Becoming a Capitalist President in El Salvador. Some advices?

[Gokul43201]

A free market is based on voluntary exchange. Slavery is not voluntary.

Agreed (for the most part, there were still plenty of slaves that continued to voluntarily serve their former owners after Emancipation). I definitely didn't think that through sufficiently.

But in any case, the point I was hoping to make is that a free market exchange need not be, in principle, at odds with discrimination, since the market may assign positive value to a discriminatory practice. In a racist White-majority market, for instance, a buyer may gladly spend more on a product made in an all-White factory than one made in a mixed factory.

I therefore am not convinced that there can be no discrimination (I mean this in the sense of 'bigotry') within a free market.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I therefore am not convinced that there can be no discrimination (I mean this in the sense of 'bigotry') within a free market.

Certainly bigotry can exist under capitalism. But the system inherently rewards 'defectors' from bigotry. Under a command economy, there are no such rewards. On one hand, this means that a command economy could be used to stamp out a form of discrimination rather more quickly: the government buys products from white-only factories but also from non-(white-only) factories. But on the other, in a command economy discrimination can be enshrined more easily. Suppose the women's rights movement managed to affect a command economy predicated on the idea that women and men would be treated equally by the only buyer, the state. This may have brought about economic gender equality faster -- who knows? But the homosexual rights movement might be much less advanced than it is now, because there would be no price incentive for the government buyers to buy from homosexual-only factories, even if they charged lower prices.

 

[AlexES16]

Hey guys i will answer the posts tomorrow, I am kinda in a hurry in school.

Thanks for your answers and keep up with the debate =)

 

[AlexES16]

Capitalism does not discriminate. My point is that if someone were to run a company in a truly capitalistic fashion and discriminate against potential workforce talent, he/she is ultimately shooting themselfs in the foot. But, that is HIS/HER choice in a pure free-market system. The market will weed him/her out because he/she will lose their competitiveness in the market if they base their workforce (and ultimately customers) on a narrow demographic. Regulation is not required.

Name a single company in a first world country that profits in such a fashion? It doesn't happen! It's not because of regulation, it's because of competition for public opinion. Capitalism.

The true grease of Capitalism is information (IMO).

Hello men. Regulation in the labor market is not neccesary.

But i think is very healthy to have a strong scientific based state that make hard regulation on pollution and healthcare.


This is an example of what hapens when a compnay is left with no regulation(in my country)

http://www.diariocolatino.com/es/20070925/nacionales/47489/

 

[AlexES16]

Im totally in favor of using force against polluters and companies that treat the health of the people.

You maybe argue that the consumer will punish companies that pollut, but they already polluted, they already ruined the life of the people that got affected.And for me 1 life matters.

Healthcare is open to a debate.

 

[AlexES16]

The documental HOME was presented today in my school, and almost all people blamed capitalism and such unregulated environment.

environment is maybe the last stronghole of the socialist, in the economic grow they totally are left withoth arguments, but when they come with the environment they kinda get all the support

 

[CRGreathouse]

A well-functioning capitalist society requires that externalities be internalized. Unregulated pollution is anti-capitalist.

 

[AlexES16]

A well-functioning capitalist society requires that externalities be internalized. Unregulated pollution is anti-capitalist.

This means that the guys of this page are anti-capitalist?

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/environment/pollution/376-The-Arsenic-Wars.html

They said to be capitalist but they are against almost all regulations?

 

[CRGreathouse]

I can't speak to the magazine in general; I don't read it. The particular link you posted is a political puff piece which doesn't say much about regulation -- it's mostly about politics as usual.

But capitalism, as I said, requires the internalization of externalities for proper functioning. This can be through any number of methods, including regulation, tort, Pigovian taxation, privatization of commons, etc.