Capitalism Is Perfect Or Not?

[Pliny]

Who says you can't live on what Wal-Mart pays?  Does the Church define a standard of living too?

 

There is no way an employer can be responsible for economic conditions which are out of his control.  There are many other factors that prevent "livable" wages, such as having 50% of our income confiscated by a greedy government.

 

 

[havok579257]

Who says you can't live on what Wal-Mart pays?  Does the Church define a standard of living too?

 

There is no way an employer can be responsible for economic conditions which are out of his control.  There are many other factors that prevent "livable" wages, such as having 50% of our income confiscated by a greedy government.

 

 

On September 4, 2008, the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice ruled that Wal-Mart de Mexico, the Mexican subsidiary of Walmart, must cease paying its employees in part with vouchers redeemable only at Wal-Mart stores. source wiki....

 

well i guess your right.  i mean who couldn't live off walmart vouchers as pay.  providing honest wages right there.

 

In 2008, Walmart agreed to pay at least $352 million to settle lawsuits claiming that it forced employees to work off the clock. "Several lawyers described it as the largest settlement ever for lawsuits over wage violations source wiki

 

yep, that's an honest wage right there.  forcing workers to work for free.  what's more honest than that?

 

 

 

but let's move on to your question of if its a liveable wage.  

 

Walmart’s average sale Associate makes $8.81 per hour, according to IBISWorld, an independent market research group. This translates to annual pay of $15,576, based upon Walmart’s full-time status of 34 hours per week1. This is significantly below the 2010 Federal Poverty Level of $22,050 for a family of four.

 

although some contend walmart can't raise salaries or it would lose money or cost the consumer to much.  here's something else to look at

 

According to a 2011 report (PDF), if Walmart started paying a $12/hour minimum wage, its workers currently earning less than $9 per hour could each earn $3,250 to $6,500 more per year before taxes. If Walmart were to pass this cost directly to shoppers, the average consumer would need to pay only 46 cents more per shopping trip, or $12.50 per year.

 

source....http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/factsheet/walmart-watch-fact-sheets/fact-sheet-wages/

 

 

so do you still think you can live off of a walmart yearly salary of just over 15,000?

[havok579257]

Who says you can't live on what Wal-Mart pays?  Does the Church define a standard of living too?

 

There is no way an employer can be responsible for economic conditions which are out of his control.  There are many other factors that prevent "livable" wages, such as having 50% of our income confiscated by a greedy government.

 

 

it really shouldn't be to hard to determine a standard of living in america.  If someone works a job they should be able to at the very least feed themselves without having to eat so unhealthy its detremential to their health, provide a roof over their head with heat and a/c(something that those without could and do die from), water, cleaning supplies, be able to afford healthcare costs and be able to have money for transportation to their job, a phone(cause honestly your not working for the vast majority of employers if they can never get a hold of you, so its something most jobs require), money to purchese clothes(nothing special but enough so your not running around naked or dressing inappropriotly for work) . 

 

Although those are the bare necessities for a single person.  Obviously for a person who has a family, their bare necessities are more such as providing for a child.

[havok579257]

Who says you can't live on what Wal-Mart pays?  Does the Church define a standard of living too?

 

There is no way an employer can be responsible for economic conditions which are out of his control.  There are many other factors that prevent "livable" wages, such as having 50% of our income confiscated by a greedy government.

 

 

So is it your contention that the top 100 Fortune 500 companies(let's just make it easy) are barely making it that they are unable to provide liveable wages to their employees who don't receive liveable wages?  

[KnightofChrist]

Define capitalism and socialism as you understand them, then define distributionism and explain why it would be better.

 

As I've explained in my posts, distributionism seems to ignore even the most basic economics and top-down distributionism seems pretty totalitarian.

 

Good question.

[Socrates]

I did not want to derail a thread in the open mic and it seems philny wants to debate this topic, so I figured let's talk.  Is capitalism a perfect form of government and can it/will it create a utopian form of society?

 

I've been away from phatmass and haven't read everything in the thread, but"capitalism" (actually a rather vague marxist term - I'm a proponent of a free market economy myself, as opposed to our system of "crony capitalism") is not a form of government, but an economic system.

 

And no, capitalism or the free market will not create a perfect utopian form of society.  No human society in this fallen world will be perfect this side of the Second Coming.  

"Utopia" means literally "nowhere."  It's leftist ideologies that are utopian, thinking they can create a perfect paradise on earth by state intervention.  

 

State control of the economy, jobs, wages, prices, etc., has already been tried and failed.  Look at the fate of Soviet Russia, and other Communist countries.

 

 

Our country has been going down the drain since the 70s when the government refused to regulate those greedy top dogs. Then, they destroyed our  housing market, banks, etc.

They have been funneling money up to the top without anyone stopping them. Why? because all the politicians are in on it and its a big LOL party.

 

Taxes and prices are going up for the rest of us and none of this money is trickling down. We are creating a huge gap and the world is going to end.

 

 

Why does the top 1% who hold pretty much all the wealth of the nation need MOAR money and less taxes to create jobs? 

 

 . . . 

 

 

You cant look at me straight faced and tell me that the unregulated housing loan schemes from the 70s didnt cause a huge whopping problem. 

 

Obama even said "Lets regulate it so they cant literally steal money from the people anymore" Did he? No.

 

The same people are stealing money as we speak and destroying our economy as a result. BUT, they make tons $$$ and money buys power.

 

The housing bust and recession of 2008 were actually caused by government regulation and manipulation of the market, which creates artificial "bubbles" doomed to burst.  (In that case, specifically the housing market, but more generally by the centralized, government-created bank (the Federal Reserve) artificially manipulating the money supply.

 

The problem is not "unregulated" business, but the unholy corporatist collusion of big government and big business.  The solution is not to put more Democrats, or more Republicans, "in charge of" the economy, but to end government manipulation of the economy and money supply, period.

 

You can educate yourself on the topic by reading Thomas Woods'  Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse.  (I'd also recommend his The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy  for a more general treatment of economics.  (Or read whatever Winnie linked to).

 

(For a nice, short illustration of the utter ludicrousness of the idea of the state-controlled economy, you can read Leonard Read's classic "I Pencil" here.  Just as true today as when it was written in the '50s.

[Socrates]

Define capitalism and socialism as you understand them, then define distributionism and explain why it would be better.

 

As I've explained in my posts, distributionism seems to ignore even the most basic economics and top-down distributionism seems pretty totalitarian.

 

The second Thomas Woods book I linked to gives an excellent and thorough refutations of distributivism (while respecting those who hold such theories, and avoiding ad-hominems).

[4588686]

I've been away from phatmass and haven't read everything in the thread, but"capitalism" (actually a rather vague marxist term - I'm a proponent of a free market economy myself, as opposed to our system of "crony capitalism") is not a form of government, but an economic system.

 

 

 

You cannot seperate an economic system from the political-legal system within which it is operating.  I'm a big fan of utilizing math and mathematical models to elucidate arguments and represent models of limited aspects of reality but one negative aspect of the sometimes excessive (to take a very basic example, ordinal utility functions) mathematization of economics is that it allows economics to be ghettoized.  It used to be that political-economy was a single field.  The separation of economics from the political sciences has given some people the false idea that economics can be separated or exist independent of a larger political and legal framework.

[4588686]

 

 

The housing bust and recession of 2008 were actually caused by government regulation and manipulation of the market, which creates artificial "bubbles" doomed to burst.  (In that case, specifically the housing market, but more generally by the centralized, government-created bank (the Federal Reserve) artificially manipulating the money supply.

 

 

Richard Posner very neatly demolishes this completely unfounded claim in his recent(ish) book Failure of Capitalist Democracy.  

[NotreDame]

Richard Posner very neatly demolishes this completely unfounded claim in his recent(ish) book Failure of Capitalist Democracy.  

 

really?  Which parts did you find so compelling?
 

Edited March 20, 2014 by NotreDame

[RC Patriot]

HAVOC, is there really anyone, anywhere who's arguing that denying wages to employees which were previously agreed to is "honest," as you say? Seriously, man, get a grip! Wal-mart was wrong, and they rightly got sued to correct the injustice.

[NotreDame]

The student loan industry is regulated.  It's just not well regulated.  If it were then Sally Mae wouldn't be able to give Jon Boehner's daughter a job.  

 

If it were well regulated, there would never have been a Sallie Mae.  

 

But of course, "Good" and "Bad" is all relative.  Government intrusion into the market has:

 

A) expanded the power of individual politicians

B) expanded their donor base to include the regulated industry

C) given politicians, their friends, family, and donors plenty of available jobs in the regulated industry

D) thereby expanding the power of said politicians

 

So I'm sure from the politicians' perspective regulations are working exactly as they are supposed to.
 

[Socrates]

. . . in his recent(ish) book Failure of Capitalist Democracy.  

 

 

 . . . in contrast to the glowing success of socialist totalitarianism.

[4588686]

. . . in contrast to the glowing success of socialist totalitarianism.

Right. So Justice Richard Posner is an ardent capitalist. He was for decades an ardent defender of the Chicago School and even though he did somewhat revise his views in light of the economic evidence following the crash he makes it very clear in his books and his other writings that he is a believer of capitalism, highly suspicious (even hostile) of attempts to utilize the law to effect social justice, and takes pains in his book to point out in his book how government regulation retarded the mild Keynsian efforts of the Bush and Obama administrations.

[4588686]

Nuance: frustrating the reactionary dogmatist since 1843

[NotreDame]

We get it Hasan.  There's a book out there by Judge Richard Posner that says something that you like.  Which parts are so compelling to you? 

[NotreDame]

Nuance: frustrating the reactionary dogmatist since 1843

 

What is the nuance we are missing, Hasan?   Why do you think the stock market and housing bubbles of the 2000's can't be laid at the feet of the federal reserve and federal govt?  Since you keep bringing him up, what were Richard Posner's arguments to that effect? 
 

[Just a Skosh]

Can't be perfect, nothing is perfect.  There is no perfect economic system, they all have their flaws.  Based on the preponderence of evidence (aka it's been around for a hell of a long time) capitalism seems to be a pretty good choice for this world.

[havok579257]

Can't be perfect, nothing is perfect.  There is no perfect economic system, they all have their flaws.  Based on the preponderence of evidence (aka it's been around for a hell of a long time) capitalism seems to be a pretty good choice for this world.

 

 

and what makes it a good choice over all other forms of government(remember there is more than capitalism and socialism)?