The rich capitalist pig is the member of society who is extraordinary wealthy. He has so much money that even if he uses it non-stop for his own consumption he will never run out of it. These rich capitalist pigs are often vilified by others, "no one needs to have that much money", they say. The capitalist pigs are also seen as the ultimate symbol of human greed. But the most serious of all accusations against the capitalist pigs is that they got their money at the expense of everyone else in society.
The first argument against the capitalist pig that he does not need this much money is an argument in favor of tyranny. The moment you propose that people are not allowed to own so much money you are implying that there will be an entity, in this case the state, that will rob these people at gunpoint of their money. The state will say, "it is wrong for people to own this much money therefore you must hand over it to us because we are allowed to own this much money". Not only is this proposal self-defeating it is tyrannical. The idea of stealing rich people's money by the argument "they have too much", is also entirely unAmerican. The Declaration says, "the right to pursue happiness". Perhaps these rich capitalist pigs are happy with this amount of wealth, if so, they are pursuing their own happiness. Suggesting a system which robs the rich under the excuse "they have too much money" is to violate the central ideas for what America is supposed to stand for.
The accusation that rich capitalist pigs are greedy is just ridiculous. Capitalist pigs are ordinary people, and ordinary people are either greedy or not. Some capitalist pigs are greedy but not all of them are. You cannot accuse capitalist pigs of greed if greed is not inherent in the nature of being a rich capitalist pig. Not all rich people are greedy, in fact many of them are very charitable. The most famous rich people would definitely include: John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet. All of whom were philanthropists. In fact, here is a larger list of billionaires who have have agreed to give away at least 1/2 of all their money to charitable causes either now or until their death, this list definitely includes Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who together gave about 45 billion dollars to charitable causes as of yet - probably more in the future. And as we are on the topic of greed I want to bust a myth about America. America has been accused by other countries, usually from Europe, of being greedy. I find that statement just laughable. If America is greedy then all the countries in the world must be misers compared to America. The amount of charity that leaves America far exceeds than all countries in the world. How dare one call America greedy? This figure is still true even if one looks at charity as a percentage of national wealth. In 2009 America has raised about 300 billion dollars in charitable causes not just for itself but also for around the world (see here). Whenever there is a natural disaster anywhere in the world America, accused for its greed because it has so much money, has always been the very first country to help. If you want to call America fat, go ahead, that is true, if you want to call America stupid, okay, maybe you are right their too, but the one thing you cannot accuse America of being is greedy, not when you compare it to all other countries. So this accusation about greedy capitalist pigs is not only an irrelevant argument non-inherent to the nature of capitalist pigs it is also factually incorrect.
What is more surprising, at first, is that even if the rich capitalist pigs are the most greedy people in the world they are the most productive members of society! There are two means to acquire wealth, the political and the economic means. The political way is theft, you take away money from one group of people to yourself. The economic means is selling a product or a service that people want. The rich capitalist pigs that many people hate acquire their wealth not through political means but through economic means. The way you become a billionaire, through economic means, is by coming up with something that people very much want. That means to acquire billions of dollars it must be the case that you brought billions of dollars of prosperity to the world. It is true that the greedy rich capitalist pig does not think of others but only thinks of himself but what is so counter-intuitive is that his own greed can promote so much prosperity for the rest of the world. Even if Bill Gates was not a charitable capitalist but was greedier than the greediest Jew he would still be more productive than almost anyone else in the world. Because to acquire all that wealth he must get that money from people. The only reason why people would give Bill their money is because he is able to satisfy their desires efficiently.
The last point mentioned above is the fundamental fallacy of economics. And that is that free trade is a zero-sum game. If Bill Gates is extraordinary rich then it must be that the people around him are poorer. No, that is not true. He made a product that people brought, he exchanged something for that wealth. It was his product that benefited the entire world in the billions. In this manner free trade is a positive-sum game, we benefit and Bill Gates benefits. The fact that Bill Gates is a rich capitalist pig does not imply that we are poorer as a result. We are richer too, our standard of living goes up because of his hard work. So yes, it is true, the rich get richer, but the poor get richer too because for the rich to continue to earn their money they must exchange something of value to the people for their money. This is however not true for thiefs and politicians who get rich from political means, with them it is true that their wealth implies our lose, because they have not given us anything of value, or less value, in return for it. Thus, even if rich capitalist pigs were greedy, which is not a good criticism for the above reasons, they would still be most productive members of society. And this is not even mentioning all the jobs that they have created through their entrepreneurship. Thus, the argument that rich capitalist pigs get their wealth at the expense of the poor is a terrible argument.
As we can see now the rich capitalist pig is not evil, there is nothing about him that suggests his nature to be evil. In fact, he is nothing but a prosperity and an economic bonus to any society. It is in this manner that the rich capitalist pig is actually a hero and not a villain - as many people make him out to be.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hmm, finally one I can't fully agree with. I grant in, in a free market, if a person could become a rich capitalist pig (setting aside my issues with the word capitalism), then everything you say would be true. However, that's not the world we live in. In our world, the rich capitalist pig got there through regulations that favored him, government handouts and subsidies, protectionism...
ReplyDelete"Hmm, finally one I can't fully agree with. I grant in, in a free market, if a person could become a rich capitalist pig (setting aside my issues with the word capitalism), then everything you say would be true. However, that's not the world we live in. In our world, the rich capitalist pig got there through regulations that favored him, government handouts and subsidies, protectionism...":
ReplyDeleteGood point, I should have realized that. In fact, I believe it was Murray Rothbard who harshy criticized Ayn Rand (who by the way I happen to really dislike because she is a moralist and not an economist) by saying that she praised the businessman. However, it were the businessman who bribed for regulations for themselves that made the population really hateful of the market and thereby begged for statism. Murray's point is very similar to you point. However, I think that people like Bill Gates and John Rockefeller can be praised for their good works.
Funny how you seek out the best examples of "capitalist pigs" to judge them while with liberals you look for the worst.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Defending the Wicked 6 should be liberals. It'll do you good.
Well, that's the thing. Bill Gates can be praised for, well, not his innovations, but bringing them to market. However, we have no idea what he'd be worth on the market, or even if he'd have been successful. What we do know is that he had enormous help from the government to get where he is.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, though, it was the businessmen who pushed for those regulations (I'm not sure if you disagreed or not.) In the instances when it wasn't, they immediately manipulated the regulations to favor them. That's called regulatory capture. The biggest example, by the way, was the New Deal - "saving capitalism from itself." If we take 'capitalism' to refer to the system of subsidies and government aid to business, then yes, it did exactly that. The system was collapsing and would have been taken down the big, favored corporations. FDR stepped in to prevent that and save the big businesses.
Calling people that have become wealthy due to exploiting the current economic system in the United States "Rich capitalist pigs" just makes this discussion difficult .
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious this system favors the wealthy and is obviously unfair, both economically and morally.
I also find laissez faire capitalism to be corrupt and encourages exploitation of the poor, natural resources, etc. by those who have had the sheer luck to be born into large amounts of capital or with degenerate moral character. Capitalism is a kinder version of feudalism, plain and simple.
The free market as understood by the bourgeoisie is a myth. It's not free. It's created to give off the illusion of freedom, but is slanted to give the advantage to those with capital. History is showing and has shown this to be true.
This is such a huge discussion, but those are a few points to consider.
FU, I don't see any way to read your comments that makes sense. If what you're criticizing is not free, then it isn't a free market. Hence, what you're talking about is not laissez-faire, but something else. Yet you lay its problems at the feet of laissez-faire?
ReplyDelete"Funny how you seek out the best examples of "capitalist pigs" to judge them while with liberals you look for the worst.Maybe Defending the Wicked 6 should be liberals. It'll do you good.":
ReplyDeleteKeith Olberman is a fair liberal to use, and so is Jeane Garlofolo. Michael Moore happens to be liked by a lot of liberals. Liberals in general favor disarming the citizens (I know you do not). Saying that liberals want to force citizens to buy services against their will is also fair. Using these mainstream positions of liberals is not "seeking the worst". I do not seek the worst in liberals. I pick the mainstream positions, what I describe about liberals can be found in college also. I am fair in my description of them. If I picked some radical leftist nutcase, like Noam Chomsky, and used him as an example of a liberal then your condemnation of what I do would be justified, but your condemnation is not, for I pick the mainstream positions. The only fault I did do is that I used the best examples of capitalist pigs. And you are right about that, I made a mistake. Puzzled also objected to something similar. However, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a rich capitalist, and that arguement is true.
"It's obvious this system favors the wealthy and is obviously unfair, both economically and morally.":
ReplyDeleteThe system does not favor anything, it is not a person who has preferences for one or another. All what the free market is, is free people interacting with one another. That is it. It does not have a moral statement and it does not have any goal to it. And it has no value.
"I also find laissez faire capitalism to be corrupt and encourages exploitation of the poor, natural resources, etc. by those who have had the sheer luck to be born into large amounts of capital or with degenerate moral character.":
If one objects to laissez-faire capitalism because of man's moral weakness and fallibility then one, for the very same reason, must object to every single kind of government program.
"The free market as understood by the bourgeoisie is a myth. It's not free. It's created to give off the illusion of freedom, but is slanted to give the advantage to those with capital."
You have no idea what "freedom" means. Freedom, all it means, is the consequence of the principle of self-ownership. People own themselves and only themselves and can so act in the way they choose to themselves and not others. That is it. Nothing to it. That is what freedom means and the free market is the only system compatible with this idea. Your idea of freedom is some messed up utopian system of freedom as being "free from any work and worries". If you are going to use the word "free" and "freedom" then at least learn what they mean to laissez-faire capitalists.
"History is showing and has shown this to be true.":
What history? The history as explained by that economic retard Noam Chomsky who believes the US has a free market system of healthcare, for example?
BS,
ReplyDeleteI do object to every single kind of government program, and I think Chomsky is a genius. I think we've come to an impasse already.
"I do object to every single kind of government program.":
ReplyDeleteNo you do not object. Chomsky is no anarchist, and most certainly not a "libertarian socialist" - whatever that even means. He is a Marxist and pro-state. He just never admits that, actually he never says his own positions. I never heard Chomsky openly directly state what he believes. He has to hide his true beliefs all the time because he does not want them to be criticized. That is the kind of person he is. If Chomsky believes in using state power to take away the wealth from the capitalists then he is more authoratarian than neo-conservatives. And yes, that is a government program.
"And I think Chomsky is a genius.":
A genius in what? Linguistics? I do not know, but let us assume that he is a linguistical genius. Okay, does that mean he is an ecnomic expert? No, of course not. In fact, Chomsky is my favorite example to use, whenever I mention people who can be so good in one subject and a drooling retard in a different subject. In the case of Chomsky he is a linguist, and that is what he is good at doing, however, when it comes to economics he is a drooling retard. Look, I suck at economics, but even I am better than Chomsky. Here are some of his bright moments of economic stupity (I heard him say the first two on video and the third in a dialogue that I read): i) the US healthcare system is a free market system ii) the 2008 collapse proved that markets are inefficient and iii) Social Security is working fine. Face it, Chomsky does not know any economics if he actually makes statements like that.
Baruch, that is a common view of Chomsky among people who have not read his work on economics and politics. Have you read his books? Also, there is no need to defend our current system in the same breath as you defend the free market. What needs to be done is to explain how different the free market is from our system, and how the problems with our system come from government interventions.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that words like 'capitalism' have acquired two meanings, which are contradictory. In general, people define capitalism as something like "a free market, like the presently existing US system." This is an absurdity, since the presently existing US system is far from a free market. Chomsky's critique of our current system is actually precisely on the mark - but he calls it a "free market" system rather than what it is. We play into the opponent's hands when we oppose, say, Obama-care, without making clear that we also oppose the current system.
"Baruch, that is a common view of Chomsky among people who have not read his work on economics and politics. Have you read his books?":
ReplyDeleteNo, I have not read his books and I do not plan to. I seen videos of him giving speeches and talks. I want to vomit when I see his talks. His understanding of economics is pathetic, even I know more economics than him. Since he failed to impress me with his stupidity I have no interest in reading.
You say that is the common view of Chomsky. Well, that is the view of Chomsky. That is exactly what he believes, and that is why he hides his true intentions because he does not want to be explicit. From what I can say there is very little difference from Marx and Chomsky. And Marx was no anarchist.
"In general, people define capitalism":
I define capitalism as the private means of property and socialism as the public means of property. There is a difference between free markets and capitalism, but I often use it synomynously because when I call myself a "capitalist", I sound like a greedy exploitative person, and so I feel like a bad-boy. The free market is simply a system of free participation of people in a free society. Free market is the direct logical conclusion from free societies. This means that people can set up their own volunatry socialist communities and live the way they want. I have no problem with socialism. Family after all is based on socialism, kids get what they need not what they produce. But family is based on voluntary means. If people want to be socialists, go ahead, live that way, but do not make me live that way. I give you the respect to live the way you want, I ask for the same level of respect and to leave me, my property, and my guns alone. But apparently Chomsky is not fine with that. He wants to impose his vision of society on me, and for that he is a statist. There are genuine anarcho/libertarian socialists out there, like Mikhail Bakunin. I have no problem with them. They can live the way they wish. But the reason why I do not idenity with libertarian-socialism or anarcho-syndcalism is because the socialists have very child like economics, if they actually understood economics they would be libertarian (capitalists) or anarcho-capitalists.
"In our world, the rich capitalist pig got there through regulations that favored him, government handouts and subsidies, protectionism... "
ReplyDeleteThis can't happen in a free-market. "Free" is the operative word.
Neither Capitalism, nor the pig, is the problem here, but rather the government that allows this.
InvestigatorG, I could not agree more.
ReplyDeleteBS, you refer to "as far as you can see" there being no difference between Chomsky and Marx. Yet you say you haven't read Chomsky, and I doubt you've read much Marx. So your statement might well be true, but you just don't see very far.
Capitalism is a term coined by Marx to mean a specific type of corporatism. If you want to use it to mean something else, that's fine, but when you listen to someone else talk, you should understand how he uses the word.
On anarcho-syndicalism; to such a person, no, that isn't "good enough" for the simple reason that just as you perceive, say, taxation to be aggression, so he perceives the act of grabbing land and denying others access to it to be an act of aggression. Just as you rail against aggression, so does he. I think this is wrong, for various technical reasons, but it helps to understand what your opponent is saying.
Chomsky could, then, say to you "fine, live any way you wish...but don't claim large plots of land and threaten to shoot me if I go there. If you do that, you're no better than a statist."
Or consider Kevin Carson, whose mutualism is somewhere between the propertarian and the syndicalist.
But really, the reason I like Chomsky and Zinn has nothing to do with anarcho-syndicalism. It's because they think it is worthwhile to point out the actual effects of actual policies, which too many on the more propertarian side don't take the time to do. Too many are locked into a Randian worldview where the rich are oppressed by the welfare state.