Is capitalism moral?
There remains, however, one glaring problem with the moral case against redistribution. For implicit in the imperative to let the productive keep what they earn is an assumption that the markets distribute income in a way that accurately reflects everyone’s relative economic contribution — and therefore is fair. But is that true?
In an economy of self-sufficient farmers and ranchers, people can point to something and credibly claim, “I produced that” or “I built that.” But in a modern, complex economy, the connection between what is produced and who is responsible for producing it is not so obvious. Modern business is a team sport…
These shifts suggest that the way markets distribute rewards is neither divinely determined nor purely the result of the “invisible hand.” It is determined by laws, regulations, technology, norms of behavior, power relationships, and the ways that labor and financial markets operate and interact. These arrangements change over time and can dramatically affect market outcomes and incomes.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Didn’t we already do this one?
lorien1973 on March 17, 2013 at 9:22 PM
What is this, Groundhog Day?
I do believe I commented on this a day or so ago. But, heck, I’m probably just hallucinating again.
Neighbors told me not to eat those early spring mushrooms.
petefrt on March 17, 2013 at 9:24 PM
Capitalism is a horrible way to run things. It’s also much better than every other system humans have been able to devise in the last 20,000 years.
If you’ve built a better mousetrap, put it on the table and let’s see it. Until then, stfu.
alwaysfiredup on March 17, 2013 at 9:24 PM
Not really, but socialism isn’t any better…
I would be perfectly ok with a system of social credit or a minimum income if it were to completely replace the welfare state.
ninjapirate on March 17, 2013 at 9:25 PM
It is the only moral system because it protects the individual’s moral right to their property. If there is no fraud or force in market exchange, they earned it.
AshleyTKing on March 17, 2013 at 9:26 PM
So, the question isn’t if capitalism is moral, what he’s really asking is if crony capitalism is moral.
Two completely different beasts.
ButterflyDragon on March 17, 2013 at 9:26 PM
The economic value of a man’s work is determined, on a free market, by a single principle: by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade him their work or products in return. This is the moral meaning of the law of supply and demand.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html
ebrawer on March 17, 2013 at 9:27 PM
Why, yes! Thanks for asking.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 17, 2013 at 9:31 PM
A stupid question. Capitalism is nothing but moral. There is no alternative to it. People either labor and profit from their labor, or they don’t live – and government isn’t paid for. Pearstein is the typical liberal, here looking for a more clever justification for destroying capitalism by force of the government he worships –
rickv404 on March 17, 2013 at 9:33 PM
First, one has to be part of said team!
Second, what has this to do with stealing my money, then giving it to the useless, who are part of no team?
OldEnglish on March 17, 2013 at 9:39 PM
The problem with this is that some people suck at capitalism and the solution tends to be a welfare state.
Capitalism could never be pure if there is universal suffrage.
ninjapirate on March 17, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Read the paragraph, moved the cursor to the full article. How the eff did I know it would be from WaPo or NYT?
arnold ziffel on March 17, 2013 at 9:43 PM
Oh great, now you’ve done it!
“The gay marriage threads will continue until morale improves!”
happytobehere on March 17, 2013 at 9:43 PM
AMEN!
ALLELUIA!
PRAISE BE TO REASON!
OldEnglish on March 17, 2013 at 9:44 PM
Capitalism is moral. It has created so much prosperity for so many.
When the means and the ends are both moral, then what you have is a good deal.
DeathtotheSwiss on March 17, 2013 at 9:44 PM
Every system of “redistribution” assumes someone has the god-like power to decide what the “right” distribution is.
When professors are as worried about concentration of power as they are about concentration of wealth, let me know.
TB on March 17, 2013 at 9:45 PM
Markets work on a few principles. You need buyers and sellers who can agree to terms for movements of goods, services, and ideas in exchange for goods, services, ideas, or money. What is money? Money is a fungible proxy for man’s ability to reason, labor, create, and produce.(Thank you Ms. Barnhardt) Additionally you need methods to enforce and adjudicate contracts. Transparency, enforcement, and justice are essential to making markets work.
Capitalism(free markets) is moral because it places value on man’s ability to reason, labor, create, and produce, whereas marxism/socialism do not place any value on man’s ability to reason, labor, create, and produce.
tom daschle concerned on March 17, 2013 at 9:48 PM
No. Capitalism is utterly amoral. It’s an entirely separate value system. It’s a matter of how much my employer values my work, regardless of my intent, and therefore the value I place on the money I am paid, and the value I place in what that money purchases, or donates to, or is invested in.
It’s utterly amoral, and also as moral as it gets. Every time I make a purchase, it’s done with an inherent agreement on the value of my work, and the value of the item my work purchases. Every time I pay taxes, I do so with the belief that the government is an entity worth sustaining (and because I don’t want to go to jail). I give at my Church because I believe that God is worth worshiping with the fruits of my labor. The point is that I’ve placed a moral code on my work. No one else does. The system itself didn’t do it, the way the Army or a religion institutes a code of conduct. Capitalism doesn’t force me to value my work, but only under Capitalism am I able to choose to value my work.
Sgt Steve on March 17, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Laissez-faire won’t ultimately be fully achieved through the voting booth. We have to have a culture that understands and promotes it. We are nowhere near having that.
rickv404 on March 17, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Yeah the way Venezuela, Spain, Cyprus, and China do it is tons better.
WisCon on March 17, 2013 at 9:54 PM
i clicked thru just to see who this guy is. A very bitter man i’d say.
while i didn’t read his entire piece, i saw enough strawmen and putatively rhetorical questions that i know that 1. he’s lib/left and 2. he’s none too bright…which is why he is probably overpaid.
in a previous column he sounds a little like ows
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-06-24/business/35265777_1_top-five-executives-compensation-contract-negotiations
what he doesn’t understand is that unlike a talentless WaPo journo people at the top of large companies are facilitating business across the globe.
What has changed in the last 20 years is globablization. A tremendous leverage of American business though out the world. So the heads of the business do business all over the world. This guy is a loser…lazes around throwing stones at people who deal business all over the world.
r keller on March 17, 2013 at 9:54 PM
Universal suffrage is immoral. Only people with skin in the game, namely, taxpayers, should be allowed to vote. Remember why we dumped the tea in the first place? Taxation without representation. The reverse should not be allowed.
John the Libertarian on March 17, 2013 at 9:54 PM
It’s weird that we talk about capitalism as if we have it.
happytobehere on March 17, 2013 at 9:56 PM
Is gay marriage moral?
profitsbeard on March 17, 2013 at 9:57 PM
You mean federal income tax?
happytobehere on March 17, 2013 at 9:59 PM
I read this whole article looking for how the author defined “moral” and I didn’t find it. It’s like he assumes we all know what he’s talking about.
RayinVA on March 17, 2013 at 10:02 PM
The Left doesn’t recognize that every coin has two sides.
OldEnglish on March 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM
Unfortunately, America’s rather unique system tends to confuse the issue somewhat.
OldEnglish on March 17, 2013 at 10:06 PM
Got through 3/4 of the first page….
Rewriting history and changing definitions appears all the rage..
“Capitalism” has been around (and always successful until government interferes)since the day there were more than 2 people on the face of the Earth. That’s when one guy figured out he “wanted more” than the other guy…
Tim Zank on March 17, 2013 at 10:17 PM
It’s funny how Leftists can call entire economies “capitalist” when only a shred of capitalism might exist. Yet when a conservative or Libertarian calls policies “socialist” the policies must adhere to the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition to the word, or else no socialism exists whatsoever. It’s a nice double standard they got going on there.
visions on March 17, 2013 at 10:26 PM
Yes. If you pay sales or income tax in the state you reside, then you can vote for state politicians. And federal taxes on fuel is obscene and should be ended.
John the Libertarian on March 17, 2013 at 10:28 PM
What about payroll tax?
happytobehere on March 17, 2013 at 10:40 PM
Socialism is beautiful and our highest aspiration. Capitalism is evil and unfair. So when evil or unfair things happen that’s because of capitalism. When beautiful good things happen that’s because of “the only thing we do together”.
happytobehere on March 17, 2013 at 10:45 PM
God loves a cheerful giver. Government confiscating wealth in order to redistribute it is not the same thing as cheerful giving. Just in case you didn’t know that already.
The Rogue Tomato on March 18, 2013 at 12:08 AM
Here’s an idea: you could have one vote for each percentage point of your income you have paid to each government (local, state, federal).
So a wealthy business owner, who pays a startling 50% of his income, would get 50 votes. Someone only paying social security and medicare taxes would get ~15 votes.
(you’d also have to factor in any deductions: it would need to be based on actual taxes paid, not taxes paid before deductions)
In this way, the progressive tax system would balance itself.
And you could include the option to voluntarily pay more taxes. So if someone getting only 15 votes wanted to have more votes this year, he could drop his bonus onto a check to the IRS, and suddenly get 20 votes.
It would incentivize having skin in the game.
It also makes sense to me because the people who pay the greatest percentage of their income also tend to be the people leading our society, and creating the most jobs.
Nephew Sam on March 18, 2013 at 1:13 AM
I like the way you think. Payroll tax is another gimmick tax and should be abolished.
John the Libertarian on March 18, 2013 at 2:34 AM
Is capitalism moral? Yes.
You seek to sell goods people need so you can get enough to cover costs and expand your ability to deliver more goods to more people at a lower cost. Extremely moral. It breaks apart old orders faster than anything else you can name, too. And this current order is looking pretty much ancient and in need of an overhaul.
ajacksonian on March 18, 2013 at 7:12 AM
False premise.
Government interferes with the market and then comes in and declares “We’ll fix the problem.” making it all worse.
Government never wants to fix the problem anyway. They are in competition with the market. They want to destroy the market.
JellyToast on March 18, 2013 at 7:56 AM
I object to the premise of capitalism being moral being presented an an objective concept. Morals are subjective. To a capitalist, communism is not moral. To a communist, capitalism is not moral. I don’t think that people who write about that concept are moral.
Old Country Boy on March 18, 2013 at 8:40 AM
No, morality is objective. Social convention is subjective.
tommyboy on March 18, 2013 at 8:57 AM
Yes and socialist economies are evil.
In a socialist economy YOU never control your money. Your life is dictated to you and along with that your choices between you and God are removed.
Of course you won’t read this because we’re in the midst of a war of socialists trying to crash the system to establish morality with themselves as God.
So capitalism is evil along with its individuality and freedom and redistribution is good because you’re a slave and don’t have to worry about morality because we’ll tell you when it’s good.
Skywise on March 18, 2013 at 9:08 AM
Tommyboy – “morality is objective” based on what? Are you saying the islamists who kill homosexuals and believe they are morally correct to do so are objective? Or is morality objective based on your interpretation of the Christian religion?
Old Country Boy on March 18, 2013 at 9:09 AM
This seems appropriate:
Jack Webb/”Joe Friday” Speech from Dragnet
This country, even mired in all of its problems, has the wealthiest population in the history of the world. Show me a single system that has done more good for more people at any point in history, and then we’ll talk.
Shump on March 18, 2013 at 9:14 AM
Is socialism moral… no.
Is capitalism moral, yes, of course.
Axion on March 18, 2013 at 9:27 AM