Trio and Friends

The conclusion of this thread was that capitalism is really only a negation. It only says "the government should not be invoked to solve X problem." It is not its own worldview or moral system. It simply denies one worldview and creates free space for all the other worldviews to expand and explore.

In that case, this thread presupposes capitalism, which means that it presupposes all the problems I will raise are not solved by appealing to the government alone. Still, they are problems, and capitalism has no solution - it can't have a solution, because it doesn't offer any solutions, it only denies one proposed solution.

For example:

• Within a capitalist free market, there is gross injustice. This has already been agreed upon. Some people are born to rich parents who can send them to law school or medical school or train them in some other high-paid profession. Other people are raised by a divorced single mom who can barely afford to feed them healthy food, let alone give them an education after high school. This is a self-perpetuating problem and it leads to a social hierarchy: the rich keep their wealth across generations, and the poor cannot escape their poverty.
• Within a capitalist free market, there is no way to stop the abuse and exploitation of the earth's resources. We agreed elsewhere that the tragedy of the commons applies to the environment. We are all grabbing as much as we can and destroying rainforests in the process - rainforests that, we have learned, cannot so easily be restored. We are destroying many species of animals which we can never get back. We are throwing so much trash into the ocean that it starts to wash up on the shore. All of this because we are greedy and care more about acquiring wealth than about living sustainably.
• Within a capitalist free market, there is nothing to stop swindlers from rising to the top. People like Martin Shkreli who take advantage of people with debilitating illnesses they did not deserve, to squeeze as much money out of them as possible. People like the banks that fine you $40 for every failed credit card transaction every half hour without actually making the payment, so that a man wakes up suddenly in loads of debt (such banking policies don't exist in the UK - probably because they are illegal). This is the tip of the iceberg. I could go on at length about the ways the rich take advantage of the desperation (or ignorance) of the poor. In short, raw capitalism is a brutal jungle in which only the fittest survive, and the fittest are not usually the most deserving.

So what do we do about these problems? I think first of all we need to recognise that, as Christians, they are our problems that we are called upon to solve. God has entrusted us with a mission to restore the earth in justice and righteousness, and we are living out our Christian calling by participating in that mission.

I think we need to live by righteous principles and encourage others to do the same, thereby creating a culture of care and compassion, rather than one of greed and survival of the fittest.

This is only the beginning of the conversation, but before I go further, do you agree with the above?

I agree, in broad strokes, with what Barney is saying here about our duty as Christians to actively tackle the problems of poverty that sometimes arise in a capitalist system, however I don't necessarily agree that poverty is inherently a feature of capitalism any more than it is of socialism or any other economic model. Poverty, in its abject form, is essentially akin to being in a "state of nature". By that I mean something like existing in a state of constant need of basic sustenance to continue on living. This state pre-exists any economic model. Economy is merely something that has developed over time to ameliorate this condition. In our current globalized world of billions of people living in hugely varied circumstances with hugely varied local and cultural needs and ideals, the the existence of poverty as such is simple to multifaceted and complex for us to lay at the feet of this system or that economical model. I think the problem of poverty comes down to, ultimately, our limitations as human beings in being able to fully even enumerate and ascertain all the issues, much less develop a system that would somehow fix them. The term irreducible complexity comes to mind.

All that being said, I'm not going to try here to defend capitalism as such, mostly because I don't really view it as some kind of idealism to be defended, which is a whole other conversation I think. I do want to mention though the characterization of capitalism as merely a negation of areas the government shouldn't be involved solving. As far as I know there is no sovereign nation that operates under a totally unregulated unfettered free market. There are certainly industries that operate in such a manner which we call the "black market." Eg. drugs, weapons, etc. I don't think any proponent of capitalism would actually argue for an absolutely unregulated market or would even characterize capitalism as such in practice. My perspective is that capitalism is something that is actually quite dependent upon government regulation, however the key principles of said regulations are simple yet strictly enforcement. For instance, capitalism depends inherently on the idea that an individual has property rights. They can own things. The government provides the backbone for the enforcement of those rights in the event they are violated or not respected, but within that framework allows the players to act according to their own volition and decide for themselves how they wish to pursue their own wants and needs. In a completely unregulated system, such as the black markets I described above, there is no supporting structure to keep property rights from being violated. Whatever is mine is whatever I can physically control. Might makes right. Which is why black markets are so often prone to violence. In a properly functioning capitalist system this is not the case. The government acts as arbiter and enforcer of an individuals rights such as they have enumerated them. In that sense I don't see capitalism as merely a negation of what the government should be involved in, but more like a minimalistic approach economic modeling. However I believe the structure of government is definitely a feature, and not a concession, in capitalism. I think what I'm saying is something similar to the essay that Barney emailed for us to read awhile back about global capitalism. It did make me think a little different about how I understood what makes capitalism tick, especially the part about how on a global scale capitalism is heavily influenced by governments that are coordinating with each other as well as competing with each other for goods and services. The whole thing made me wonder if the economic spectrum that exists between pure socialism and pure capitalism is not really as broad of a spectrum as it seems.

Still, they are problems, and capitalism has no solution - it can't have a solution, because it doesn't offer any solutions, it only denies one proposed solution.

Capitalism has no solution but it does not prevent people from solving these problems. Capitalism, for example, did not create electric lighting, cars, and air conditioning (unless one wants to argue that the economic freedoms offered by capitalism are responsible). These (and many others) are solutions to problems that people took upon themselves to solve. None of them were mandated nevertheless they occurred anyway.

Within a capitalist free market, there is gross injustice. This has already been agreed upon. Some people are born to rich parents who can send them to law school or medical school or train them in some other high-paid profession. Other people are raised by a divorced single mom who can barely afford to feed them healthy food, let alone give them an education after high school. This is a self-perpetuating problem and it leads to a social hierarchy: the rich keep their wealth across generations, and the poor cannot escape their poverty.

I agree that within a capitalist free market there is gross injustice. But this implies that there is not gross injustice in other systems of governance, which is untrue.

However, the examples you cite are not unjust. You are pointing out inequality not injustice. Injustice is evil, inequality is not. Attempts to coercively eradicate inequality will inevitably lead to injustice.

The narrative that the rich keep their wealth across generations and the poor cannot escape their poverty is a popular one but I don't think it is born out statistically. Wealth passed down from generation to generation tends to get frittered away and rarely lasts much beyond the third generation. It is hard to gain great wealth but it is easy to spend. In America (if I remember correctly) over half of the households will at some point be in the top 10% of earners. Of course not every year but this cuts against both assertions.

May I recommend "Wealth, Poverty, and Politics" by Thomas Sowell. Here is an interview touching on some of the topics https://youtu.be/ICsPQnGJEpY

Within a capitalist free market, there is no way to stop the abuse and exploitation of the earth's resources. We agreed elsewhere that the tragedy of the commons applies to the environment. We are all grabbing as much as we can and destroying rainforests in the process - rainforests that, we have learned, cannot so easily be restored. We are destroying many species of animals which we can never get back. We are throwing so much trash into the ocean that it starts to wash up on the shore. All of this because we are greedy and care more about acquiring wealth than about living sustainably.

This statement seems to ignore the previous statement which was concerned with the poverty of the poor. Are they greedy for wanting to acquire wealth?

"There is no way to stop the abuse and exploitation..." Yes, there is. One simply stops. What you mean is that you cannot coerce someone else to stop if they disagree with your assessment.

I disagree with your characterization that what is driving people is greed. Try not throwing anything away for a year. Zero waste. If you throw something away you are being selfish and destroying the environment. You will find very quickly that it's not so cut and dry. In fact you will begrudgingly throw things away long before the year is up despite that it will end up in a land fill. You will use electricity, and upgrade your computer, and buy groceries rather than become a farmer. It is not because you are selfish, it is because there is a serious limit to what you are capable of doing. Moreover your statement suggests that things are getting worse but I don't think this is accurate. We are furiously trying to solve many environmental problems. Great wealth, time, and resources are valuable for solving these problems. I can hardly imagine starving people in abject poverty taking upon themselves to grapple with such problems.

Within a capitalist free market, there is nothing to stop swindlers from rising to the top.

Sort of. Voluntary decisions and competition will typically make swift work of swindlers. The example of Martin Shkreli is rather amusing. You do recognize that it is patent law that allows him to be free of the pressure of competition? This is why he is able to charge what he likes. He has a governmentally enforced monopoly. If it were up to market forces he would be taken out at the knees. However, we want to preserve and reward large investments in research so we generally agree that patents should be enforced to encourage risky/expensive development. Patents don't last forever. Soon enough it will move into public domain and true competition will cut out the bad actors.

and the fittest are not usually the most deserving.

Maybe not ethically. We are all sinners. But certainly when the market is working the fittest for solving a particular problem are the "most deserving" in that in the collective opinion of the purchasers they are delivering best solution at the cheapest price.

Ondrej wrote:Try not throwing anything away for a year. Zero waste.

I don't really understand your point. I don't know any environmentalist who thinks you should throw nothing away. In our household, we work hard to minimise the non-recyclable waste we throw away, partly by choosing products made with recyclable material. We have surprised ourselves at how little we now need to put in "general waste." It's not as hard as everyone things. But we're not aiming for zero. Why would we?

The examples you gave are instructive. I always buy second hand computers now, to limit the production of computers, and I use them until they break irreparably. Of course not everyone can buy second hand computers, but if we all used our computers for longer before buying another, that would help.

As for electricity, we switched to a renewable energy supplier. Not satisfied with that, we also found ways to reduce our consumption - buying eco-friendly kettles and microwaves and washing machines. There's tons that can be done.

Perhaps you're right - it's not greed, it's laziness that is preventing people from doing more to live sustainably. But perhaps the two are not as separate as it seems. But what has greed to do with throwing nothing away for a year?

Ondrej wrote:If you throw something away you are being selfish and destroying the environment.

Says who? This is a caricature. I don't know anyone who thinks this and I've never read anything that says this.

Ondrej wrote:your statement suggests that things are getting worse but I don't think this is accurate. We are furiously trying to solve many environmental problems. Great wealth, time, and resources are valuable for solving these problems.

The biggest environmental problem is human unwillingness to consume less, to practise self-control on how much we buy and use and waste. That cannot be solved by science and technology. No matter how much we have we will always want more. Surely every Christian believes that the root problems with the world are from human sinfulness, not things that the latest gizmo will fix?

Ondrej wrote:This statement seems to ignore the previous statement which was concerned with the poverty of the poor. Are they greedy for wanting to acquire wealth?

The poor cannot be held responsible for climate change because, if they really are poor, then they can't be contributing to it by their way of living. It is those who can afford a large carbon footprint who are responsible.

Besides, as I pointed out on foeface, social justice and environmentalism cannot be played off against each other. The changing climate will always affect the poorest the most.

• "Climate Change - Why the Tropical Poor will Suffer Most"
• "Climate change will displace millions in coming decades."

Ondrej wrote:The example of Martin Shkreli is rather amusing. You do recognize that it is patent law that allows him to be free of the pressure of competition? This is why he is able to charge what he likes. He has a governmentally enforced monopoly. If it were up to market forces he would be taken out at the knees. However, we want to preserve and reward large investments in research so we generally agree that patents should be enforced to encourage risky/expensive development. Patents don't last forever. Soon enough it will move into public domain and true competition will cut out the bad actors.

Yes I realize that patent law is what's allowing him to do this. But you have a choice. Either (1) you think patent law (or patent "coercion by gunpoint") is illegitimate and should be abolished. In other words, you don't think that ideas can be owned as property. Or (2) you agree with patent coercion-by-gunpoint, as you seem to do in the above quote, in which case you agree that government intervention in the economic system is justified in this case. Either way it complicates the very simple capitalist model that everything will be fine if people are allowed to do what they like with their own stuff. Either "their own stuff" is more complicated to figure out, or the statement is not always true.

Here is my reply to Jared.

Jared wrote:I don't necessarily agree that poverty is inherently a feature of capitalism any more than it is of socialism or any other economic model. Poverty, in its abject form, is essentially akin to being in a "state of nature". By that I mean something like existing in a state of constant need of basic sustenance to continue on living.

Fair point that I accept. "There will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’" (Deuteronomy 15:11)

Let me qualify then. The problem with capitalism is that it promotes a system whereby the poor are blamed for their own poverty, providing a convenient excuse not to help them. They should just have taken out insurance. They are lazy. They don't actually "need" anything - they're just whining. In other economic systems you don't get this large and comfortable suite of reasons to ignore those in desperate poverty.

Jared wrote:I don't see capitalism as merely a negation of what the government should be involved in, but more like a minimalistic approach economic modeling. However I believe the structure of government is definitely a feature, and not a concession, in capitalism.

Also a fair point. If it was merely a negation, then the most perfectly capitalist system would be anarchy. Capitalism also needs the government, and it needs lots of laws (or "coercions by gunpoint") in order to flourish. It just objects to any laws that interfere with the natural flow of the free market. This is based on a trust that the free market, if left to itself, will lead to the most desirable results. This is a convenient thing to trust if you're rich, because it validates yourself as a rich person. You can safely assume that you're responsible for your wealth, just like the poor are responsible for their poverty. So I can see the appeal of capitalism to those who have wealth and why they would want to defend it.

Jared wrote:The whole thing made me wonder if the economic spectrum that exists between pure socialism and pure capitalism is not really as broad of a spectrum as it seems.

Yes indeed. One of the most interesting points of the article is that, paradoxically, both the free market and national governments have more power than they have ever had before. So clearly it is not a zero-sum game. There is a sense in which both depend on each other and draw strength from each other. This is worth further reflection.

I don't really understand your point.

Those first two statements you quoted went together just setting up a thought experiment. Like what if you adopted the position that "if you throw anything away you are being selfish and polluting the planet". What I am trying to get at is that it is your priorities driving your decisions. With your logic this is clearly the optimum. No waste. The point is that even if one were to concede that this is "optimal" from a no waste standpoint, there are many other considerations that also must be taken into account. You buy a second hand computer, but you still buy one. The priority of having and using a computer and having the capabilities a computer offers you is more important than the small "destruction of the planet" that comes with it.

Life itself changes its environment. This is almost a definition. We are plagued by nakedness so we take something from the environment to cloth ourselves. We create a place to stay warm and dry. We cultivate land to produce food. These all change the environment, by design. The computer you buy second hand is intended to change your environment for the better, and it does. There is a problem you have that the computer solves.

laziness that is preventing people from doing more to live sustainably

Or in the case of the computer, perhaps they are afraid of getting scammed. Or maybe they are not sure how much life they will get out of the used computer because they don't know how to pick one.

In the world of tools... If one goes to Harbor Freight one can find amazingly cheap tools. They will probably not last long but maybe you just have one job that you need to do. So you get the tool and then it breaks and you throw it away (usually irritated). So you have just "consumed" something. What happened? You tried to make a judgement about value, and usefulness. Much more expensive and durable tools exist. You would actually prefer to have those tools but does your use case and financial situation justify the cost? You decided no and then live with the crappy tool and get the job done (change the environment somehow). When the tool breaks and you throw it away you are still not happy about it (or maybe it is such a crappy tool that you ARE happy about it). None of this is "laziness" but you have still consumed something. You could certainly argue that the higher quality tools should be purchased so that they last longer but this sort of decision should not be turned into an ethical decision.

The biggest environmental problem is human unwillingness to consume less, to practise self-control on how much we buy and use and waste. That cannot be solved by science and technology. No matter how much we have we will always want more. Surely every Christian believes that the root problems with the world are from human sinfulness, not things that the latest gizmo will fix?

What do we mean by "consume"? With food it is obvious but with tools, for example, I guess we mean use until it wears out. But surely we also recognize that it is not for nothing. The tool will be used for something beneficial until it wears out. It is solving a problem or perhaps, by virtue of being a tool, it will solve many problems. I don't ever buy things just to throw them away and am typically irritated when things break or something is wasted. I don't know anyone who is pleased when something breaks or something goes to waste. No matter how many problems we solve there will always be more problems to solve. It is not surprising to think that "we will always want more" but this does not mean there is anything ethically wrong with it. There could be, but this would have to get more specific. Human sinfulness is the root of many problems. However, the reason we buy gizmos is that many (maybe most) problems do not stem from human sinfulness and absolutely CAN be solved by a new gizmo. For example, there is a new "multi tool" that has gained tremendous popularity because you can put different attachments on it and get into tight corners etc and cut, sand, file. It looks really slick and I'm going to get one! Am I just mindlessly "consuming", no of course not. But nobody is. Problems are getting solved and people's lives are getting better.

Yes I realize that patent law is what's allowing him to do this. But you have a choice. Either (1) you think patent law (or patent "coercion by gunpoint") is illegitimate and should be abolished. In other words, you don't think that ideas can be owned as property. Or (2) you agree with patent coercion-by-gunpoint, as you seem to do in the above quote, in which case you agree that government intervention in the economic system is justified in this case. Either way it complicates the very simple capitalist model that everything will be fine if people are allowed to do what they like with their own stuff. Either "their own stuff" is more complicated to figure out, or the statement is not always true.

I'm not sure what I think about patent law. It is trying to solve the problem that ideas can be copied without physically removing tangible property from an owner but the development of those ideas often represents significant value. Patents grant the patent holder (through coercion at gunpoint) exclusive rights to the patent on the condition that all the relevant details of how the thing works are revealed publicly (in the patent). When the patent runs out everyone is free to copy and have the details already written down. If you don't want to reveal how the thing works you can just use trade secrets (e.g. the recipe for Coke) but anyone can make a knock off product. These can last longer than a patent if the secret it kept but often something can be reverse engineered trivially. One also cannot get a patent on trivial things or things that have already been revealed. For example if I make a discovery and publish it, I might not be able to patent it because it is considered part of the "prior art" once it is published. So patents are basically extending temporary property rights to the realm of ideas. But not just any idea, only new ideas (and usually there needs to be a prototype or demonstration of some kind). I think you also have to be actively using the patent to maintain it. If you just hold the patent and are not using it I believe it becomes unenforceable after a few years. This seems like a reasonable solution.

Ondrej wrote:With your logic this is clearly the optimum. No waste.

I think I get your point. You are saying: no waste might be an ideal, but needs to be balanced against other ideals and some compromise is in order. People need stuff in order to live the way they want, so they shouldn't be blamed for making, buying, and selling stuff. Therefore, greed is not a problem in today's society.

I guess if you frame modern society in that way, then there could never be any problem of greed. The very concept of greed, the very word 'greed' is meaningless. It makes a sin out of what everyone does by necessity. Is that what you're saying?

Ondrej wrote:Life itself changes its environment. This is almost a definition. We are plagued by nakedness so we take something from the environment to cloth ourselves. We create a place to stay warm and dry. We cultivate land to produce food. These all change the environment, by design. The computer you buy second hand is intended to change your environment for the better, and it does. There is a problem you have that the computer solves.

This is all common sense and I don't know why it's important here. I think you're just struggling to imagine what a non-consumerist society might look like, except if it's North Korea. Those are the only two options: either radical unfettered capitalism, or a slippery slope to North Korea.

So let me help by providing some other examples.

1. First example: Apple iPhones. A prime case of people who can't be hated for their wealth since they are rich because they're providing something people need, right? But look closer and you see that what's driving them is money, not care for their customers. They released the first iPhone without 3G abilities, even though 3G had been around for years already. Then, six months later, they released a new iPhone with 3G. Why? So everyone would buy them twice. Also, for a while they produced USB ports on computers with a little kink in them, and USB products with that same little kink. It meant that you could only use Apple products on Apple computers, forcing the user either to buy an Apple mouse or abandon their Apple computer.
   "But they have the right to make products how they want, and if people don't like it, they can shop elsewhere!"
   This isn't about rights. This is about the limits of capitalism to make the best possible kind of society and the best possible kind of people. Capitalism, left to itself, produces people who care more about making money than about serving others, as Jesus told us to do. It cannot heal the wounds of the Fall.
2. My second example comes from your own experience when you were 22 years old. You worked as a car mechanic, and got very frustrated because your bosses always made you replace parts rather than fix the existing parts. Why? Because the customer would have to pay more for a new part than for a fixed part, even if a fixed part would be better for the customer. Capitalism is powerless to help in this instance. If another car mechanic offered to fix parts where that was better than replacing them, they wouldn't make enough money and would fold, but the part-replacing mechanic would survive. Capitalism prevents businesses from caring most of all about their customers, and instead drives them to care about making money instead.
3. My third example comes from a recent experience of an American friend moving to the UK. He had all kinds of gadgets I'd never heard of before: a massage gun, some "packing bags" to help organize things in your suitcase. I was amazed that such products existed. I've managed quite well my whole life without them. But now the idea was planted in my head to go and buy them. Advertising shapes peoples' imaginations, encouraging them to buy more and more things that they could easily do without. Such a lifestyle requires that they earn more, so they are driven to find ways to make more money somehow, whether by worthy or unworthy means. But there is an alternative: everyone could just work a little less, produce a little less, be smarter with the resources they have, giving them time to enjoy non-material things like nature and friendship. Sure, you need some material things to enjoy nature and fellowship, but I'm not suggesting we should abolish all material goods. I'm suggesting that we currently make, buy, and sell, too many. The focus is on material comforts and conveniences rather than on cultivating virtue, appreciating beauty, and promoting goodness. Why? Because of capitalism.

Yes, people have the right to do whatever they want. This isn't about rights. It's about the best way to live that brings the greatest fulfilment, flourishing, and joy to human beings. I'm suggesting that capitalism, left to itself, cannot do that. We need to go beyond it to a new ethic.

I think I get your point. You are saying: no waste might be an ideal, but needs to be balanced against other ideals and some compromise is in order. People need stuff in order to live the way they want, so they shouldn't be blamed for making, buying, and selling stuff. Therefore, greed is not a problem in today's society.

I guess if you frame modern society in that way, then there could never be any problem of greed. The very concept of greed, the very word 'greed' is meaningless. It makes a sin out of what everyone does by necessity. Is that what you're saying?

No waste was a simple example of a goal toward an optimum that I figured you would agree with. In the sense that it represents an optimum, it is also an ideal. But I should be careful to point out that it is not a moral ideal. The point of this example is to illustrate that this is only one of many possible goals you may have. While it might be noble to strive toward such a goal it certainly will not take the highest priority in the range of goals one may have as will be demonstrated by your own actions. Once we have established that there many goals one may have and that one must compromise and prioritize among those goals, then we recognize that different people may have different goals and priorities. This example is intended to illustrate as well that even though no waste may be an optimum aligned with a priority that ranks very high on your own list of priorities and is physically possible to accomplish, nevertheless, it encroaches so strongly on many other priorities that you will decide it is worth it to sacrifice this goal for the sake of others.

This brings us to the freedom to choose. If some politician foolishly got in their head that no waste should be mandated and drafted laws accordingly, what they are doing is artificially inflating the importance of that goal through coercive means. The goal really does increase in importance because it has the threat of violence behind it but is at odds with your own judgment in ranking the value of various goals you have, taking into account all the particularities of your own life. While this is a rather absurd thought experiment we should keep in mind that such things have been done in the past, for example the "great leap forward" or the policies leading to the holodomor. Typically ones own judgments about what is a valuable goal and how much one should spend toward achieving it are immensely superior to artificial inflation of importance through third party interference.

Let us consider the reasons. 1) you can adjust your value judgments on the fly as new information comes in and re-prioritize your goals, 2) your prioritization, for the most part, only hurts yourself if things turn out unexpectedly, 3) others can try other mixes of prioritization and people can compare outcomes to gauge optimum ways of living.

You keep bringing up greed. You speak in the abstract about greed being a rampant problem in today's society. With exceedingly broad brush strokes you equate "consumerism" with greed and then lay it at the feet of capitalism. I think it is a mistake to speak in such generalities. We have to get down to the specific actions taken and examine motivations at that level to assess greed. I offered up a simple example of a typical "consumerist" action and some thought process around it (buying tools). This happens to be one that I find myself in frequently so it was just a natural first thing that came to mind. Can you explain to me how greed is manifesting itself? Or can you explain how this is somehow not representative of the lions share of what actually constitutes "consumerism"?

This is all common sense and I don't know why it's important here.

Because everything anyone does is the result of a set of prioritized goals acting to change the world (typically for the better). It is important to recognize that undesirable changes to the world must be weighed against the benefit they are producing. No waste may be a fantastic optimum in principle but when applied to the real world in your own life you find that you are more than willing to tolerate many undesirable changes to the world in order to accomplish many desirable changes. It is easy to point to all the waste you generate and chastise this behavior as selfish and greedy but this is neither charitable nor very accurate despite perhaps having some elements of truth to it.

I don't quite understand the point of your examples but we can go through them and I'll comment my thoughts.

First example: Apple iPhones. I do not disagree there are annoying choices companies make that are clearly not intended to cater to the customer. On the flip side, there are real constraints the business is under on the business end. On might argue that the little kink in the USB port is to force the customer to use only their mouse so that they can ensure that the Apple experience is at a certain level of quality etc etc. One could argue that all these things go together to set Apple products apart from the rest. Some are inconvenient and annoying, maybe bad choices on Apple's part, and some things are arguably just to extort more money from the customer. But Apple does have to make money to stay in business. So it's not so clear cut whether there is anything morally wrong with their approach.

Capitalism, left to itself, produces people who care more about making money than about serving others, as Jesus told us to do. It cannot heal the wounds of the Fall.

I disagree with this assertion. I think the primary way that money is made is by serving others. Capitalism does not require you to serve others but it also does not prevent you from going out of business either. Businesses that just rip off their customers will go out of business quite quickly. Apple does not just rip off their customers. They actually do sell products that are slick and sexy, and they work well etc etc. You can quibble about certain choices Apple makes, fair enough, but clearly what they produce is acceptable to many people all things considered.

I am rather amused at this discussion, however, because I have never owned an Apple product because of the very complaints we are discussing.

Fixing parts instead of replacing them.

Because the customer would have to pay more for a new part than for a fixed part, even if a fixed part would be better for the customer. Capitalism is powerless to help in this instance. If another car mechanic offered to fix parts where that was better than replacing them, they wouldn't make enough money and would fold, but the part-replacing mechanic would survive.

If it was cheaper to fix a part rather than replace it, then the fixing mechanic can make a repair at a lower cost than the replacing mechanic. Everything else being equal, the fixing mechanic will win and all replacing mechanics will go out of business because they can't compete at that price point. Everything else is not equal. If the fixing mechanic replaces, let's say, just the failed bearing in the alternator, the risk is that the rest of the alternator is old and some other piece of it fails soon after. Let's say the other bearing goes out, it's just as old as the original. Now the customer has to come back for what appears to be the same problem. The mechanic is not looking so good anymore. The second bearing is replaced. Now the diodes go out. Back with the same problem. Now the diodes have been replaced. Next the brushes wear out. etc etc. Perhaps it was best for the customer to just replace the whole alternator up front. Maybe the mechanic doesn't want the reputation for "cutting corners". Maybe it's not worth the reputation hit to fix a part maybe the thing to do is get new OEM parts and replace whole systems when one little part fails. It really depends on what the customer wants and what the risk is. Capitalism says, yep, figure out what you want to do.

Capitalism prevents businesses from caring most of all about their customers, and instead drives them to care about making money instead.

Not at all. If all the customers hate their mechanic the mechanic will go out of business. Business HAVE to care for their customers. It is only government run programs like the department of motorvehicles (DMV) that can afford to gain such universal contempt from people and continue to exist. No business would survive if it was managed like the DMV or many other government operations.

Third example. This one would be laughable if you were not serious. You are blaming Capitalism for your own choices?

everyone could just work a little less, produce a little less, be smarter with the resources they have, giving them time to enjoy non-material things like nature and friendship.

The Amish community does this. I can't say they work less, they actually work much more to produce much less but they are free to do so. This is perfectly fine under capitalism.

I think what you are actually getting at here is that you want everyone else to share your preferences. You don't want the freedom to choose to work less yourself, you want other people to work less. And you don't want to just convince them by showing them a better way to live, you want to remove the freedoms they have under capitalism to accomplish this.

I've split many of the points off into other threads since there is so much to discuss here. This is only to respond to the things left over that haven't been launched elsewhere.

Barney wrote:everyone could just work a little less, produce a little less, be smarter with the resources they have, giving them time to enjoy non-material things like nature and friendship.

Ondrej wrote:The Amish community does this. I can't say they work less, they actually work much more to produce much less but they are free to do so. This is perfectly fine under capitalism.

What makes them Amish is not that they do this, but that they refuse to avail themselves of modern technology, which is a very different case.

Ondrej wrote:I think what you are actually getting at here is that you want everyone else to share your preferences. You don't want the freedom to choose to work less yourself, you want other people to work less. And you don't want to just convince them by showing them a better way to live, you want to remove the freedoms they have under capitalism to accomplish this.

I don't want everyone to share my preferences. That would be awful. Everyone would want to study theology and there would be nobody to farm the land, drive taxis, or build houses.

Ondrej wrote:you don't want to just convince them by showing them a better way to live, you want to remove the freedoms they have under capitalism to accomplish this.

This is a strange thing to say in a thread where the first post says "this thread presupposes capitalism, which means that it presupposes all the problems I will raise are not solved by appealing to the government alone."