toldailytopic: In your opinion, what's the ONE worst thing about capitalism?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

......

 

[rexlunae]

toldailytopic: In your opinion, what's the ONE worst thing about capitalism?

It's a system with no values of its own, only the values that people bring to it. Some people forget that, and treat the system itself as the highest value.

 

[Traditio]

The labor theory of value is wrong because I could spend 10 hours a day working really hard on an exact miniature replica of Rosie O'Donnell made out of lima beans and toilet paper. No matter how much labor I put into that, it isn't worth anything. It has no productive value and no consumer in his right mind would pay a dime for it.

This doesn't discredit the so called "labor theory of value." Yes, it does in fact discredit the idea that any kind of labor imparts monetary worth. I'm not sure that the labor theory of value need assert that, though. It merely needs to add a qualifier: "The value of a good, presupposing that it was commissioned as a societal role, is proportionate to what the laborer put into it." A Rosie O'Donnell statue has no value because the labor didn't correspond to a societal structure.

Value comes from what consumers want.

Nonetheless, if the consumers want something which is intrinsically unfair to the producers, then something is wrong with the procurement. I have in mind farmers in the third world, for example...

The fact that value isn't concrete means that the system is more fair and that most people get more value than what they paid.

1. You haven't shown that it's fair.

2. If value isn't concrete, then as a matter of fact, they haven't gotten value at all, unless "value" is meant in some trivial sense.

But we aren't talking about buying and trading humans or even their rationality. We are talking about goods and services.

We're talking about the wellbeing of a lot of people. You yourself said that the economy is nothing else than the system whereby we distribute social goods. That means that, if you're talking about an economic system, you're talking about how social goods are being distributed, and that means that lives are at stake.

I fail to see how two people in a voluntary exchange of wages and labor, both of which were mutually agreed upon by the laborer and the employer, could be labeled "exploitation".

Because the agreement isn't fair.

Then why did you agree to work for the wage that you get?

Because the alternative is worse! But better than worse than unfair is still unfair.

*You can say "it's self-defeating" as much as you want, but if you don't give an argument for it being self-defeating, then you can't really expect anyone to be convinced when you say it. On that note, I think it's rather odd that you didn't go into greater detail. Basing myself on your previous posts, I can only imagine that your failure to go into more detail wasn't based in any lack of knowledge/understanding on your part. :idunno:

See above.

You still haven't convinced me that there is any unfairness inherent in a free market system.

Because it permits any kind of contract. As a matter of fact, I think that some contracts intrinsically are untenable. The human person is inviolable. Consequently, he may not, in principle, consent to a contract which does not meet a basic standard of fairness.

You call child labor in the 3rd world "a free market." I call it exploitation and inherintly repugnant.

 

[Nydhogg]

The fact that it isn't everywhere in the world, "with liberty and justice for all."

Nyd, corporate welfare is heinous from any genuine conservative's point of view, and is NOT capitalism. It is antithetical to capitalism, and is a left-wing practice.

The right ain't innocent either.
Licensing rackets. Permit rackets. Established companies being grandfathered in, the regulations thus serving as a barrier to entry.

Whatever this is, a free market it ain't.

 

[firon]

What are those precepts, exactly?

Those precepts are encompassed in the law. As an example, "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not covet" are, without question, contrary to every form of government except for government which is in accord with Scripture. Christ reigns supreme, and transgression of His law will, without fail, finally issue in His judgment against His enemies whether men are against His sovereign reign or not!! It is especially contrary to socialism!

 

[Newman]

This doesn't discredit the so called "labor theory of value." Yes, it does in fact discredit the idea that any kind of labor imparts monetary worth. I'm not sure that the labor theory of value need assert that, though. It merely needs to add a qualifier: "The value of a good, presupposing that it was commissioned as a societal role, is proportionate to what the laborer put into it." A Rosie O'Donnell statue has no value because the labor didn't correspond to a societal structure.

What do you mean, "societal structure"?

Nonetheless, if the consumers want something which is intrinsically unfair to the producers, then something is wrong with the procurement. I have in mind farmers in the third world, for example...

If it's unfair to the producers, then the producers will make less of it, make it with poorer quality, or stop producing it entirely.

1. You haven't shown that it's fair.

2. If value isn't concrete, then as a matter of fact, they haven't gotten value at all, unless "value" is meant in some trivial sense.

Value is subjective. We can't measure how much "pleasure" people get from different consumer goods. We can't even compare two people in that regard. All we can do is ask an individual how he/she ranks certain goods and services.

We're talking about the wellbeing of a lot of people. You yourself said that the economy is nothing else than the system whereby we distribute social goods. That means that, if you're talking about an economic system, you're talking about how social goods are being distributed, and that means that lives are at stake.

I haven't said anything against this. Economics is extremely important for the very reasons you stated.

You were talking about how invaluable human rationality is, and I said that we aren't talking about trading "rationality", however that would work.

Because the agreement isn't fair.

Any voluntary agreement is fair. That's what makes it an agreement: when both parties think their obligations and benefits as stipulated by the agreement is fair.

Because the alternative is worse! But better than worse than unfair is still unfair.

What alternative? Not working?

See above.

You too.

Because it permits any kind of contract. As a matter of fact, I think that some contracts intrinsically are untenable. The human person is inviolable. Consequently, he may not, in principle, consent to a contract which does not meet a basic standard of fairness.

We're going to have to define "fair" for this discussion. In this case, I think that "fair" means consent, agreement, or other voluntary ways to nod your head.

You call child labor in the 3rd world "a free market." I call it exploitation and inherintly repugnant.

Where did I say that?