1  2  Next

Here's a private sector program (from the video game industry, to be specific) that showcases the positive moral potential of the private sector. Yes, it follows core market principles like profit. Yes, it's good for the consumer. Yes, it's good for the video game industry. This, as with so many other examples, demonstrates the claim that capitalism is amoral or evil to be a myth.

Also, even without the political connotation, that's an awesome idea. I can't wait to see what games result from this program.

   

Economics 101 has the same effect. You take an impressionable 20 years old and expose him to some of the powerful ideas of introductory economics and he will become an enthusiasts. The problem arises when 30 years latter the 20 year old has become an economic expert and is still spouting principles. The actual Game is a lot more complex, witness the Euro.

   

Econ 101 has the same effect as what? It sounds like you mean Econ 101 creates myths when people treat it like a complete degree, thus becoming confident in their ignorance. While that sounds like an unflattering description of myself, I don't see how that's "the same as" anything I was talking about.

   

To be brief Economics 101 introduces you to some powerful ideas that will take hold in your belief system. An expert point of view is more tempered.

   

Capitalism at it's very basics is not evil it's when you start introducing greed, politics and corruption that it becomes mirky. Today's capitalism is not black and white and to see it as such is incredibly naive.

   

That's why Capitalism should never be completely unfettered with rules and regulations. With restraint comes a small measure of control.

   

Can't have capitalism without greed. It may not be evil, but it's certainly amoral. Which is as it should be, and as Dragon Dancer says, it's up to us to control it and put limits on that greed.

   

The problem is that you do not differentiate between greed and self-interest. You think that capitalism is founded in the basest of human emotions when the fact of the matter is that for capitalism to succeed like we've seen it succeed in the past hundred years it requires cooperation on a global level. And capitalism necessitates a near-paradoxical confluence of self-interest and selflessness because for someone to truly succeed in a capitalist society you have to provide something of significant value to other people.

I agree that unbridled criminal greed is a perversion of capitalism, but that's not the fault of capitalism. It's the fault of people whose moral compass is absent.

Which is why you'll see people like me speaking to matters of morality so often and that's because a free society in which capitalism can prosper depends upon moral people who restrain themselves for the common good.

It may not please you for me to say this, but capitalism is not a good idea for societies that think morality is something archaic. For that matter, freedom and liberty are not good ideas for such people either.

Ironically, the less moral a people becomes the more likely they are to desire or tolerate an authoritarian government. For an example go no further than the USA. Where once no one thought twice about a ten year old kid carrying a pistol or rifle to school these days it's a reason to call out the SWAT team. And then look at the police! That cop pepper spraying the kids at UCD the other day speaks to the amorality of the people entrusted with authority.

In sum, if we wish to retain free markets and the liberties they require then we must be moral people with a common set of moral values.

Otherwise you get bankers secretly handing out $7.7 trillion in loans from the public treasury to their buddies with whom they went to Harvard and Yale.

   

Very good points, Bart. Agree about the common moral values. Maybe a little dreamerish tho. We've always had people who take advantage. It's up to the majority's common values to put restraints on them - better than we have been. And that's not just criminal behavior, but amassing all the wealth and the power that goes with it. It's not criminal to give money to your congressperson, but maybe it should be.

In ecology I learned that there will always be a subset of individuals who take advantage of the group, because it pays off for them. If there are too many of these tho, it destroys the whole group. Or, in human's case, it doesn't take many individuals because of our ability to hoard - only a few can control the whole deal and blow it up for everybody. Damn agriculture.

   

Good post.

In particular I like this:



My thoughts, too. Part of why I sometimes mention my idea of just picking people for Congress by lottery from those who are qualified for jury duty. We'd probably end up with more nuts in Congress, but at least they'd be beholden to no one once there.

   

The problem with that is such a moral society does not exist and can't exist Bart. Having a society with high morals is a great ideal bit it's a pipe dream because humans cannot exist in this way for long. We're animals slaved to strong emotions and eventually we all succumb to one or another of them. Each new generation strives to be something the previous one wasn't. For that matter what one generation thinks of as a common set of moral values also changes with every few generation. This is as much a product of changing times as changing views.

Free markets will never truly be free, they will always be at the whims of greed and enlightened self-interest. That is why even these markets need to be regulated universally to prevent such excess and limit abuse. We can't trust people to be moral, we can only trust them to be greedy and be pleasantly surprised when proven wrong.

   

You know of course that we don't really agree. My idea of common moral values and yours, I think differ in many ways. I think a common moral value of commutarianism is important - we are your brother's keeper. As long as s/he does the best they can to keep themselves as well.

   

And perhaps kept in check by the rest of those chosen... interesting idea.

   

Iceland has done pretty well with this for some 1,000 years. Japan does fairly well, so does Switzerland. Places in the US and Canadian midwest are pretty nice too with lots of towns where no one locks their doors.

Obviously, it can be done and has been done. The problem is in keeping to morality as opposed to eschewing it for some perverted sense of liberty.

   

What is greedy about that indy video game development program?

   

1  2  Next