Re: Capitalism is inherently Immoral.

"Hothead McCain" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:MPG.22914cc4762653f098a25a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <39FVj.33419$dq6.13295@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, 
> whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
>>
>> "Hothead McCain" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2290ac8998c6daf098a24b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article
>> <9b43249e-84a0-462a-a4f6-0843ed49df9f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> tomaxo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
>> > On May 11, 1:18 am, "V-for-Vendicar"
>> > <Just...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > > "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> > >
>> > > > Because they're Capitalists. All they care about is money. They
>> > > > don't respect human rights. They don't even acknowledge that the
>> > > > right to life is a human right. Remember the Irish Hunger? Half
the
>> > > > population of Ireland wiped out, just because they didn't have
the
>> > > > money to buy wheat during the potato blight. Capitalists think
that
>> > > > kind of thing is funny.
>> > > > Which is exactly where Communism came from:
>> > >
>> > > I agree with Jerry Kraus. Capitalism is inherently Immoral.
>> >
>> > As morality is a purely religious distinction, are you proposing the
>> > distribution of goods and services be determined by the church?
>> >
>> >
>> No, we need laws for cor****ations, or regulations. Republicans
>> fight against regulations and therefore they fight FOR immorality.
>>
>> [JG] In your vigor to garrot as many Republicans as possible, let's not
>> start overstating the case. There is nothing inherently "moral" or 
>> "immoral"
>> about regulation.
>>
>> ALL regulations inhibit capital formation. Capital formation is
necessary
>> for competitiveness and job creation. Thus, regulations make the 
>> regulated
>> company less competitive against its overseas competition, and/or 
>> decrease
>> employment levels. Thus, one could quite rationally make the case that
>> regulations are immoral, as they cost jobs, just as easily as another 
>> person
>> could argue that a LACK of regulation is immoral, for various reasons
of
>> which I'm sure you can list.
>>
>> The point here is not to argue for or against regulation. If a
regulation
>> can be written which has maximal positive impact on the lives of
workers 
>> and
>> people but minimal impact on competitivness and employment, then that's
a
>> good regulation and probably worth imposing. However, all too many
>> regulations have the opposite characterstics, minimal effect on those
who
>> were intended to be helped, and constraining on business activity.
>>
>> It's correct to point out that the GOPs skepticism that decent
regulation
>> can be written leads them to be slow to move to initiate needed
reforms;
>> however, it's just as true that some (not all, as most Democrats are
>> dedicated free-marketers no different than the GOP) Democrats are so in

>> love
>> with the idea of regulation that they would implement them imprudently;

>> and
>> that would result in conditions just as bad, if not worse, than one
which
>> avoids regulations unless forced to implement them.
>>
>> JG
>>
>>
>> That's just one of the many reasons why Republicans suck.
>>
>>
>>
> Well first of all, nobody is arguing for imprudent regulation. That's
just
> a strawman argument.

You may not be, but others are. Hardly a strawman globally speaking, but
if 
you're in favor of thoughtful approaches, then we can put the whims of the

crazies aside.

> Sometimes mistakes happen, we learn from it and move on,
> we don't adopt an absolutist theocracy of government and business.

I am all for pragmatism.

>
> What about a case where the business, in order to maximize it profits,
so
> pollutes the environment that everyone is harmed. Should the government
> regulate the pollution or just let everyone suffer and die?

I can take you right back to Milton Friedman on this one.

In Capitalism and Freedom, Freidman cites the issue of Love Canal. Having 
studied Love, Friedman came to the conclusion that there were no, and
might 
never be, any market forces that would incent a company to clean up after 
itself. He thus coined the phrase *neighborhood effects* as one of the 
instances where goverment regulation is necessary. The general idea is
that 
if the actions of a company are so harmful to the neighborhood than 
irreperable damage will occur by the time free market disencentives to the

behavior kick in, then the goverment is correct in regulation.

For the record, his other approved area of regulation is in the matter of 
standardization, citing the goverment action in the 1800's where they 
stipulated by law what the gauge for the railroads would be. To fail to 
regulate such a standard would have resulted in several different gauges 
being built out in the US, all incompatable with one another's equipment. 
The productivity loss during the period when the market determined for 
itself what gauge would "win" would have been so large that the regulation

was acceptable.

JG