Listen!

2

12:50 pm 05/10/2011

Capitalism is, as Adam Smith explained it, a market system in which people self regulate their goods and prices out of self interest in such a way that the consumer isn't hurt, and all parties behave in an ethical manor.

Corporate greed is, as most would agree, when companies effectively act only out of self interest in such ways that either involve amoral behavior or will put profits ahead of morality.

Again, Capitalism is similar to socialism in that on paper either system can work. the problems begin when greed is factored in and the inherent short sightedness of people guides their actions in ways that are not just self destructive, but destructive to the whole.

1

1:29 am 06/10/2011

griffin

Quote by Razail:

Corporate greed is, as most would agree, when companies effectively act only out of self interest in such ways that either involve amoral behavior or will put profits ahead of morality.

You would have to define morality now. Who's morality? Mine or yours, or someone else's? But on the whole, I think your definition is pretty good.

Quote by Razail:

Again, Capitalism is similar to socialism in that on paper either system can work.

I think you are wrong. Socialism has never worked without capitalism to pay the bills. On it's own it cannot stand.

Quote by Razail:

the problems begin when greed is factored in

Greed is always there, and must always be factored in. It is in capitalism. Corprorate greed as you define it (immoral chasing of profit) can only exist for short periods in a capitalist system, because people refuse to do business with such companies, and they either change or go bust. Unless of course the government steps in, and effectively shields them from the consequences of their actions, which is what has happened.
Personally I think to a large extent (no, not entirely, some few sensible regulations are needed, I think) capitalism is self regulating, but with external influences, the self correcting mechanism has been bypassed in favour of a much inferior government mechanism.

1

1:40 am 06/10/2011

Razail

Griffin, i'm not suggesting that Socialism can work on it's own in it's purest form, and i hope i wasn't unclear on that. i was stating that both systems weakest points are the human element.

pebkac.

So I have to posit, how exactly do you factor greed? Can you quantify it? Unfortunately I have disagree with in that I don't believe that corporate greed is a short term problem for companies. I see it as being like in 1984, where people are being dicked around and are complacent mainly because they are led to believe that things are getting better. Specifically the chocolate example comes to mind. The problem with getting rid of corporate greed is that you have to show people evidence of it, and that's something that can be tough to prove, and you also have to convice them that it's worth the effort to do something about.

I would argue that the lack of base regulation is what led to much of the economic problems we have now. We should have been preventing irresponsible lending while allowing banks the freedom to compete and develop alternative ways to entertain customers. That would have benefited the consumer and at the same time kept the solevent and responsible banks afloat, the fittest of the fit, while the weaker ones would be left behind.

And please, lets not get into morality. I don't think either of us is enough of a dick to invoke that debate.

1

2:12 am 06/10/2011

Quaektem

Quote by Razail:

Corporate greed is, as most would agree, when companies effectively act only out of self interest in such ways that either involve amoral behavior or will put profits ahead of morality.

I would change morality (subjective) to legality (objective). Yet even then you must make sure the laws are just and apply equally to everyone (and every business) in a capitalist system, right now that is far from the case.

1

2:15 am 06/10/2011

Quaektem

Quote by Razail:

I would argue that the lack of base regulation is what led to much of the economic problems we have now. We should have been preventing irresponsible lending while allowing banks the freedom to compete and develop alternative ways to entertain customers. That would have benefited the consumer and at the same time kept the solevent and responsible banks afloat, the fittest of the fit, while the weaker ones would be left behind.

One of the problems with the banking system (imosho) is that they can extend borrowing way too far beyond the capital they have. If they had to actually back their investments (and thus had something to loose) then they would be more prone to self-regulation. The side effect would be a further restricting of credit and by extension the economy though so the choice would be either pain now or pain later... and you know how much politicians like to punt issues