Ethics Based Economics / Capitalism

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Howdy all! Here’s a half baked thought I’ve been cookin’ up in the old noodle:

I don’t think anybody would disagree that corruption is bad. Of course, the American and most other judicial systems (sometimes) punish and prosecute those it catches building extraordinary wealth through criminal means.

But here’s a potential nugget of a framework for a new refinement to our capitalist economies: what if we begin with the idea that any system that allows individuals to build wealth through corrupt means and with malicious intent is inherently broken? What if we agreed that we should find a way to reward/compensate behaviors we (the people) admire more greatly (from a capitalist perspective)? This would include things like folks who are willing to work more, harder, and better than others. This would include only better and safer products and services. This would include reducing waste and excess to absolute minimums (waste can be a good indicator of inefficiency).

I think part of the reason big corporations love doing business in the U.S. is because we currently have honed our system to reward the greediest and most selfish, those who believe compensation should be maximized for individuals who create the most shareholder benefits, those who are best able to stifle and snuff out competition, be-damned whether it is due to having a superior product and service, or just a better marketing scheme and team of lawyers. We have allowed giant corporate conglomerates to build intricate lies to consumers, often to their customers’ detriment in one way or another, simply for the sake of boosting profits (anybody use a double edge razor vs. those cheap plastic pieces of shit w/5 blades they sell for $10 per razorhead? What about the environment friendly introduction of plastic bags vs. those evil paper bags that use trees? :confused: ).

I realize this approach presents a LOT of problems, and I am hoping you all are willing to tell me about them! :slight_smile:

2

Capitalism is a more ethics based system than the only alternative - authoritarian control - socialism.

Ethics is better founded in individual rights than in social controls.

Is it better for individuals to die or for social organizations to die? Capitalism at least gives the individuals a chance. That is why it inspires progress. Social dictates support only the society leadership, disinspiring effort to make progress that help society’s slaves.

Any system can be corrupted and abused. So if you are going to change something, improve on capitalism (help protect it from those who abuse it). If you seek to be rid of it, you get enslaved by those who have no reason to be concerned about you or any non-elite individual. The idea that socialist leaders are always tender hearted altruists is just pathetically naive nonsense.

3

Yes, I agree!

4

Good to see something we can agree on. :smiley:

And I believe that the ONLY way to progress toward improving capitalist integrity is to do EVERYTHING to support a constitution that prioritizes individual rights and separated authority controls. The US Constitution does that - especially because it allows Amendments to improve and adjust to new concerns (but notice no one is proposing Amendments or even correcting statute laws - such as immigration laws. Instead they fight to just ignore the laws - “defund ICE, defund police, give illegals civil rights even above those of citizens” - socialist incursion to corrupt the Constitution).

But a huge part of socialist control is controlling media - propaganda. Media is used to hide information and deceive the population into favoring (even voting for) more authoritarian power. There is actually no such thing as a democracy that is also socialist. The people don’t know they are being duped even from birth to vote for and fight against their own best interest.

The US Constitution references “God given rights” specifically to keep it out of the hands of proposed men of supreme authority. I don’t think it was included for religious reasons but rather anti-authoritarian reasons (as is the entire rest of that Constitution).

The problem you personally face is that propaganda seems to have already inspired you in a direction contrary to your best interests. The fact is that Mr Trump is very pro-Constitution and his opponents are very authoritarian (which is why all of that voter fraud and other criminal activity is from the Left - they don’t believe the Constitution should be obeyed).

If you favor individual civil rights, in the current battle you MUST support Mr Trump. The ONLY alternative is his extreme opposite - anti-Constitution authoritarian rule.

5

Now let me ask you something in earnest, and my intent truly is not to be offensive: do you believe Donald Trump has values that happen to align with the Constitution -OR- do you think he actually has thoroughly read and understood the Constitution? Trump does not seem scholarly in the least and I’ve found little evidence to suggest he is some prolific reader.

6

In equal earnest let me say this -

What I see is that Americans have been raised just assuming that their Constitutional rights have been in force throughout their lives. They have been, since birth, taking for granted that they have been governed by Constitutional civil rights. And to a degree they have been right - but no where close to as much as they thought. They are just now discovering how deeply they have been invaded (most specifically by communist China and globalists). China’s method (taken from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War is to subvert your enemy before you let them know you are going to conquer them - “Don’t declare war until you have already won”.

Mr Trump definitely didn’t know how much “deep state” corruption he had taken on. He didn’t know how much the CCP had subtly deranged the population’s education and corrupted the government. He actually admitted that himself. And like most Americans he had not studied the US Constitution although might have given it the typical cursory read.

Yes he is not a Constitutional scholar. He was a very successful business man, not a politician (thank God). Mr Obama claims scholarly status but he seems to have used that to learn how to undermine the Constitution not to support it. But Mr Trump as ALL US Presidents have staff who are very scholarly Constitution attorneys to advise them.

What I am trying to say is that I don’t hold it against Mr Trump that he didn’t know all of what was involved in trying to achieve what he promised. He seems to be as aware as most members of the US Congress. And he ramped up from what every new president jumps into (a great deal of information is never told to anyone but a standing President - and even he doesn’t get everything). Every US President has to wake up to many issues he never knew existed.

My greater focus is about what a US President actually tries to do and what he actually accomplishes regardless of what he was trying to do. And Mr Trump has the highest rating in that regard as any President I am aware of. But for you to know that, you have to go to the trouble to see two things -

  • What he is actually trying to do (not easy to see unless you have a similar mind type as his and watch him directly - not merely reports about him - from either side)
  • What he has actually accomplished toward supporting the US Constitution regardless of reports. And that takes watching global effects as well as common sense supporting of US sovereignty (the wall, “America First” agenda, lowering unemployment, ending endless foreign wars, increased cyber security, spotlighting CCP insurgency, deregulation for businesses throughout, bringing jobs home, lowering drug costs, enabling “right to try”, defunding anti-free speech universities, refusing extreme anti-US trade treaties and trade relations, extremely increasing US economy, lowing taxes across the board (not merely to the rich as has been falsely reported), on and on and on.

That takes effort that most people simply don’t bother to do. And that is HOW the CCP subverts the population - through their intellectual laziness or through distractions keeping them too busy, confused, and arguing - “obfuscation”.

7

OK thanks for that response.

It has been sufferable to watch the growth of China over the years at the expense of American and other country’s intellectual property and through the power to a great extent of an enslaved population.

I admittedly felt duped when thinking back to all of the government officials from Presidents on down who were anxious to partner and do business with China, and convince us it was in our best interest.

There was a fork in the road and our leadership took the path that put profits before people, and it’s been downhill ever since.

8

Mr Trump has done many things to reverse that - Most Favored Nations (against big pharma), donating his own salary ($400.000/yr) back into treasury and non-profits, lower insurance costs, “Right to Try”, Anti-trust support, redesigning housing and social security programs, fighting corporate socialism, pushing to open up small businesses (not just the big corporates), and probably many more that I can’t think of right now. Why else would Wall Street and liberal billionaires unite against him - they did.

9

Ethics and Profit-margins don’t mix.

Sounds like Socialism to me.

10

To me, it appears the U.S. version of capitalism in its current form most highly rewards greed, selfishness, and competition-crushing innovation (aka greed and selfishness).

I suppose one could argue that pursuing wealth simply for the sake of pursuing wealth does help propel the system forward. I think it could also be argued that people like Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, etc. would be compelled to innovate and do what they do, regardless of whether or not every dollar they earn after $1MM in a year is taxed at 70%.

Much as we would not want to have a form of government that only attracts and appeals to those who crave power and wealth (as we currently do), but I argue we also do not want an economic policy that rewards greed and selfishness the most highly, even if it does mean foregoing some economic benefit.

11

Another feature of this new Ethics Based Economics / Capitalism is that the wealthiest, highest earner’s income growth should be inexorably linked to the poorest individual’s income growth, so that if the wealthiest amongst us enjoy exponential growth and profits, so too do the boats of all those who contributed rise.

Edit: In other words, as a hypothetical, the highest income / wealth growers in society would be prohibited from surpassing 10,000X the net worth of the poorest individual in society. This number would of course be arbitrary to an extent.

12

I think the easiest, most effective way of accomplishing this is increasing taxation on the wealthy to 1960’s era levels, but this too is riddled with problems if the public does not trust the government to use tax money effectively and at the direction of the population.

13

I am thinking there are 4 kinds of managers -

  • those who focus on the customer/people’s needs as the end goal
  • those who focus on the business/organization’s profits as the end goal
  • those who focus on an ideology support as the end goal

Those are not necessarily mutually exclusive but they are each potentially distinct. And when it comes to gaining popularity they all claim to maintain the focus of the first kind - “the people’s xxxx”. The most hideous dictators in the world govern “the people’s party”. So what words they each spout and the promises they make mean nothing.

They each say, “buy [into] my product because we love you. You are our first priority”. They all compete for contribution, loyalty, and devotion. So how can the people know the difference? What is their real priority?

I think the people have to examine the actual product not the promise. And to do that they have to be able to compare - “is this product better for my needs than that one?” Again the managers will profess that of course their own product is the best regardless of their actual priority. What else could they say.

Which of those 3 management types is capitalist? Which is socialist? Which is specifically communist?

I think none of them and all of them. The truth, the fact, is that unless the manager combines all three priorities efficiently, he will fail and the people he manages will fail. And that makes the issue even more complicated. It isn’t really a simple issue of which of those focuses are preferred, but which actually gets accomplished the most. When combined - Do the people in general get served better. Does the organization get served better? Does the ideology get served better?

They are calling it a “medical miracle”. Perhaps it is. But there should be no doubt that is actually a “management miracle”.

How did that happen? Was there a really talented communist ruler expressing his love for “the people’s party”? Was there a really talented business capitalist just striving for the most profit? Was there a genuinely earnest and talented manager who reduced the other concerns to ensure the people got the best possible outcome?

I think it could be argued that all three were at play. And if you take any one of those 3 focuses completely out of the real scheme no miracle would have taken place. Dictators have no need to improve the lives of their people above a minimal level. Ideological servants expect the ideology to guide the best outcome by worshiping it. And even those who focus entirely on service to the people directly end up losing the ability and power to accomplish that service.

A degree of capitalism, socialism, and ideology must at all times be in the mix if any sustainable “best service” is to be accomplished. None of those can be an “all me” type of holy cow to worship. It is the proper mix at the proper time that accomplishes the best product/service.

Isn’t the ethics really about the best sustainable results?

That project “Warp Speed” to invent, produce, and distribute the COVID vaccines could not have been done without utilizing the capitalist organizations, the socialist agenda, and the ideological guidance by an excellent manager balancing them to perfection. That was the miracle.

Anything less would have been UNethical. A world without capitalism is a UNethical world because it cannot yield the best possible continued service. The miracles are in the best balance of focus of the entire situation and range. Too much of any of those foci and poor results are the best hope.

The 4th kind of manager -

  • Those who focus on the best sustainable balance of the first three - ALL three