Capitalism as a moral system

[spike]

It is a ridiculous claim to suggest that Smith founded capitalism.

spike said, "Adam Smith, the supposed founder of capitalism.....", which doesn't sound like a claim.

[chaz wyman]

It is a ridiculous claim to suggest that Smith founded capitalism.

spike said, "Adam Smith, the supposed founder of capitalism.....", which doesn't sound like a claim.

It does 'sound like' a claim and one that ought not be repeated as it was here.
Someone is 'supposing' he founded capitalism.

[spike]

chaz, I think you should blow your semantics out the other end.

[chaz wyman]

chaz, I think you should blow your semantics out the other end.

This is clearly a bullshit statement. You are ridiculous for making it. Get over yourself!
It is no so much that you said Smith was the founder of capitalism, though that is ridiculous.
What is more ridiculous is that you said he is "supposed" to have founded capitalism.
No one on earth is claiming that Smith "founded" capitalism.
This betrays in you a failure to understand what you are talking about, and your childish pedanticism in picking on that small part of my posting to rebut, rather than any real point at issue, indicates a more deeper misconception of the issue that you have opened up.

Poor showing!

[spike]

This is clearly a bullshit statement. You are ridiculous for making it. Get over yourself!
It is no so much that you said Smith was the founder of capitalism, though that is ridiculous.
What is more ridiculous is that you said he is "supposed" to have founded capitalism.
No one on earth is claiming that Smith "founded" capitalism.
This betrays in you a failure to understand what you are talking about, and your childish pedanticism in picking on that small part of my posting to rebut, rather than any real point at issue, indicates a more deeper misconception of the issue that you have opened up.

Poor showing!

Well that certainly is stinkier response, from the other end.

[chaz wyman]

This is clearly a bullshit statement. You are ridiculous for making it. Get over yourself!
It is no so much that you said Smith was the founder of capitalism, though that is ridiculous.
What is more ridiculous is that you said he is "supposed" to have founded capitalism.
No one on earth is claiming that Smith "founded" capitalism.
This betrays in you a failure to understand what you are talking about, and your childish pedanticism in picking on that small part of my posting to rebut, rather than any real point at issue, indicates a more deeper misconception of the issue that you have opened up.

Poor showing!

Well that certainly is stinkier response, from the other end.

Well as it's you that is in the shit, just about everything is going to smell bad to you.
I'll stay at the other end where, here, it smells of roses.

[ala1993]

It's lovely to experience proper intellectual wit at work ...

[spike]

Entropy can mean two things. It refers to the process of things decaying and falling apart or things blending and becoming the same, like liquids coming together. These processes are inevitable and need constant attention if societies are going to survive and continue. Of all the economic systems devised capitalism is best equipped to handle these processes and reverse them when need be.

The Roman Empire declined because of entropy. Edward Gibbon wrote about it and once sitting in Rome marveled at its decline and how its buildings were falling apart. I remember being in St. Petersburg Russia after Communism's collapse and marveling at the poor state of its infrastructure and how its buildings were falling apart due to decay and neglect. Returning eight years later I noticed how much things had changed and improved.

Things had improved in St. Petersburg because it had reversed its state of entropy and decline. The reason why is because it adopted, like the rest of Russia had, a more capitalist, free market system of economics. Free market economics encouraged people to invest in the future and therefore buildings were being maintained and looked after, whereas during the communist regime there was no incentive or money for repairs and upkeep. Because of the human and natural resources it musters capitalism can and does reverse the inevitability of entropy, better than any other economic systems, hence its growing influence.

Capitalism also encourages a more friendly aspect of entropy, the blending and bringing together of humanity through common activities and standardization of its procedures of doing business. But too much standardization can foster a complacency which can bring about a laziness and decline. But capitalism in its inborn wisdom brings on its "creative destruction" to shake and liven things up again.

Capitalism does address a moral issue, the moral imperative of upkeep and maintenance.

[chaz wyman]

It's lovely to experience proper intellectual wit at work ...

Actually I was expecting another come-back.
I thought he might be able to work on the idea that "roses" are always in the shit.
Instead he comes back with some nonsense about entropy. And I was having so much fun!
Anyway - I suppose I'd better read it.

[chaz wyman]

Entropy can mean two things. It refers to the process of things decaying and falling apart or things blending and becoming the same, like liquids coming together. These processes are inevitable and need constant attention if societies are going to survive and continue. Of all the economic systems devised capitalism is best equipped to handle these processes and reverse them when need be.

The Roman Empire declined because of entropy.

This is just poor philosophical thinking. It is called the fallacy of hypostatisation. The fall of the Roman Empire was caused by many things, but it was not some mysterious force in the Universe called Entropy.
Where was Entropy when the Roman Empire was growing and being established??
When desirable systems fail we call it entropy. You are confusing cause and effect.


Edward Gibbon wrote about it and once sitting in Rome marveled at its decline and how its buildings were falling apart. I remember being in St. Petersburg Russia after Communism's collapse and marveling at the poor state of its infrastructure and how its buildings were falling apart due to decay and neglect. Returning eight years later I noticed how much things had changed and improved.

Gee that Entropy is so capricious!! One minute it is a universal truth, then I just tend to take a back seat!!


Things had improved in St. Petersburg because it had reversed its state of entropy and decline. The reason why is because it adopted, like the rest of Russia had, a more capitalist, free market system of economics. Free market economics encouraged people to invest in the future and therefore buildings were being maintained and looked after, whereas during the communist regime there was no incentive or money for repairs and upkeep. Because of the human and natural resources it musters capitalism can and does reverse the inevitability of entropy, better than any other economic systems, hence its growing influence.

Simple solutions for simple minds. Rome was the purest example of laissez-fairre economics. Shame the capitalism inherent in Rome was not able on that occasion to reverse the "inevitable entropy".

Capitalism also encourages a more friendly aspect of entropy, the blending and bringing together of humanity through common activities and standardization of its procedures of doing business.

More friendly than what? Capitalism is a mechanism that we conceptualise. Now you are saying it has volition and a personality. Can it be friends with Entropy?

But too much standardization can foster a complacency which can bring about a laziness and decline. But capitalism in its inborn wisdom brings on its "creative destruction" to shake and liven things up again.

Empty platitudes to add to your ridiculous hypostatisations.
Have you EVER read any philosophy?

Capitalism does address a moral issue, the moral imperative of upkeep and maintenance.

Capitalism cannot address issues. People make and address issues.
This is banal!

[spike]

People make and address issues.

People need systems to address the complex issues of the day. That is why we have systems like democracy and capitalism.

[chaz wyman]

People make and address issues.

People need systems to address the complex issues of the day. That is why we have systems like democracy and capitalism.

But the systems are not causal anymore than Entropy is causal.
Rome did not fall because of Entropy anymore than is war born, expanded and grew because of Entropy.
Capitalism, Politics, Democracy are all abstractions of real events, viewpoints, and desires. To say they are causal is the miss the point, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.
Are you a Platonist?

[spike]

The guy above is deliberately being ornery. I am thinking that it looks at everything as abstraction because it too is one.

This abstraction cheapens the forum.

[chaz wyman]

The guy above is deliberately being ornery. I am thinking that it looks at everything as abstraction because it too is one.

This abstraction cheapens the forum.

Is that the best you can do?
Maybe you have succumbed to Entropy, and your argument has fallen apart?

[spike]

"We learn the principles of morality from the experience of common day life"

Some cultures have more experience than other. I think that the cultures with most experience have the higher moral standards and values. Cultures that have less experience in dealing with others tend to be less open, less trusting and more corrupt.

Capitalism gives use a lot of experience. It gets us to partake and get involved collectively. Capitalism also creates problems. Nevertheless, problems make us better because they force us to seek solutions and alternatives.