn't a  moral one. You'll notice I never said it ws. It's practical. Most of The Bible is full of quite practical advice. The ten commandments are necessary just because God said they're moral. You try to operate a society in which killing, theft, perjury, familial dischord, etc. are acceptable. Try it. Let us all know how it works.

To argue that people who are good at things should be allowed to do tham with no responsibilty. I have an old friend who's doing life for several murders and many, many bank holpups. He was very good at it. Why aren't we letting him reap the rewards for what he's good at.

In any case, people who are good at something depend for their money on a supply of other people who are good at what they do. Brian Mulroney was CEO of a mining company. I rather doubt he ever was much of a hand at dynamiting or pick and shovel work. So why did he get so much higher in pay?

But I don't moralize. This is practical. Captialism cannot survive without a society to buy its goods. If the society is poor, undeducated, in ill health, and so on, it ain't going to survive. And neither will capitalism without all those customers.

 Practical acts are moral too.in  Moral Ecology, moral is used as "expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior" Thus if something is or is not practical is part of moral reasoning,

Finn is looking at both practical solutions, and theoretical.

He is reframing the debate on economics to one which is more relativistic. His conclusion is that economists must include in their reasoning the importance of other things, besides the health of the markets or the market will die. 

He also agrees with you "Captialism cannot survive without a society to buy its goods. If the society is poor, undeducated, in ill health, and so on, it ain't going to survive"

His main argument, is that we need to include more topics like social justice in economics, because if we do not it will destroy the ability of the markets to survive.

Beshpin, capitalism has not always been there. Your knowledge of history must be amazingly limited. And you have completely missed the point that I explained in such small words that even you must have understood it.

What will destory capitalsm is people like you.

no. I wouldn't hope I wouldn't make it in your type of argument.

My sister in law, who married money,   runs a business with her husband, that her in-laws set up with their capital.  The business, is very successful, and very popular with the German/Swiss community, who is also known to be financially well off.  

She talks about how hard she works to afford all their 'toys'. (They are getting an inground pool put in this year.)  When the topic of subsidized housing and Social Services and all those government assisted items come up, she turns to her husband and says "(INSERT SWEAR WORD HERE), why do we work?"  She resents her tax dollars going out to those who were not able to marry money and need a leg up.  Sometimes I want to clobber her.  A person's financial status determines their value as a human being.   Needless to say, we don't particularly enjoy family gatherings. 

 Marzo: I think you're depicting capitalism unfairly.  The forest contributes resources to the environment, and it evolved along the lines of a system that closely resembles capitalism.  If people think the forest doesn't make money and is worthless, they are ignoring even the basic principles of capitalism.  The forest creates resources.  MONEY IS A REPRESENTATION OF RESOURCES.  Destroying its ability to continue producing means you have less to consume, down the line, and is just stupid.  Capitalism is about resources, not money - money makes it run smoother but people who think it doesn't burn down to resources have their heads in the clouds.  Moreover, capitalism is not THEORETICALLY based on the exploitation of an underclass - you're mixing it up with mercantilism - because unlike systems that have an implied, immovable centre of economic power, anyone in capitalism can theoretically rise out of poverty by hard work.  The problem is, it doesn't work that way in practice.  Once status is brought in, and essentially feudal power-structures known as 'corporations' are inevitably created, a worker's pay stops depending on how hard he/she works, and becomes about how much their boss is willing to pay them.  Of course, corporatization made capitalism more streamlined and made a lot of progress possible.  Basically, I think capitalism needs to be regulated, to ensure that it can operate to the best of its ability, without preventing its own goals of equal opportunity, individual economic freedom and maximum economic progress.

Your point about consumption is a good one though.

Well, the reality is that the collapse of capitalism would be a disaster for all of us. But another reality is there is no party or even large body of conensus that it should be regulated -not anywhere in North American. As well, big money owns both parties in the US, and at least one, possibly two, in Canada.

We face either collapse or reform. And I don't see where the reform is coming from.

 I just read a piece from Dan Froomkin,  Washington Bureau Chief for the Huffington Post.

It's about the effect on states off the losses in the market by state pension funds is threatening the states ability to pay their employees.,

California is one of the worse off states.

"Something has got to give," says Joe Nation, the director of a Stanford University graduate program that is reporting today that the cumulative shortfall from California's three giant pension funds alone is somewhere around $500 billion.

Not only is that considerably more than the state is currently projecting, but it's almost six times the state's entire general fund budget. In other words, it would take California six years -- with no spending on education, public safety, health care or anything else -- to fill the gap.

 The US is more vunerable than many other countries, because they also depend on foreign labour, in areas like Medicine, Engineering.  

As it's economy continues to decline, their ability to retain, and get more qualified workers overseas disapears.

Like Canada, there education system is such that they depend on trained immigrants, to fill jobs, because they do not produce enough  trained people on there own.

 Capitalism is a good thing. It creates wealth. Competition is the lifeblood of capitalism. It encourages innovation and constant improvement.

Unrestricted Capitalism and unrestricted competition destroy the benefits of both as it encourages exploitation of labour, environment, and supplies based on short term payoffs rather than long term benefits. Thus there must be rules to create a  "level playing field" for labour as opposed to a lowest common denominator, protect the environment, and conserve resources.

I call this Socialism.

I am reminded of the West Coast aboriginal practise of potlach. In those societies a person's wealth was determined, not by how much they had, but by how much they gave away.

Perhaps we could learn something...

Brings me to mind of "Fellowship of the Ring" for Bilbo Bagginses Eleventy-First birthday.  The birthday hobbit would give the gifts out rather than receive them.  I wonder which is cheaper? Giving gifts away once a year or  buying them for others numerous times during the year?  Hmmm....

You may notice that many Japanese come to Canada to marry. That's because a Japanese custtrom at weddings is not to receive gifts but to give them to the guests. That can be terribly expensive.

 I wonder how often the Japanese REmarry?

less often, I should think,than Elizabeth Taylor or Mickey Rooney. (who are the current leaders?)

 They are still the champs.   Taylor is in retirement now.

Some people can make money some people can't ............. oh well

that is both weird and true.  I know people who ALWAYS seem to have money and I am not one of them. It 's not that I am foolish with it, in fact all my bills are paid RIGHT up to date etc.  But some people seem to attract money and others don't and it's often impossible to explain why. 

You sound rather jealous of your sister in law ....  she helps run a biz , what do you do ? she married smart , and not married just for luvvvvvvvvvvvv and companionship like legions of dumb women .....  she probably has less kids than people who have less money , she most likey won't live on cat food in her old age because she will have money from a healthy insurance policy or business profits that have been reinvested .

It is no mystery about money either you marry into it , inherit it , earn it , learn how to invest it smart , find a way to save it , have a product or service that will keep it coming in or sit around and wonder why people have none , spend it on stupid crap , give it away , or never try to put a leash on expenses ... you get out of life what you invest into it ..... through work ,education , opportunity , learning , failures and success ......

the simple fact is that many many people have zero restraint in their own lives and find it convienent to be helpless and lean on social nets ..... if there were no nets it's either move or die ..... which would ultimately be fair .... everyone should earn their keep ..... nothing should be given away ..... a person's worth should be determined by their degree of contribution to themselves and their degree of being a burden on society .........  and less reliance on the world around them to shoulder expenses that they have incurred but do not feel responsible for .............

jes,

that is a gross oversimplification, based on the errant thought (so prevalent in liberal thought, particularly in the US) that all people have equal opportunities.

many people have no money because there are so many systemic and personal blocks that keep them from having access to money.

Brilliant, Jess. Maybe we should operate armies on those principles. Make them buy their own rifles and jet plances and aricraft carriers. If they can't afford it, then tough luck. No social net. It will give them incentirve.

They could also pay for their own uniforms, food, , housing, and transportation to war zones. I mean, let's go all the way for private enterprise.

 Jes, my husband and family and I are NOT jealous of his sister's money. We don't care how much she has, especially since it is all financed with the shop has capital.  I have to wonder how much they own outright?

Having said that, it is her treating others, even family members, like second class citizens for not having what they have.  To quote Gord,

that is a gross oversimplification, based on the errant thought (so prevalent in liberal thought, particularly in the US) that all people have equal opportunities.

If there is one thing that life's hard knocks teach us, it's GRACE.

What about a free-enterprise firefighting service?  You have to pay cash up front or your house will burn to the ground.  It's fair, isn't it?

You really don't understand, do you Besh? It must be terribly, never understanding what's going on.

And historical too!

The early London firefighting services only served the locations that had paid the insurance fee to that company.

Their official name was Mob FD.

No. Mob was the parent company that owned the firefighting service. It remained a separate entity which provided business for the firefighting company.

I believe Mob now owns MacDonald's, and also has close links to the private health care business.

gee, and  here I've been all may years getting paid tens of thousands of dollars for writting childish prose. Good thing for me the whole world ain't real smart like Besh.

 The poo flinging will now commence.

commence?

allow me to rephrase that.  (ahem...)

The poo flinging has begun.

Capitalism in its traditional forms cannot continue to exist indefinitely because the system is addicted to ever increasing levels of consumption beyond the carrying capacity of Earth.

If human populations cannot find the political will to establish sustainable economic systems then it will all come crashing down.  The inevitable results will be wars, terrorism, famines, plagues.  Starving populations armed with nuclear weapons could demand food and water with entire cities becoming radioactive wastelands.

When one talks about "saving capitalism" do they really mean "saving our accustomed standard of living"?  A sustainable global economy can't withstand North American levels of consumption, especially with population growth, climate change, and loss of arable land.

 Good thing for me the whole world ain't real smart like Besh.

not everyone is as naive as you wish they were ...... anyone who pays for that kind of advice must be a fool

Advice? hey, I wasn't no advice writer - nothing like Ann Landers. I did short stories, commentaries, history, stuff like that.

It's not just a matter of changing the system. It's even more a matter of making the change in a way that maintains order and human dignity. That usually means gradual change. Mao brought China into the modern world, and laid the base that made today's China possible. But the Chinese paid one hell of a price for the rapid change.

We have to make any changes orderly and gradual. The trouble is that capitalism may not let us do that.

graeme

 GRAEME! Gasp! You changed your profile pic!  I like it! Tell me more about it.

ah, my wife started art lessons a few months ago. This was her first painting. Me and the children looking out over the Atlantic. It was taken about five years ago. The boys are now thiirteen, and look down at me from a six foot vantag point. My daughter is now eleven and already reaches my eyes. Within  year, I'll be the runt of the family.

 Haha, I'm 5'2".  I will be too.

I like the painting. So much more personal and interesting that painting fruit bowls.

We now have several family porttraits. Missing me, though. However, I'm not at all sensitive about it. Not at all. Not een a little bit.

Are you waiting until she paints like Hans Holbein before you get in on it?

Oh, Hans was a agood kid. Sold a lot of calendars in his day. But not quite up to capturing the real me on canvas.

You can certainly tell what he thought of his subject by how he painted them. I don't think he was a fan of Thomas More. 

http://www.martin-missfeldt.de/kunst-bilder/nofretete-leonardo-da-vinci/hans-holbein-thomas-more.php

he probably would have been jealous of me, too. Never trust a man named Holbein.

I think capitalism will survive just fine.  In fact, if any economic system is circling the bowl, it is socialism.  As for the divide widening, the gulf between rich and poor tends to narrow in countries that trade with others and have healthy markets.  Socialism is an economic killer and also has a pretty horrid track record when it comes to respect for freedom and human life.

Oh, I think I have an idea.  The biggest mass-murderers of the last century were the soviets and the chinese.  While the contemporary left distances itself from Stalinism and Maoism, it did not historically.  Many prominent western leftists were huge supporters of both Soviet Russia and Communist China.  Pol Pot was a contender also.    No capitalist country ever blantantly exterminated its population the way the socialists did. 

This is just history, not my opinion.  And while you may not care, I think the murder of tens of millions is worthy of our attention.