I went to see Capitalism: A Love Story, and like most of Michael Moore's movies, it proposes a lot of questions and leaves little in the way of answers. This is not a bad thing, mind you - expecting all the answers to our economic and social ills to come out of a two-hour movie is foolhardy. But Moore has the balls to challenge a lot of our sacred cows on economic policy, and these are worth musing about here.
I don't post on economic issues here a lot, not because I don't think they're important, but because I don't know a whole lot about them. I went on a mini-rant on economic policy in response to Balko once, but that's about it.
So here are some ill-formed questions that came out of the movie with me, and that perhaps people with better economic knowledge can answer...
- People on the right throw around the term "socialism" as if it's a proven evil. If it's socialism, it's necessarily bad. Well, is socialism necessarily a bad thing? Why? What about capitalism makes it better than socialism?
- Let's say our current employment climate continues. If I reach the point where I'm reasonably wealthy, and could provide for my daughter's well-being and my own with the wealth I had accrued to that point, would it be ethical for me to continue working no matter what age I'm at, and whether or not I enjoyed my job? And what's the point in working more than you need to in order to live comfortably?
- Is it better to rely on a system of charity to help the poor or compel rich people to help the poor? I'm reminded of a Jewish rabbinical story I once heard. Two men of equal means come upon a beggar in the street. One is not compelled (in this case, by his religion) to give anything, yet out of his sense of compassion, he gives $5. The other is repulsed by the beggar, but because his religion demands it, he grudgingly gives $10. Who has done the better deed? The rabbis said the guy who gave the most money, of course - his heart will catch up, but in the meantime, more good is being done. So is compelling the rich to help the poor (via taxation) more ethical than removing all compulsion and expecting altruism to do the trick?
- Moore claims the solution to our economic problems is to "destroy" capitalism. But he spends half the movie criticizing a cozy relationship between Capitol Hill and the banks that doesn't resemble actual capitalism at all. If we destroy the corporatist mentality in Congress, would capitalism lead to the negative things we liberals associate with it? On the other hand, is the capitalist ideal even possible, or will capitalism always breed corporatism? And because ideal anything is impossible, aren't some regulations necessary for the proper functioning of a real-life capitalist marketplace?
Jibber jabber.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well I'm no economist, and I've never stayed at a Holiday Inn Express ever, but I can try to answer your questions regardless.
People on the right throw around the term "socialism" as if it's a proven evil. If it's socialism, it's necessarily bad. Well, is socialism necessarily a bad thing? Why? What about capitalism makes it better than socialism?
I consider the system of socialism to be a net loss of freedom for individuals, so as such I find the concept to be bad, and "evil" in a sense. I also believe that moves into an socialist economic system not only leads to a reduction in rights in economic matters but also inevitably leads to a loss in individual freedoms as well. As such I hold socialistic ideas in low regard.
Let's say our current employment climate continues. If I reach the point where I'm reasonably wealthy, and could provide for my daughter's well-being and my own with the wealth I had accrued to that point, would it be ethical for me to continue working no matter what age I'm at, and whether or not I enjoyed my job? And what's the point in working more than you need to in order to live comfortably?
At the end of the day, it's your life. No one should be making this decision other than you. Who the fuck am I, much less an ivory tower elitist bureaucrat hypocrite (who tend to be the people who decry such things), to tell you what level of comfort you should be allowed to live, or to deprive whoever you happen to be working for of your services just because you're living "too" comfortably in the opinion of others.
- Is it better to rely on a system of charity to help the poor or compel rich people to help the poor? I'm reminded of a Jewish rabbinical story I once heard. Two men of equal means come upon a beggar in the street. One is not compelled (in this case, by his religion) to give anything, yet out of his sense of compassion, he gives $5. The other is repulsed by the beggar, but because his religion demands it, he grudgingly gives $10. Who has done the better deed? The rabbis said the guy who gave the most money, of course - his heart will catch up, but in the meantime, more good is being done. So is compelling the rich to help the poor (via taxation) more ethical than removing all compulsion and expecting altruism to do the trick?
Personally I find that there's little value to compassion that is brought by coercion. Your example of the man who gives because his religion demands it isn't exactly the same as taxation, because in the end, he gave the money still out of his own free will. He had the option of forsaking his religion, but chose not to.
Just look at 9/11. People in droves voluntarily gave ungodly amounts of money to help those in need. During Katrina, the "evil" greedy corporations like Wal-Mart stepped up and contributed big time to helping those devastated by the disaster while some government agencies specifically designed to help out disaster victims bumbled around getting little accomplished.
IMO voluntary compassion accomplishes a lot more than compassion that is coerced by the government.
to be continued, because there is apparently a character limit on posts.
... and to finish off here:
Moore claims the solution to our economic problems is to "destroy" capitalism. But he spends half the movie criticizing a cozy relationship between Capitol Hill and the banks that doesn't resemble actual capitalism at all.
This goes back to a fundamental fallacy that many on the pro-socialism or liberal seem to either never acknowledge or just seem to never understand: Many of the ills that they tend to criticize capitalism for are actually the results of corporatism. They seem to regard the 2 as the same thing, when in reality, that is simply not the case.
If we destroy the corporatist mentality in Congress, would capitalism lead to the negative things we liberals associate with it?
Let's not beat around the bush, no system is perfect. Some of those negative things will happen. Life is unfair. Capitalism (from a realist perspective) makes no illusions about that. Some will benefit more than others. Some people will not do well, or they won't do as well as they would like or as well as they feel that they deserve. We can't all be successful millionaires.
In my humble opinion, if the destruction of the corporatist mentality included reigning in government power so that we don't need to worry about corporatism ever again, then in an overall sense, I think people will be better off.
On the other hand, is the capitalist ideal even possible, or will capitalism always breed corporatism? And because ideal anything is impossible, aren't some regulations necessary for the proper functioning of a real-life capitalist marketplace?
Some people have different views on what is "ideal" capitalism. The fantasy land view and the real life view.
I can't really say for sure that it wouldn't need some regulation. I do feel however, that many of the regulations that we deal with today are borne out of knee jerk reactions to failures of the market that tend to make problems worse with an ill conceived intention of making sure failures never ever happen again(i.e. the economic situation today).
Post a Comment