fundamentally in a capitalist society that recognises no moral restraint on money and it's not illegal ... why not?
Capitalists are also concerned about conflicts of interest.
Anything less would be economically inefficient! /s)
Smart, far-seeing capitalists are able to see beyond mere legalities. Too much cronyism makes capitalism less efficient, because it starts to resemble centrally planned economies.
I understand with what you’re saying and agree that this can be useful, but it also amounts to a lawless “do whatever we want” attitude amongst highly privileged people that may run counter to democratic concerns. Wealthy people could say taxes are immoral and not pay them, which could lead to underfunding of schools and hospitals, for example.
> Smart, far-seeing capitalists are able to see beyond mere legalities. Too much cronyism makes capitalism less efficient, because it starts to resemble centrally planned economies
A smart, far-seeing capitalist realizes this is a collective action problem, and knows that there is no incentive not to practice cronyism as an individual.
They aren't choosing between having cronyism and not having cronyism... they are choosing between having cronyism and not participating or having cronyism and participating.
> Smart, far-seeing capitalists are able to see beyond mere legalities.
This is exactly the argument that Marxist made. They weren't going to let traditional middle class morality hold them back, they had history on their side and new what was ultimately best for society. They had real examples where trashing norms and moral codes ultimately worked for the best, such as overcoming a restriction on vivisection to cure a horrible disease. Or ignoring FDA regulations to get a helpful blood test to market. The argument can always be made. It just tends to end badly.
Arthur Koestler wrote about this a lot in Darkness in Noon.
No it's not. Smart, far-seeing people observe what's broken in the system, and many of them can fix it while making money. Then, there are people who don't care about externalities, and exploit the flaws while causing others harm. Sometimes outdated laws can be modified, or phased out.
The proposal of Marxists is that they take things away by force.
I take "seeing beyond legalities" to mean ignoring the law, not changing it of phasing it out. Ignoring the law is bad, even if you think you are doing it for a good reason.
Modifying the law or phasing out a law is fine and smart people companies should do that. I felt like the OP was saying that when you think a law is wrong you should ignore it.
> The proposal of Marxists is that they take things away by force.
Breaking a law in most cases is taking something away from someone or some entity, whether it is rights or property. It is bad to take something away by force. But it is bad to take it away by stealing or cheating too.
> The proposal of Marxists is that they take things away by force.
Capitalism is not possible without state application of force and coersion.
Consider land ownership, for instance. It is completely predicated on the use of force. The only reason you 'own' your land, is because someone a long time back used force to take it away from someone else (Or, if they were the original settler, used force to take it away from the commons).
"Ah, but now that we've divided all the land into various lots that people own, we can divorce ourselves from the original use of force! Going forward, we won't use violence to secure new ownership of land!"
Well, under Marxism, after a one-time use of force, whereupon productive property is transferred to the ownership of the state, it can also divorce itself from the original use of force. After all, going forward, it won't need to use force to seize productive property, either - because it will already have an owner - the state.
All ownership requires force. Ownership of personal property typically requires a continuous personal application of force. Ownership of private property (Land, productive enterprises, etc) requires a continuous application of state force.
The efficiency of the capitalistic system is not something a capitalist strives to optimise. It is the personal utility that is the main benchmark of success.
Actually, success in a capitalistic system is being able to withdraw yourself from the capitalistic system.
Why do you go to work? To make money. So that you, or your children, don't have to go to work, and can pursue personal interests that don't have one whit to do with capitalism.
This sounds like a comic book's description of economic structures where everything is black and white and there are no ifs or buts.
> Too much cronyism makes capitalism less efficient, because it starts to resemble centrally planned economies.
Can you give an example of 'central planning' in the modern world that wouldn't also apply to large businesses that operate at scale, like agribusinesses or mining?
This sounds like a comic book's description of economic structures where everything is black and white and there are no ifs or buts.
Maybe I should write economic tracts for socialists and ancap Libertarians.
Can you give an example of 'central planning' in the modern world
I've seen what happens when huge companies start to mandate that, "All new coding will be in Java. All databases will be on Oracle..." That never works. Everyone figures out a way to drag their feet and bring that to a halt. What does work? Doing something like mandating that all systems will be accessible over Webservices. That opens up resources within the company interacting in new ways as they see fit.
My grandfather was doing microlending in the early part of the 20th century, even when Korea was still occupied by Japan. Even people who are dirt poor can get their hands on enough capital to get the ball rolling. In many cases, Chinese immigrants start off poorer than the poor segments of the societies they move to, and yet have climbed into the middle and upper classes in a few generations. Often, this is done by pooling resources.
Look at history. The key ingredient isn't capital. Those who believe it is are precisely the ones who fail at capitalism. (Often they are the ones who take capital away from others by force, then see those industries fail and fade away.)
The vast majority of small businesses fail; wealthier people are more likely to start companies and more likely to succeed. (For some intuition, they can afford the float, on their living expenses, if nothing else, for longer, until they find market traction.)
Capital is indeed quintessential to capitalizing on market opportunities through business. It is in the name for a reason.
You make a sweeping and inaccurate statement that people who understand the dictionary definition of capitalism are all socialists who want to start a red revolution, which is just ludicrous and broadly offensive.
(The fact that I've revealed a truly remarkable bit of my family's history to you, for you to simply dismiss it, speaks volumes. You demonstrate no curiosity about it. It's simply something for you to "debunk." Just wow. Do you have any idea what my Korean grandfather had to accomplish within the Japanese occupied system to get into the position to microlend? Do you know what that meant for the farmers he was able to lend to? Do you have any clue what the North Korean communists who came into power would have made of all that? No curiosity about actual history, just partisan axe grinding. George Orwell was right about upper/middle class lefties. They don't care about helping the poor so much as about hurting the rich.)
The repeated climb of Chinese immigrants, going back over a thousand years, across different eras of history, in widely differing parts of the world, is not mere anecdote. If you include immigrants of other ethnicities, then the pattern becomes stronger, and the evidence mounts.
The vast majority of small businesses fail;
True. So one tries again.
wealthier people are more likely to start companies and more likely to succeed.
That's Pareto, not Capitalism.
Capital is indeed quintessential to capitalizing on market opportunities through business. It is in the name for a reason.
Yet time and time again, poor immigrants get themselves into the game and succeed, with little or modest access to capital. Contrast this with the numerous situations where industries are socialized, but into the hands of a different class/identity group, then proceed to decay. Capital is helpful, but isn't the key. Culture and knowledge are.
In this, there is hope, because culture and knowledge are transmissible.
I'm glad you're proud of your grandfather, but your emotional attachment to him does not strengthen an argument that capital is not required to start a business. I don't mean to be dismissive of his struggle in any way and I am aware that the Japanese occupation of Korea was atrocious.
> Contrast this with the numerous situations where industries are socialized, but into the hands of a different class/identity group, then proceed to decay.
Dude, I am not advocating socialism. You are repeatedly attempting to frame this as capitalism vs socialism and that is just not even related. I am pro-capitalism as much as I am pro-gravity but also pro-facts, truth, and realistic personal financial advice.
Capitalists are also concerned about conflicts of interest.
Anything less would be economically inefficient! /s)
Smart, far-seeing capitalists are able to see beyond mere legalities. Too much cronyism makes capitalism less efficient, because it starts to resemble centrally planned economies.