Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[Savy]

So with the idea that individuals best decide what their money is spent on what happens in the case of children?

For example, poor eyesight is probably one of the biggest barriers that children face in terms of their prospects being massively limited. They have no choice over what money is spent on, is there any credit to such programs that provide free eye care to children below a certain age with whatever stipulations in place. Any other suggestions for this problem?

[Poopadoop]

Without capitalism you wouldn't have eyeglasses in the first place (that's a joke).

I think the idea that some degree of capitalism is good therefore more capitalism is better and total capitalism is the best is an overly simplified, black-and-white view. Certainly elements of capitalism work well but there's also elements of socialism that are good too.

[wufwugy]

there's also elements of socialism that are good too.

Like what?

[Poopadoop]

Like what?

They're value judgments of course but I believe the distribution of resources in a strictly capitalist system tends to be overly skewed towards having a few very well-off individuals at the expense of the people in the middle and at the bottom.

I don't think a 'everyone for themselves, survival of the fittest' economy in general leads to a happy society because it lacks a certain brotherhood and common empathy for your fellow man. To give a concrete example, the quality of your health care is not something I think should, in general, depend on your wealth.

[wufwugy]

They're value judgments of course but I believe the distribution of resources in a strictly capitalist system tends to be overly skewed towards having a few very well-off individuals at the expense of the people in the middle and at the bottom.

I don't think a 'everyone for themselves, survival of the fittest' economy in general leads to a happy society because it lacks a certain brotherhood and common empathy for your fellow man. To give a concrete example, the quality of your health care is not something I think should, in general, depend on your wealth.

I know this is very long so I don't expect you to watch, but in case you want to. Milton Friedman has long discussed how free market capitalism benefits the poorer more greatly than the richer.



My added input is that government favors are what make such divides, and that when government is prohibited from giving favors, the markets are most open to the most diverse and lowest cost alternatives, which helps the poor.

Friedman is explicit: there is no example in the world of a first-world society that didn't become that way but for free market capitalism.

[Poopadoop]

I know this is very long so I don't expect you to watch, but in case you want to. Milton Friedman has long discussed how free market capitalism benefits the poorer more greatly than the richer.



My added input is that government favors are what make such divides, and that when government is prohibited from giving favors, the markets are most open to the most diverse and lowest cost alternatives, which helps the poor.

Friedman is explicit: there is no example in the world of a first-world society that didn't become that way but for free market capitalism.

That's fine and he may be right (didn't watch but I might some time), but it doesn't address my other point. If you take capitalism to it's extreme, there's no recourse for anyone who lacks resources to obtain things they might desperately need.

[wufwugy]

That's fine and he may be right (didn't watch but I might some time), but it doesn't address my other point. If you take capitalism to it's extreme, there's no recourse for anyone who lacks resources to obtain things they might desperately need.

That's already the case. Capitalism improves access. Government bills its programs as helping the least fortunate, but it doesn't. This isn't entirely due to corruption either. For example, the least fortunate are made worse off by "good" programs to help them because those programs by nature are disincentives for their improvement.

[wufwugy]

So with the idea that individuals best decide what their money is spent on what happens in the case of children?

For example, poor eyesight is probably one of the biggest barriers that children face in terms of their prospects being massively limited. They have no choice over what money is spent on, is there any credit to such programs that provide free eye care to children below a certain age with whatever stipulations in place. Any other suggestions for this problem?

I think I'm going to approach this two different ways. The first is in a very macro sense.

Capitalism created and continues to create the treatments that help children with poor eyesight. It does this more or less because of its efficiency. Given that government intervening in this market would reduce the efficiency, it means that down the road, children would be worse off because the growth of treatment quality and quantity would suffer. The exponential nature of growth in prosperity shows how grave a mistake it is to capture a particular benefit at the expense of growth rate.

The second way I'll approach this is to say that, keeping all else equal, if tomorrow there's a new program to check for children's eyesight issues, yes those children will be better off in this regard. But at what cost? I don't mean "what's the price tag?" I mean what are the diverse and usually unquantified costs and opportunity costs? What is the cost to labor production and productivity with the uptick in taxes and the downtick in incentive to produce? What is the cost to society when it has a track record of embracing the virus of welfarism? What is the cost to the individuals when they learn to internalize that their problems should be solved by a mandatory program? What is the cost to families when the parents internalize just a little less responsibility for the well-being of their families? What's the cost to innovative doctors/researchers/entrepreneurs who have higher barriers to entry to the eyesight treatment market because the government has standardized a different method? What's the cost to community/family/church/secular charity organizations that get pushed out by inability to compete with a tax-backed program?

Some of those may not be that costly and some may be costly bigly. Also I'm not suggesting that this program would only incur costs. There would certainly be benefits as well, like the initial set of kids getting the treatments may live more productive lives. I think overall it's a net cost though, and this is ultimately because I think the care would be even better and at greater quantities without the government intervention in the first place.

Markets are by definition places that match up people with capital/labor/skills to provide in order to improve their lots that they otherwise couldn't. They work, but when the government steps in and regulates them, they eventually look like they don't work. Look at it this way: the amount of people who think a market needs regulating has much stronger positive correlation with markets that are already regulated than ones that are not. Intervening into markets doesn't help, it just makes us think we need more intervention. We live in a vicious circle of capitalist innovations creating new goods and services and then later generations take those goods and services for granted and want the government to regulate them for the general welfare, yet this has the effect of dampening the engine of creation for newer goods and services. It's mortgaging the future for the present.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not suggesting that this program would only incur costs. There would certainly be benefits as well, like the initial set of kids getting the treatments may live more productive lives. I think overall it's a net cost though, and this is ultimately because I think the care would be even better and at greater quantities without the government intervention in the first place.

If I understand you correctly, you're against such a program in principle because that wouldn't be capitalism and so should be dismissed regardless of being eminently better at face value.

It's mortgaging the future for the present.

It sounds like you're saying that these kids should walk around squinting so that we don't somehow hinder the economy from producing more and better eyeglasses for future generations. In other words, it sounds like you're mortgaging the present for the future.

[wufwugy]

If I understand you correctly, you're against such a program in principle because that wouldn't be capitalism and so should be dismissed regardless of being eminently better at face value.

I embrace capitalism because it is better at total value. If socialism was capable of providing greater value, I would support that. But it hasn't and according to the best economics theory we got, it can't.

It sounds like you're saying that these kids should walk around squinting so that we don't somehow hinder the economy from producing more and better eyeglasses for future generations. In other words, it sounds like you're mortgaging the present for the future.

I'm okay with the characterization in bold. A courageous man is somebody who does the right thing to benefit others even if it means he doesn't experience the same benefit. Due to the function of exponential growth, when we do this it makes everybody better off. If our antecedents mortgaged the future for themselves, we'd still live in huts, till the soil with our hands and backs, and live at the mercy of warlords.

Children should walk around with wonderful vision. Government programs crowd out private programs. Private programs work better. I don't want the government involved because it harms what it's meant to help. For the future and for the current time, welfare is a bad idea.

[Poopadoop]

I embrace capitalism because it is better at total value. If socialism was capable of providing greater value, I would support that. But it hasn't and according to the best economics theory we got, it can't.

I wouldn't argue otherwise if you're comparing strict capitalism to strict communism. But it's not a black vs. white argument. There's a middle ground that you're happier believing can't be any better. I'm arguing it can.

For example, if some of those taxes that were currently being spent on stimulating economic growth (for example, by not being taken in the first place) were instead used to repair some of the areas where capitalism is inadequate, then you may end up with less wealthy people, but the overall happiness is greater.

You can argue that this somehow will make people unhappy at some vague time in the future and that only money matters so having the most productive system is always best. I'm saying it ain't that simple.

[wufwugy]

For example, if some of those taxes that were currently being spent on stimulating economic growth (for example, by not being taken in the first place) were instead used to repair some of the areas where capitalism is inadequate, then you may end up with less wealthy people, but the overall happiness is greater.

I can't find examples of where that would be, though.

[Poopadoop]

I can't find examples of where that would be, though.

Maybe that's because you haven't looked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

All of the countries in the top ten have an economic system that in comparison to that in the US is highly socialist. But according to you, this should ruin their economies and make them all miserable.