Capitalism: making the pie bigger for everyone

[Guest bartwart]

First, let's broaden this topic out to laisse-faire capitalism because I believe that's what we both(RH and I) had in mind.

This statement is in no way unphilosophical, misleading, or contradictory of Objectivism. Capitalism is sustainable precisely because it makes the pie bigger. That's really the key point here. You cannot divorce it's sustainability from the fact that it improves everyones* lives. Yes, it is the only moral system for ethical individuals to participate in AND is it sustainable. If it weren't sustainable then any debate about it would be moot.

Look at the Soviet Union and North Korea: the command economy is not sustainable. Even China is getting the hint and is starting to implement reforms such as stronger capital and property rights.

*Everyone reasonable person who wants to participate.

[y_feldblum]

Capitalism: allowing everybody to bake bigger pies.

Socialism: allowing other people eat your pies and to try to make you bake more.

That's more accurate - economically, politically, and ethically.

[Richard_Halley]

Bartwart:

I think you misunderstand me. My only contention was that your proposed slogan was not effective because it suggested a reason to support capitalism which was opposite of Objectivism's view, and that such a slogan would not be helpfull.

[Francis Galton]

When discussing if capitalism "works" or not, we must first define what we mean by "work." What objectives are desired? Once we know this, we can see which economical and/or political system brings those objectives to fruition.

Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations

RICHARD LYNN

University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland

TATU VANHANEN

University of Helsinki, Finland

SUMMARY.

National IQs assessed by the Progressive Matrices were calculated for 60 nations and examined in relation to per capita incomes in the late 1990s and to post World War Two rates of economic growth. It was found that national IQs are correlated at 0.757 with real GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita 1998 and 0.706 with per capita GNP (Gross National Product) 1998; and at 0.605 with the growth of per capita GDP 1950-90 and 0.643 with growth of per capita GNP 1976-98. The results are interpreted in terms of a causal model in which population IQs are the major determinant of the wealth and poverty of nations in the contemporary world.

Complete text at http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/1.htm

[y_feldblum]

Adam Smith wrote the definitive book on the Wealth of Nations two centuries ago and more ... and his thesis actually makes sense.

[Richard_Halley]

Galton... perhaps you do not realise this, but you are in a forum for discussion of a particular philosophy, and one which lays out its objectives very clearly.

We, here, all know what we mean by "work."

[RadCap]

"Capitalism: allowing everybody to bake bigger pies.

Socialism: allowing other people eat your pies and to try to make you bake more.

That's more accurate - economically, politically, and ethically."

Um, 'allowing' is a statement of permission, one which is granted by others. Whle this is accurate of the ethics and politics of socialism, it is NOT accurate of the ethics and politics of capitalism.

[y_feldblum]

That's one of its meanings, and it's not the one I was using. The meaning I'm using here is: make possible. Eg, consistent rules of physics allow things to exist.

By the way, the socialism quote is there just to be a contrast to the capitalism quote. It's not intended to stand alone.

[Richard_Halley]

How is that different, feldblum?

It is not necessary for someone else to make it possible for me to bake pies... I may bake pies how I see fit without their making it possible.

[RadCap]

"That's one of its meanings, and it's not the one I was using."

Since you placed the context as being ethical and political, your 'meaning' was then used incorrectly. "Allow" has one meaning and one meaning only when it comes to this context. It means permission of others.

Capitalism is a social system. It does not "allow" anything. It does not 'facilitate' anything. It does not "make possible" anything. The only thing Capitalism does is *defend* against the initiation of force by men. In other words, Capitalism does not 'make trade possible'. Capitalism protects trade from interference.

Those concepts are QUITE different.

"The meaning I'm using here is: make possible. Eg, consistent rules of physics allow things to exist."

As RH points out, your meaning is the reverse of reality. Even the new example you provide is the reverse of reality. "Rules" of physics do NOT allow things to exist. The fact that things exist, and thus have identity, are what define 'rules of physics' - ie that existents have identity is what allows consciousness to identify those existents.

In each of these instances, whether it was your intent or not, you have treated consciousness as primary, not existence.

[Living Student]

I think the use of allowing is ok.

The absense of initations of force doesn't, by itself, make bigger pies possible.

Individual minds do, primarily. But it IS a necessary precondition. Politically recognized rights are necessary for individuals to make bigger pies.

Well, perhaps not always recognized, but merely adhered to unintentionally or not

[Guest bartwart]

Bartwart:

I think you misunderstand me.  My only contention was that your proposed slogan was not effective because it suggested a reason to support capitalism which was opposite of Objectivism's view, and that such a slogan would not be helpfull.

May'be a definition would help:

making the pie bigger: the process of creating wealth.

So according to your view, only things that explicitly come out of Ayn Rand's mouth qualifies as Objectivist philosophy, even if other statements do not contract them?

The whole point of the quote was to get people to look at capitalism from an inductive angle, which sometimes helps in understanding. Much of Ayn Rand's work is deductive, starting from basic principles and working up. However, if you look at the empirical evidence supporting capitalism, it is a sustainable, wealth creating system which benefits all participants greater than any other system. This leads to the Objectivist ethic: only reasonable participants survive or thrive.

I find it remarkable that the inductive examination of Objectivism supports the deductive examination. This is a fact that should not be discounted.

[RadCap]

"...if you look at the empirical evidence supporting capitalism, it is a sustainable, wealth creating system which benefits all participants greater than any other system. This leads to the Objectivist ethic"

A political system is not justified nor validated by its economics. BOTH an economic and a political system (properly identified as a social system) are derived and validated by its ethics, which in tern are properly derived and validated by its epistemology and metaphysics.

As such, "empirical evidence" concerning capitalism does not "lead to the Objectivist ethic".

[andrew]

May'be a definition would help:

making the pie bigger: the process of creating wealth.

I don't think the debate is over the term "making the pie bigger." Instead the debate is over "making the pie bigger for everyone." Objectivism is not compatible with an argument claiming that capitalism is a system that easily achieves a "common good" in creating wealth for everyone.

Yes, from an inductive angle, capitalist systems are the wealthiest (take a look at the GDP and per capita GDP of any society which is close to being a free one and compare it to a basic command economy like that of North Korea).

Of course this inductive angle, as you hinted, is not what Objectivism is about.

Much of Ayn Rand's work is deductive, starting from basic principles and working up.

Yes, in Objectivism we work with the basic principle that A is A or "existence exists" and work out way up. Hence our core justification of capitalism is its defense of individual rights.

[Guest bartwart]

>> Objectivism is not compatible with an argument claiming that capitalism is a system that easily achieves a "common good" in creating wealth for everyone.<<

I don't think the term "common good" is valid in this case. First of all, not everyone would agree on what "common good" means. Someone living in the Bible Belt might easily interpret "common good" as some sort of religious conservative imposition of beliefs. A metropolitan liberal might interpret that as more wealth redistribution programs, stronger union controls, and environmental "protections". So creating wealth might be totally overlooked by these groups as the "common good".

>>A political system is not justified nor validated by its economics. BOTH an economic and a political system (properly identified as a social system) are derived and validated by its ethics, which in tern are properly derived and validated by its epistemology and metaphysics.<<

The type of social system people are participating in will directly affect people's ethics. It's not an ethics to politics relationship, it's a positive feedback loop, somewhat chicken-and-egg. If a person's highest good is their own life, then they will ignore the rights of others in order to survive in dire emergencies. Ayn Rand acknowledged that emergency situations do exist and that some allowances are made to individuals in these cases. When people are living in a state of perpetual emergency, human rights are impossible to enforce and all this high-minded theory goes out the door. Imposing a government structure that protects human rights solves a lot of these ethical problems -though not all- of people violating each other's rights. It's happening in Afganistan and Iraq, despite what the liberal press is reporting.

My slogan hits at an important fact about Capitalism. The slogan says more about Capitalism than is expressly implied by the paraphrased version of Objectivist philosophy, in that reasonable people need to deal with other reasonable people in order to partake in mutually beneficial relationships, that the fruits of my labor make the fruits of your labor more valuable and vice-versa. Of course, there are many caveats which we intentionally ignore for the sake of expediency.

Buried within the slogan is the Objectivist ethics.

[RadCap]

"The type of social system people are participating in will directly affect people's ethics. It's not an ethics to politics relationship, it's a positive feedback loop, somewhat chicken-and-egg."

No - for the exact reasons already stated.

[Richard_Halley]

My slogan hits at an important fact about Capitalism.

Your slogan "hits at" what I would argue is the least important fact about capitalism.

While, as you claim, Objectivist ethics may be burried very deep in your slogan, they would not be recongnizable to the lay-man, which makes your slogan (at best) ineffective.

So according to your view, only things that explicitly come out of Ayn Rand's mouth qualifies as Objectivist philosophy, even if other statements do not contract them?

Precisely, Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy. To call anything which she did not say "Objectivism" would be to put words in her mouth. Imlications, applications, etc... of Objectivism are not Objectivism, they are implications or applications, etc.

[Guest bartwart]

Precisely, Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy.  To call anything which she did not say "Objectivism" would be to put words in her mouth.  Imlications, applications, etc... of Objectivism are not Objectivism, they are implications or applications, etc.

This is absurd. So is Objectivism a philosophy or an official doctrine?

[RadCap]

"That is so absurd! So is a philosophy whatever anyone wants it to be, or is it specifically defined?"

Not absurd. The philosophy has a specific identity. Absurdity is believing you can redefine the identity of things however you wish.

Translation: Subjectivism

Response: Warning - we do not accept subjectivists here. Tread lightly or do not tread at all.

[Invictus]

Response: Warning - we do not accept subjectivists here. Tread lightly or do not tread at all.

This smells like collectivism to me.

Who is we? Who gave you the right to speak on my behalf?

[Richard_Halley]

Who is we? Who gave you the right to speak on my behalf?

RadCap, as admin, has the right to speek for the forum owners and it is only their opinion that matters.

[Invictus]

RadCap, as admin, has the right to speek for the forum owners and it is only their opinion that matters.

More collectivism. Having the right to speak for the forums owners does not give one the right to speak for the forums members.

[Richard_Halley]

He said nothing about what you think.

When someone says "we do not accept x people here," it should be clear that he is only speaking for those who have the athority to accept them there, in this case: the forum owners.

[Guest bartwart]

"That is so absurd!  So is a philosophy whatever anyone wants it to be, or is it specifically defined?"

Not absurd.  The philosophy has a specific identity.  Absurdity is believing you can redefine the identity of things however you wish. 

Translation:  Subjectivism

Response:  Warning - we do not accept subjectivists here.  Tread lightly or do not tread at all.

That is absurd too. If you guys want to ban me that is your choice, but seriously, now I understand why Objectivism is the laughing stalk of the philosophical community.

You loved throwing that word 'collectivism' at me so here's one for you: ARBITRARY.

You and the owners arbitrarily define Objectivism to have the very specific identity of "whatever Ayn Rand says". I think a more appropriate word for that is 'Randism'. It's time for Objectivism to stop playing in the sand box and join the adults. The nature of Objectivism SHOULD be open for discussion in the marketplace of ideas. It's called debate. May the best ideas win. People have to compete everyday in the market place to earn a living and Objectivism should be no different.

[Richard_Halley]

You are making the mistake of defining Objectivism as: the correct philosophy. It is not defined as such. Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand chose for her philosophy, it is defined as: the philosophy of Ayn Rand. There is nothing arbitrary about identifying something for what it is.