Am I a Capitalistic Pig?
I’ve been called many things in my life and some of them were actually nice. Some weren’t. I’m often called a free market loving capitalist and I honestly cannot decide whether I like or dislike the label.
I’m not a rightist. I do not support state intervention, I do not think monopolies are a good idea and I also think that state-corporation “cooperation” and state economic intervention is about as desirable as bird flu.
I’m by no means a leftist. I do not think the government should be the one deciding what is best for us, how our income should be distributed and I certainly don’t want to be prescribed what’s in my best interest by the government. In short, I don’t fancy Robin Hood.
What I want is a free economy with good economic growth. I do not care if there’s a wide gap between the richest and the poorest man in the country, what I want is for both of them to be more productive in the future. I don’t care if the gap gets smaller or larger, as long as everyone is better off in the end. What I want is a productive society that is also a free society where income is distributed justly, according to the share in the production process.
For that to be efficient I believe the state should provide basic social aid, so people have food and shelter, I want free elementary education and state subsidized universities, free basic healthcare, in essence all those things that make it possible for someone born in a poor family to succeed, if he’s capable enough. I don’t want everyone to be equal. I want everyone to realize their potential and start from relatively equal starting points in a competitive environment.
Does that make me a capitalist, a leftist, a rightist, a libertarian or a totalitarian? I don’t know. What I do know is that those are just labels designed to prevent us from thinking freely and force us to conform to a “school of thought”. I am not insulted if someone thinks I support capitalism. I can only hope they realize that doesn’t mean I support everything some other self-proclaimed capitalist said.
I’m not a rightist. I do not support state intervention, I do not think monopolies are a good idea and I also think that state-corporation “cooperation” and state economic intervention is about as desirable as bird flu.
I’m by no means a leftist. I do not think the government should be the one deciding what is best for us, how our income should be distributed and I certainly don’t want to be prescribed what’s in my best interest by the government. In short, I don’t fancy Robin Hood.
What I want is a free economy with good economic growth. I do not care if there’s a wide gap between the richest and the poorest man in the country, what I want is for both of them to be more productive in the future. I don’t care if the gap gets smaller or larger, as long as everyone is better off in the end. What I want is a productive society that is also a free society where income is distributed justly, according to the share in the production process.
For that to be efficient I believe the state should provide basic social aid, so people have food and shelter, I want free elementary education and state subsidized universities, free basic healthcare, in essence all those things that make it possible for someone born in a poor family to succeed, if he’s capable enough. I don’t want everyone to be equal. I want everyone to realize their potential and start from relatively equal starting points in a competitive environment.
Does that make me a capitalist, a leftist, a rightist, a libertarian or a totalitarian? I don’t know. What I do know is that those are just labels designed to prevent us from thinking freely and force us to conform to a “school of thought”. I am not insulted if someone thinks I support capitalism. I can only hope they realize that doesn’t mean I support everything some other self-proclaimed capitalist said.
posted by Sergej at 6:34 PM
17 Comments:
Could you please define 'better off in the end' for me? Thank you...
Your Socialist Friend
It means they will get more for their sallary. In economic terms, rate of growth of sallary should be higher than rate of inflation, taking all the costs of living into account. In simple terms, if they got a loaf of bread and some water for the monthly paycheck yesterday, they can switch to vegtables today and also go to theater tomorow.
The problem is that in such economies, the salaries of the 'lower classes' tend not to grow (or grow slower than the inflation rate), and that the workers are outright abused by their employees. Estonia. Slovakia.
Leaving the fact that 'more' will not necessarily make your life better aside.
Labels tend to have a morsel of truth to them.
I believe in state intervention simply, because relaying on the abilities and ambition of every individual sounds great on paper, but doesn’t work in real life.
I also think that advocates of free-market and limited government usually preach from a comfortable social position. I wonder if you’d still hold the views that you do, if you weren’t born in the circumstance you were.
But hey, as far as ‘capitalist pigs’ go, you’re one of my favorites :)
What doesn't work in real life? I think you can always rely that people will choose what they think is best for them. The examples Simon quotes are transitional economies without normal functioning market control mechanisms which allow for exploitation and I by no means advocate monopolies. Furthermore, both countries have very high unemployment rate. It is only reasonable that in such conditions workers pays will have to decrease in order for more of them to get employed to reach a market balance. "Full employment" is the most efficient use of resources which will allow for highest ecnomic growth and allow for fastest increase of sallaries in the long term.
Regarding my social position, had I been born in say NY, USA, my starting sallary as a lawyer would be about 5-15 times higher than it is in Slovenia. It would proably be alot lower in Sudan. What I want for Slovenia is to be competitive with countries like USA, not Sudan.
The examples I quote are examples of the path that you advocate for Slovenia. We cannot become the USA in a day. We cannot become the USA. We should not become the USA.
I don't want my country to be 'more competitive', I want my country to be a decent place to live for all of its citzens, I want equality (in rights), I want respect for human rights, I want respect. You don't get any of that if you are 'competitive'.
I do not advocate the Slovakian path for Slovenia, neither the Estonian.
Funny thing is, I want, to quote you: I want my country to be a decent place to live for all of its citzens, I want equality (in rights), I want respect for human rights, I want respect.
We have a different oppinion on what is the long term most effective way to get there though. I do not understand why you see competitiveness as an opposite of all of that? How is the choice the goverment would make instead of people better than the one people make?
Simply because huge powerful companies tend to not give a damn about the society that they are 'maximising their profit' in.
Of course they don't give a damn. Neither do the workers, they'll work for the company that pays them more, not for the one they love very much. They need eachother though, so workers get paid. Why should they give a damn, really? Which brings us back to my original question, why is this market balance less efficient than the one prescribed by the state?
Fristly I don't like your definition of being better off in the end: "In economic terms, rate of growth of sallary should be higher than rate of inflation, taking all the costs of living into account." It doesn't really work for everyone in this way in the end does it? For example in USA,which you would like to compare us to, the standard of many lower clases is so low that people can't even afford health insurance. It is their free choice, but why should we allow 12% of population to be dependant on really low standard free clinics, if and where they exist. That is how free market works in real life, when you get rid of ceteris paribus and see that many people are not really rational especially in making long term decisions.
Secondly, I would like to comment on the equal starting position and making all more productive. I agree with giving as equal starting positions as possible, but the problem is what is to be with the less gifted or fortunate indivuals who won't succed? To what extent should we reduce the state intervention ( = safety net) to make people "free" ( as they really have a lot of opportunites when they are on the bottom) in their decisons to work hence making all more productive? Is allowing high inequallity among the population really enabling the same opportunities for all? Or should we let the market make these decisions for us and create inequallities in the name of productivity : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
I belive that makes, the succesful ones better of in the end, but kind of forggets about others.
Thirdly, I really don't agre that just having more for all in the end is going to make everyone better of in the end. Why? Because there is so much more to life than working your ass of. Perhaps personal happines ( being better of) doesn't happen by having MORE but by having time to enjoy your life with friends, family... when having ENOUGH? Or is the only way to be better of to have more than the other?
So, you may call me a socilist, but untill you claim: " I do not care if there’s a wide gap between the richest and the poorest man in the country, what I want is for both of them to be more productive in the future." and not take the fact that that usually brings the poorest man into a capital-slavery position, into account your label stays.
I'm very much for free basic healthcare. I do not advocate absolute free market, as that does not allow equal starting position for everyone and allows for monopolies.
I'm also all for a safety net, I've said as much. But not at a disproportionate cost for someone who is more successful. And lastly, of course you're always free to decide that you don't want to work your ass off. I'd be the first to support that. As long as you can afford it, do whatever you want. But it's not fair to decide you just want to have fun, while the others are obliged to take care of you.
In a free market, you have full employment. If you could kindly explain to me how that is slavery I'd be very intrigued. I'm very much against slavery. You make conclusions based on complete freedom for employers in an environment with high unemployment. Of course wages will go down. Untill full employment is reached and fair price is payed for labor. From that point on, there is no way the employer is going to be unfair to employees, as they'll just switch jobs. Beauty of the free market at work.
I played some with your Gini map. Simple question. Would you rather be poor in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, or Australia?
Before you answer, let me kindly remind you Australia has about twice as high Gini coeficient as the other two...
I'd have to point out again that competitiveness means love prices, Sergej. Love prices at the expense of vulnerable people.
Wal-Mart is a product of free market, the CEO gets paid 18,000 times as much as a subcontractor in Bangladesh, but hey once your free market equilibrium is reached it’ll all be OK.
Until then tough luck if you live in Bangladesh.
"But not at a disproportionate cost for someone who is more successful." - do you dear to define disproprtionate? You surely know that it is always defined by the group with power and if the differences get too big (=the ones with power get too much of it) the result is that they tend to use it to be "even more successful" because they are competing with each other, right?
Now guess how the rules of this game of effectivenes change and who they favour ( check Shpelas blog about lobbying). And as I said befofre, the less successful ones get even less successful just to let the successful ones to be more successful. People who work for really little and are left to the free market won't really like their living. If that leads to revolutions I can't say, but what I can say is that everyone is NOT better of, only the successful ones are! So you have to give a bit of economic efficency to be better of in the end.
And about working your ass of... that is exactly what the efficient economy takes you to. All get less goods if you don't work as hard as the market would force you to, but the majority of this extra effort goes to the successful ones. So in my view it is not about having fun while others pay for you (BTW how about the retired people? :) ) but how much work is still humane, tollerable for us. And I really don't like the criteria problems in the social system and that is causing these unjust situations, but is a seprate problem.
Thanks to Shpela who kindly explained what theory( "The beauty of free market") means in practice. BTW I really like socialism theoretically ;)
On Gini games: "However it should be borne in mind that the Gini coefficient can be misleading when used to make political comparisons between large and small countries (see criticisms section)." And if you like these kind of games do add some other criteria in the game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDI
And before you continue I would like to remind you that there are so many factors than these indexes can't really measure. We want EVERYONE to be better of in the end. Right?
Disproportionate: Not in proportion - easy. In essence progressive taxation is disproportionate, while flat taxation is not. (Well it is to some level with the general decrease of the tax base, but that is in line with my statements regarding social aid for those without means for existence).
There is no factual base that the poor get less than the rich from economic growth, at least not in developed market economies. If you wish I can forward you the data for UK, which shows quite clearly the poor got more from the economic growth in % share than the rich did. If you have contrary data, I'd be happy to examien it.
Lastly, no, you do not need to work your ass of, youc an always decide to work less, or not at all and live on governnment aid. You only work your ass off if you want the most money you're capable of earning. The choice should be individual's though, state shouldn't be prescribing the right balance for you.
On indexes, you said it yourself, they are poor measures without some serious analysis added. Why do you then insist on using them without explanations?
Although I like your explanation the question is how high should we allow this unproportionality. All the resources needed for creating 'equal opportunities for all' plus care for ones who are unable to work... have to come from someone. And when do these costs become unproportional for the successful? How much should less gifted and less fortunate ones pay to make this system work while they are competing on a very harsh market? ( this isn't just about the taxation!)
Interesting facts, do you also have any statistics for countries which haven't been governed by a labourist party for the last two mandates? And countries which have taken more liberal economic measures?
"no, you do not need to work your ass of, youc an always decide to work less, or not at all and live on governnment aid." - but there is no possible way of preventing free riders if you fund all the systems you say you stand for. Remember what you had to study for Labour& social law. And I can't really see how this contradiction in your ideas can be solved by putting everyone on the free market. Please explain.
Ok, no more games with statistic factors...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the people have a misconception that ClickBank is one of the affiliate networks.
Click bank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the primary purpose of “Air traffic Control” ??
Aviation Quizzes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete worldcup Schedule right here...
world cup 2019 schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Cup 2019 Matches–WORLD CUP 2019 will be held in England and Wales.
world cup 2019 matches
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a Comment
<< Home