Economics and Morality

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

What do you think is the most mora workable economic system, to date, and why? I would think that an economy with a base as Capitalism would be the most moral (although moderated). It seems to me as if Capitalism provides the most general good for the largest number in terms of living standard, material happiness etc.

Of course, it ceases to be so if it's not moderated, but as a core concept, I think that would be. What do you suppose? If not, what type of economy do you think would be the best?

I would think a good system would be one that strikes the rational mean between morality and functionality.

[Surlethe]

The most moral economic system is theoretical marxism -- theoretically, nobody is underprivileged, and everybody works for everybody else. Unfortunately, marxism is certainly not viable at all.

Capitalism is the most workable economic system; however, when resources are distributed most efficiently, there is a large gap between rich and poor, which may lead to injurious effects when moral considerations are taken into account -- e.g., health care: poor people can't afford health care, though, ethically, human life has value. So a capitalist system doesn't take purely moral values into account.

Thus, I feel a system which is purely capitalist (i.e., free market, with governments breaking up unnatural monopolies) in most respects, but with certain markets regulated to make sure human life is not disregarded, is the best compromise between functionality and morality.

[neoolong]

Thus, I feel a system which is purely capitalist (i.e., free market, with governments breaking up unnatural monopolies) in most respects, but with certain markets regulated to make sure human life is not disregarded, is the best compromise between functionality and morality.

Isn't that more what Keynes thinks, as opposed to what pure capitalism really is? I think that capitalism is the most workable, but the nature of humans is such that the government does need to direct things somewhat.

[Surlethe]

Thus, I feel a system which is purely capitalist (i.e., free market, with governments breaking up unnatural monopolies) in most respects, but with certain markets regulated to make sure human life is not disregarded, is the best compromise between functionality and morality.

Isn't that more what Keynes thinks, as opposed to what pure capitalism really is? I think that capitalism is the most workable, but the nature of humans is such that the government does need to direct things somewhat.

Uh ... who's "Keynes"?

[Alex Moon]

Uh ... who's "Keynes"?

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/keynes.htm

He was an economist who's work was influential to many western governments during the 1930's.

[tharkûn]

A nonfunctional system would not be moral, or rather a functional system would always be more moral, ceteris parabis. The economy is far too complex, too quickly evolving, and resistent to imposed change to be centrally planned. Something along Adam Smith's model of capitalism (and for the wonks - specificly I like something based off Okun's work) is most likely the best humanity can hope for given the inefficiencies inherent to the human species.

Note to the ignorant: This is not the capitalism of Ayn Rand, that one fails as well because it does not harness the altruism that is also inherent to the human species.

[Gil Hamilton]

I'm curious about who steps into an economics debate and doesn't know who Keynes was, given that Keynesian Economics is one of the huge major schools of economic thought.

Anyway, I wouldn't exactly call Adam Smith's capitalism, as it's laid out by Adam Smith, to be all that functional on it's own. It puts way too much stock in the idea that people acting in their own self interest will ultimately lead to economic harmony. I think it can be conclusively shown historically that this is false; people and groups acting in their own self-interest more often than not do it at the expense of other people and it doesn't ultimately benefit anyone but themselves. Individuals and businesses screw over other individuals and businesses all the time out of "self-interest" and making a profit. Hell, you need only look at how business was conducted in 19th and early 20th century to know that people acting out of "self-interest" doesn't always lead to the greater benefit of society, let alone the shit that companies pull today.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I always wondered what the deal was with the people in the 19th century and their business endeavours. In my history texts and politology classes, we were lectured that what they were doing then was not really in their rational self interest, because by providing for your workers, and maintaining a higher quality of product, the net result is better for the business, but they weren't doing that.

Now they do that more, and it ends up being better? Is that true, or are they just spouting? If it were true, then it would seem to me that they weren't fully acting in their own interesting, since helping improve worker/management relations helped both parties.

[Gil Hamilton]

I always wondered what the deal was with the people in the 19th century and their business endeavours. In my history texts and politology classes, we were lectured that what they were doing then was not really in their rational self interest, because by providing for your workers, and maintaining a higher quality of product, the net result is better for the business, but they weren't doing that.

Now they do that more, and it ends up being better? Is that true, or are they just spouting? If it were true, then it would seem to me that they weren't fully acting in their own interesting, since helping improve worker/management relations helped both parties.

It was a difference in mentality then. Workers were still workers, they worked for the boss and if they didn't like how they were treated, then they could work somewhere else because it was the bosses company. In fact, in one of my history classes we saw a very interesting look in how Sears Roebuck and their catalogue transformed American life. Eventually, the guy who took over after Sears himself came up with the idea of selling shares in his company to his workers, which horrified other business owners. They thought he was a communist because the idea of workers owning any bit of a company, particularly one as fantastically successful as Sears*, was madness back then. Things like worker's rights was forged by how incredibly shitty a great many companies treated their employees (in no small part because things like the Homestead Massacre were starting to happen - google that one, it happened less than a mile from my home and was very ugly business).


*Sears himself was a very interesting character, but one of the more interesting stories that came out of Sears' history was one that had to do when it started giving stock in the company as part of their pay. There was a worker in Sears warehouse who had worked for the company and gotten some stock. He was basically an illiterate hick who had no skilled labor. After a while he left the company and they had no idea where he went. But the company legally had to pay him what his stock was worth, so they tracked him down to this rundown shack where he was living with a woman and some kids with no wealth whatsoever... and handed him a check for 250,000 dollars. (keep in mind this was in the 1920s, I believe)

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

SOrry Ghetto Ediit. Interest* not interesting.

Oh, and thanks for the reply.

[Lord Zentei]

Any moral systme needs to be workable to be even considered. In any case given some of the gorier deatails of Marx's model, I have very serious doubts about its morality, or the man's sanity for that matter.

As for Keynes: the problem with Keynsian multiplier effects in when attempting pro-active boosts to the economy is that they are far less certain than the deadweight losses that are inevitably incurred when one attempts to tax the economy. Moreover, his methods (boosting aggregate demand rather than aggregate supply) while easy to set into motion lead to price hikes, which means that one must use judgement when and where and if to apply them. In any case, Keynes was more interested in boosting the overall economy amongst other things to reduce unemployment, rather than adressing equity issues per se.

As for the most "moral" economic system, I'm not entirely sure that that is a valid question since economics has nothing to do with moral philosophy per se. It is merely the science of how the aggregate of resources and people interact in society: one cannot "choose" a system of economics any more than one can choose a system of physics. However for the most moral socioeconomic model, I choose the north European/Canadian type capitalism/democracy with basic welfare, with transparency ensured both in business and politics. The trick is to balance the welfare against the health of the economy.

[Surlethe]

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/keynes.htm

He was an economist who's work was influential to many western governments during the 1930's.

Thanks.

I'm curious about who steps into an economics debate and doesn't know who Keynes was, given that Keynesian Economics is one of the huge major schools of economic thought.

A person who's learned enough to grasp the basics and be quite interested, but hasn't yet studied the subject in any depth.

[wilfulton]

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
— WINSTON CHURCHILL


I don't think there really is a good answer for this. No system will ever be perfect, and if we do find one that is, I'm certain some barbarians will come in and take us over and foist their imperfect system onto us. It's the law of chaos.

[Stofsk]

What do you think is the most moral workable economic system, to date, and why?

A combination of capitalism and socialism, which is what most of us in the Western world have. Having business and free enterprise and so on is great, but when you fall on hard times it's nice to have the state show up and give you a lift in the form of healthcare, pensions, and so on.

Nothing's perfect of course, but that's not an argument.