« Unknown but incredibly important inventors | Main | The Rest of the Story is Obvious »
Doesn't leisure time rise with wealth?
"Capitalism is thoroughly immoral and has no moral foundation," said Kirkpatrick Sale..."In fact, it celebrates all of what we know of as the seven deadly sins except for sloth."
A new center at Clemson University, focused on the moral foundations of capitalism, puts forth a different view. The pointer is from www.politicaltheory.info.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 26, 2006 at 07:41 PM in Education | Permalink
Comments
To me capitalism is about making and keeping agreements. Between each other and between society and the individual.
Its about rewarding hard work and innovation. Its about making wise decisions about resources. Its about aligning individual self interest with the common good. Its about creating institutions that reward long term investment in things which are useful to others.
If anything, the so-called evils of capitalism occur where this alignment has not yet been created. No one owns the oceans yet, so they are polluted and overfished. No one has created financial instruments that invest in student futures, so education remains an underfunded, political morass, at least where government is involved.
And frequently, what people are calling capitalist is nothing remotely resembling what I consider it to be. Before you can agree about how good something is, you have to at least agree upon a definition. It seems many of capitalisms critics are loathe to do exactly that.
Posted by: Alan Brown at Sep 26, 2006 7:39:05 PM
"takes the sovereignty of the individual as a moral absolute."
Morals are based on individual decisions.
Giving somebody else bread can be done for many reasons: 1) you love him, 1b) you pity him (have charity for him) -- a peaceful gift, possibly altruistic.
2) He gives you something, gold, butter, money. An honest, peaceful exchange, making you both better off. (Alan's agreements -- the vast majority of capitalist transactions that create most wealth.)
2b) He gives you false gold, or false promises -- peaceful fraud.
3) He steals your bread, or other property while you are away or asleep. (peaceful theft)
3b) He threatens to hurt you and/or destroy or take your property, a threat backed up by credible force.
The mafia, terrorists, muggers do this; as does the government. Neither extortion nor tax collection is peaceful.
Ayn Rand's idea that selfishness is the moral basis of capitalism is totally wrong; it is moral because of peaceful, honest agreements. (It is Effective and Efficient because of the selfishness, in ways altruism is not. )
I hope they ask Michael Novak to work with them.
There was a totally stupid of U of Chicago Nussbaum's quote "There would be no such thing as private property, for example, without government protection of property from trespass and other damages."
In Somalia, without "government", there remained "private property" -- enforced by guns of warlords. Not the law of the jungle, but the law of the playground w/o adults; the bigger bullies tell everybody else what to do.
"Real government" is what is really enforced, whether in Hezbollah Lebanon or in inner city drug territories or in the family.
Enforcement-only government is clearly possible; "law making" and "law judging" without enforcement is what we see with the UN today; more than half BS.
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at Sep 26, 2006 8:27:50 PM
Capitalism isn't immoral; it's amoral. Like technology, it can be used for good or evil; the moral implications are a matter of the individual using it.
Posted by: dWj at Sep 26, 2006 8:33:51 PM
My favorite quote was, "Asked at the December 2005 meeting of the eastern division of the American Philosophical Association about the institute and the moral foundation of capitalism, a Princeton University professor, Cornel West, said Adam Smith was 'anti-imperialist,' which he said was something that those on the right generally 'don't want to appropriate.'"
True, but a total non-sequitor. If this is the best he's got, no wonder Larry Summers gave him the boot at Harvard.
Overall, this looks like a positive development. I see that Harvey Mansfield will be an advisor. Let's just hope the economists involved with the institute are "manly" enough.
Posted by: Mark at Sep 26, 2006 9:33:09 PM
Capitalism works because people are made for the most part to produce before they are paid. Speculators produce AND THEN offer to the market. It is a system which encourages overproduction, and many trying to enter the existing market, as well as making new ones. I don't think its any more moral than anything else.
Profit is just money that is overpaid for a product or service. Its just money for nothing, no different than the welfare people criticize. A lot of the financial markets are just casinos. The secret of the system is the speculative production. People will still work for break-even money. After all, we have to live. Remember, its not the profit motive, but speculative production that makes it all work.
Posted by: Larry at Sep 26, 2006 9:49:11 PM
capitalism is an abstraction, albeit useful, that helps
modeling some aspects of human relationships. in pure
form it has never existed for extended periods of time
because of inherent problems (like externalities) that
plague it. studying its moral grounds is nonsense.
kinda like studying moral grounds of classical
thermodynamics.
Posted by: m at Sep 26, 2006 10:18:55 PM
I think capitalism can have morals. I mean if companies don't take care of there employees what will they have. I do have a problem when there is no government oversight because of the monopolies that sometimes form. However there is a need for them I assume because if you have government ran business someone will always be trying to steal from somewhere. I do think however sometimes there is to much capitalism companies like Wal-Mart. That get away with paying there employees under the poverty line that isn't right that is where the government should and did set in Maryland where the sate forced Wal-Mart to cover there employees with more insurance. That I think is an example of where capitalism has no morals.
Posted by: Matthew Ponder at Sep 27, 2006 12:03:48 AM
"The institute will provide a public forum for exploring the institutions and underlying principles of capitalism, such as individual rights, contracts, rule of law, private property, free trade, voluntary associations, entrepreneurship, and limited government"
Except for free trade this sound pretty much like the US constitution. Our political disagreements are about what rights, what contracts, what laws, and what to do when these principles come in conflict with each other or with the right of private property. Economic theory can only inform us about the cost of choices. I agree with m look to economic theory for moral guidance is like looking to thermodynamics. Capitalism sucess depends on the fact that although people act in thier own self intrest their action are limited by moral values, so they work hard, keep their word, obey the law, and respect the rights of others. I think I would say the US capitalism is the product of the moral values of our society not the source. The fact that morality extends to thing like concern for fairness, and the poor which are not necessay for capitalism, have a profound effect on the choices we make.
Posted by: joan at Sep 27, 2006 3:41:12 AM
I personally think that as wealth increases that people value their time more. This means that a wealthy person has a better guage on what their time wether it is work or play is worth. For example, rich people are more likely to hire someone to do their lawn and yard work. Does this mean that wealthy people are lazy? No, I don't think so. what it means is that wealthy person understands that it is more productive for them to work hard at their occupation (what they are good at) and spend less time doing other less productive work (mowing lawn). Therefore, it may seem to the average person that wealthy indivduals have more free time. This is a great example of absolute advantage. The wealthy indivdual does what he or she is great at doing while allowing others who are good at yard and lawn work to do that job. By doing this both groups get a higher return and higher productivity.
Posted by: Econstudent79 at Sep 27, 2006 1:40:54 PM
Profit is not money for nothing. Its what you get for risking your time, energy and capital. Some people profit from appropriating from others, keeping compeitiors out by force, fraud, etc., but those are precisely the activities that are not needed in a capitalist system. They are, of course, essential in other economic systems.
Posted by: Alan Brown at Sep 27, 2006 5:28:34 PM
Econstudent79
Or maybe they just don't like yard work.
Posted by: joan at Sep 27, 2006 6:13:38 PM
> force, fraud, etc., but those are precisely the activities that
> are not needed in a capitalist system
huh? how so? stealing can be pretty efficient
Posted by: m at Sep 27, 2006 6:14:11 PM
The question was "Doesn't leisure time rise with wealth?" What an interesting question that is that one poses.
Here are two examples of why this question contradicts itself and makes no sense at all.
The first example is: I am a college student. I don't have leisure time. Is it to be suggested that the reason that I don't have leisure time is because I do not possess wealth? No-the reason why I do not have leisure time is because I am too busy with academics/extracurricular activities/community service/etc. to have any leisure time.
The second exampe is: One of my friend's parents is a lawyer. They have no leisure time. but-it was stated that wealth buys you leisure time, and lawyers possess wealth. So, what kind of generalization is being made here?
This question makes no sense whatsoever.
Posted by: Shannon at Sep 28, 2006 1:03:16 AM
Why the sudden invasion of the clue-starved?
Posted by: Russell Nelson at Sep 28, 2006 2:02:47 AM
Wealth doesnt get you leisure time, wealth
helps you come to terms with being
poor as a kid. Since you have money, now you
can afford to do whatever you want. So I
figure this blog is telling me that the
older you get the more money you make whichs in
s sense brings happiness.
Posted by: Jerod at Sep 28, 2006 11:10:53 AM
Leisure time has NOT been decreasing in the U.S., which leads to the conclusion that we have not been growing richer, it's all in illusion created by cheap consumer electronics.
Posted by: Half Sigma at Sep 28, 2006 11:23:45 AM
"This is a great example of absolute advantage. The wealthy indivdual does what he or she is great at doing while allowing others who are good at yard and lawn work to do that job. "
In most cases, that's true. For some, it may be an example of comparative advantage.
I'm in good condition, and trained in industrial engineering. I could probably figure out how to do my lawn work more efficiently than the Mexican-American I hire. But I'd be forced to reduce time spent on my small business. Hiring that lawn worker allows us both to increase our wealth.
Posted by: JohnDewey at Sep 28, 2006 2:38:20 PM
Knight Online Gold
Knight Gold
Knight Noah
Knight Online Noah
Posted by: aion kina at Mar 20, 2009 10:03:31 PM
