Blaming capitalism for your own choices

[Barney]

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.

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

This reply of yours seems to get to the heart of a difference of opinion about the role of choices in the human condition, and how choice relates to culture and ethics. I was assuming that you understood something that you seem not to understand. So I am treating this as an important issue to get straight.

Human beings do not make choices in a vacuum, in a universal or neutral space, absent of any influences. Our choices are enormously influenced by the culture to which we belong, which includes our friends and family but extends to the media we consume - TV, youtube, billboards, ads, etc.. Every culture carries implicit values about what is important in life, what leads to human flourishing, what is the goal of being human. It also has ways of both consciously and unconsciously influencing its members to hold those values. The culture shapes our imagination, and thereby determines what options we think we have about how to live, how to spend our time and money, and how to pursue the ultimate good for us and other people. It is part of human nature to be influenced. None of us can avoid this, and we are deceived if we believe we have avoided it.

From a Christian perspective, some values are better than others. Therefore some cultures are better than others for influencing people towards pursuing the right values. Therefore it is a legitimate enterprise to analyze and evaluate a particular culture, pointing to its strengths and weaknesses in how it helps its members pursue their flourishing.

So it's not about 'blame', but about analysis and evaluation of how far capitalism represents the best possible culture for Christianity.

[Ondrej]

Human beings do not make choices in a vacuum, in a universal or neutral space, absent of any influences. Our choices are enormously influenced by the culture to which we belong, which includes our friends and family but extends to the media we consume

I agree. This suggests to me that you are, in fact, quite concerned with what is fashionable. Our culture influences us a great deal and currently it is quite fashionable among thinking people to criticize capitalism. I think if we are honest with ourselves, however, we will see that the root of capitalism forces anyone trying to make an honest profit to consider others with the utmost priority.

It is also quite fashionable to excuse a person's lack of responsibility and blame circumstances. This is a strong theme in Atlas Shrugged. "It couldn't be helped", "no one will blame you".

What you seem to be concerned about is that you are made aware of options/products that you don't want to buy and object to their existence on the basis that they are also options for you and you do not want such temptations. This is to say that everyone else ought to be deprived of these options so that you are not subjected to their temptation. But people have also made due without cell phones and computers and the internet and running water and electricity etc. This can be said of any modern innovation. The real question is who gets to decide what things get made and what things do not? Capitalism says "the market", which is to say, the people who are willing to pay for whatever item to exist. The people vote with their dollars. If the item gets and continues to get the votes it will continue to exist. There is also no lying. If the people do not pay their money in actual fact, the item will vanish from the market. Lip service does not keep people in business. How do you suggest this question be answered?

This is analogous to blaming capitalism for the obesity epidemic. Capitalism has provided an abundance of food at low cost. This is a good thing. People's own eating and exercise habits have made them obese. To blame capitalism is to abdicate your responsibility for your own behavior. There are plenty of people who are not obese and, in spite of the body positivity movement, our culture does not uphold obesity as something to be desired. But to suggest that less food be made for all so that you are not tempted to overeat is an egregious removal of your own responsibility to the great detriment to everyone else. This is selfishness at an unbelievable level.

Now, I should point out that capitalism is not culture. Capitalism can and does exist in many cultures and our cultures change over time. I am highly critical of our current culture but I do not lay it at the feet of capitalism.

[Barney]

Yes you're right I am interested in what is fashionable, but I don't want to confuse fashionableness with truth. Let me be more precise: I meant that we should not use the fact that something is fashionable as an excuse to suppose that it must be untrue. We should investigate the truth for ourselves, and the truth can not often be found by reference to whether an idea is fashionable or not. In fact I can't currently think of any circumstances where fashionableness determines truth.

It is also quite fashionable to excuse a person's lack of responsibility and blame circumstances. This is a strong theme in Atlas Shrugged. "It couldn't be helped", "no one will blame you".

Yes, this is a theme in Atlas Shrugged that I appreciated. Shifting blame doesn't do anyone any good, least of all the person doing it, who then has an excuse not to change their own behaviour. My friends have told me that one of the more annoying traits of some Americans is what they call a "sense of entitlement" - this feeling that they deserve a lovely detached house, a job they love, no health problems, etc. and that they have a right to complain bitterly and get angry at someone else if they don't get exactly what they wanted.

What you seem to be concerned about is that you are made aware of options/products that you don't want to buy and object to their existence on the basis that they are also options for you and you do not want such temptations. This is to say that everyone else ought to be deprived of these options so that you are not subjected to their temptation.

I don't understand why you're casting this in terms of what I want. I didn't say I was tempted by these things or even that I gave into the temptation. I said other people were. I thought this conversation was about what was best for society / the world, not what your or my individual preferences are. Individual preferences are not really that interesting compared with figuring out what kind of society would bring about the highest level of human flourishing. My point was that human flourishing is not best served when all our energy and resources go towards the production and consumption of material goods.

As a broader point, I do not measure the success of a society by how much wealth it has produced, or even how technologically advanced it is, as you seem to do. I would ask other questions of it, like the following:

• Are people generous and self-sacrificial in this society, or do they always expect something in return for anything they do?
• What do people in this society value and pursue? Do they pursue material gain, money, social status, comfort, pleasure, entertainment? Or do they pursue self-discipline, self-understanding, beauty in art, poetry, literature, and love of those around them?
• What is it like for unsuccessful people in this society - for example, a disabled person who lives alone? Are they noticed and welcomed by others, or are they left to be lonely?

Just a few examples. I could go on. Now you might say "people are free to pursue these things if they want, but they shouldn't be forced to do so." But that is as if God, instead of sending his son to die for us while we were still sinners, saying "you're free to get to heaven if you choose to. I won't force you, but you're on your own about getting there." The truth is there's a huge range in-between 'free' and 'forced', the range of persuasion, temptation, encouragement, favorable conditions, etc. And these are what we need to take a hold of with both hands and steer towards what is best for everyone.

This is analogous to blaming capitalism for the obesity epidemic. Capitalism has provided an abundance of food at low cost. This is a good thing. People's own eating and exercise habits have made them obese. To blame capitalism is to abdicate your responsibility for your own behavior. There are plenty of people who are not obese and, in spite of the body positivity movement, our culture does not uphold obesity as something to be desired.

Obesity is a great example to talk about. Obesity is emphatically not because of an abundance of food. Try getting obese if all you eat is unadorned roast vegetables and you'll see what I mean. Obesity is due to people choosing to sell unhealthy food, packing it with artificial sweeteners and semi-addictive substances, because they will sell more that way than if they sold food that was good for you. In other words, obesity is precisely due to people not "considering others with utmost priority" as you said above. Obesity results from businessmen who appeal to the basest animal instincts and lack of self-control in a society in order to make as much money as possible from its members. It preys on people's weakness of will, exploiting their sinfulness rather than trying to encourage virtue.

The real question is who gets to decide what things get made and what things do not? Capitalism says "the market", which is to say, the people who are willing to pay for whatever item to exist. The people vote with their dollars. If the item gets and continues to get the votes it will continue to exist. There is also no lying. If the people do not pay their money in actual fact, the item will vanish from the market. Lip service does not keep people in business. How do you suggest this question be answered?

There is plenty of lying, or there would be if the government didn't prevent it. For example, brand copyright. Do you think it should be enforced by law? Or, listing the ingredients on a food product. Should that be required?

[Ondrej]

Yes you're right I am interested in what is fashionable, but I don't want to confuse fashionableness with truth.

Yes, we are on the same page here. I keep bringing up what is "fashionable" to highlight the notion that we are picking up ideas from "the ether" and running with them assuming they are true. We do not know they are true or really where they came from, they are just fashionable. What I am concerned about is the very fashionable ideas that are not true (e.g. gender wage gap) but which lead to inappropriate actions taken to address them. Problems that are not problems. Inventing problems in order to justify more government action and control.

I don't understand why you're casting this in terms of what I want. I didn't say I was tempted by these things or even that I gave into the temptation. I said other people were.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to convey. You had a friend who had some suitcase organizers and a massage gun. I got the impression that you lamented the existence of such products on the grounds that you can do without them and you don't want them.

I am getting the impression that you do not think people have the capability of deciding what is best for them and that this should be handled by the government.

Individual preferences are not really that interesting compared with figuring out what kind of society would bring about the highest level of human flourishing.

Wow, this smacks of Marxism. The vehicle for the community is going to be held in government viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39&p=254&hilit=vehicle#p254, individual preferences are really not that interesting. The goal is maximum human flourishing by not very quantifiable metrics. And "The government understands better what promotes the flourishing of all society" viewtopic.php?f=8&t=49&p=270&hilit=holodomor#p270

My point was that human flourishing is not best served when all our energy and resources go towards the production and consumption of material goods.

I agree. I believe that human flourishing is best served when people have the freedom to decide what is best for themselves. How much to work, what to spend their money on, what trade offs they will make. To expand the concept of material goods, I would put it more generally into the arrangement of our environment. Material goods are part of this, but so is landscaping, geographic location, stylistic elements etc. The reason such things require so much energy and resources is that laws of nature demand it. The question you are really getting at is why are some people willing to expend such effort to arrange their environment so exquisitely to their preference? The answer is, they are not! Give them a hammer and a shovel and they will not do it. Nobody can make a cup of coffee by themselves. They trade. What this means is that one man's "consumption" is another man's living. The communist looks at a Corvette and says "just think how many people could have been fed for the price of that car." The capitalist looks at it and says "yes, I fed them." The production and consumption of material goods is people serving one another. I can tell Jeff Bezos I'm not happy with what he sold me and he springs into action to rectify the situation. "Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all." Is it any wonder then that Jeff Bezos gains ground inch by inch serving more and more people. I am not claiming that Jeff Bezos is perfect. Rather that you completely mischaracterize capitalism and material goods.

Now you might say "people are free to pursue these things if they want, but they shouldn't be forced to do so." But that is as if God, instead of sending his son to die for us while we were still sinners, saying "you're free to get to heaven if you choose to. I won't force you, but you're on your own about getting there."

No. In fact, God does offer us the freedom to choose. He does not force us to do what is right. The ability to choose is so paramount that it is worth all of the evil in the world. I think these things are honorable and should be encouraged but they must be undertaken volitionally or they are robbed of any of their merit.

Obesity is due to people choosing to sell unhealthy food, packing it with artificial sweeteners and semi-addictive substances, because they will sell more that way than if they sold food that was good for you. In other words, obesity is precisely due to people not "considering others with utmost priority" as you said above. Obesity results from businessmen who appeal to the basest animal instincts and lack of self-control in a society in order to make as much money as possible from its members. It preys on people's weakness of will, exploiting their sinfulness rather than trying to encourage virtue.

In response, allow me to quote you:

Shifting blame doesn't do anyone any good, least of all the person doing it, who then has an excuse not to change their own behaviour.

There is plenty of lying

What I mean by "there is no lying" is that people may talk about their preferences but what counts is their actions. I saw the most ridiculous juicer for sale, connects to the internet, requires a juicing subscription, way overcomplicated... They went out of business pretty quickly. They may talk a good game about how great their product is (and they did) but unless people actually go out and buy it, signalling that they want it and at that price, then they have nothing. They cannot pretend and get by. The question remains who decides whether or not that juicer should be made? Is the cost of producing it worth the benefit people get from it? How can we tell? I honestly wasn't sure they would go out of business. I kind of thought there would be enough juice nuts that they would limp along. One could contrast that failure with the success of Keurig. I initially thought this product was over-hyped and was annoyed that it required their special coffee pods which were not reusable. But they didn't fail. They exploded. Hmm. I guess they were onto something. What exactly? Well, for one, much less wasted coffee, no burnt coffee from the bottom of the pot, no reheated coffee. One could argue that it would be of benefit, but until people buy it with their hard earned cash you do not know if it is actually beneficial to people. I have owned three of them (apparently they break just as often as the regular coffee makers, is anyone shocked).

[Ondrej]

Yes, this is a theme in Atlas Shrugged that I appreciated. Shifting blame doesn't do anyone any good, least of all the person doing it, who then has an excuse not to change their own behaviour. My friends have told me that one of the more annoying traits of some Americans is what they call a "sense of entitlement" - this feeling that they deserve a lovely detached house, a job they love, no health problems, etc. and that they have a right to complain bitterly and get angry at someone else if they don't get exactly what they wanted.

I would like to press this one a bit more (actually I'm not sure I commented on it originally). I strongly agree.

They do have a right to complain bitterly. This is the freedom of speech. But in a capitalist system such complaints are innocuous. There is no recourse but to square with the truth of the situation: if you want a lovely detached house you must provide others with something of greater value. If you want a job you love you may very well find that it pays meagerly because plenty of people are willing to do enjoyable jobs. You may have to gauge whether it is more important whether you have a lovely detached house or an enjoyable job but not both. In the capitalist system one is forced to recon with the truth of ones limited resources, limited ability, and the real cost of goods. The real cost of goods is what it costs other people to accomplish things like a lovely detached house. The market forces one to consider others because they must be enticed into voluntary trade. They also want a lovely detached house and perhaps the job you want done is not enjoyable at all. The majority of the construction of a lovely detached house is not enjoyable in itself, is typically uncomfortably hot or cold, makes one's body hurt, etc. For someone to be willing to voluntarily do such things they must value the payment higher than the sum of all the costs to themselves. When one is actually faced with the real costs it is tempting to become bitter when one overvalues one's own contribution and undervalues the contribution of others. This is where one must be forced to learn humility and thankfulness or live in bitterness and misery. Ones wants and fancies will nearly always outstrip ones resources and capabilities. The capitalist system forces you to carefully consider your priorities and communicates the effort of others that your priorities might entail.

When one breaches the capitalist system, the signals of the free market, and allows the government to step in and override the machinery of the market, suddenly the bitter complaints of entitled people become quite dangerous. They make the case that it is not their fault they did not attain the unicorns and rainbows they imagined they could attain. It is the fault of any number of other things that the government should be responsible for arranging in such a way that the unicorns and rainbows materialize. Is the price of rent too high? Instead of moving to more affordable housing, or picking up a second job to satisfy the preference of living in a location where the price of housing is too high for them to afford, they complain bitterly about the unconscionable ethics of the landlord. Nothing but a greedy capitalist preying on the poor. Affordable housing should be a right. The current state of the world is unfair and unjust. When such depictions receive enough favorable agreement, the government has license from the people to violate the property rights of the landlord and mandate rent controls. In this case, the market signals, i.e. the cost to provide the housing such that a landlord feels he is fairly compensated and the price the renter is willing to pay, are no longer interacting/communicating. The situation the renter wants to see made manifest is lower prices, more availability of housing, and of the same quality he currently enjoys. But what should we expect to happen when the price of housing is artificially capped by a government mandate? The first effect is that the current renters feel relief from the high prices they were paying. The government is praised for sticking up for the underprivileged and the attitude toward the landlords, having already been vilified, is that they will reap their just reward for demanding such high prices in the first place. And then what will happen? The landlords cannot charge more so they must either shave costs from maintenance and other provisions, sell the property (though its value has been decreased because a particular use is not profitable anymore), or, if the situation is dire enough, simply abandon the property altogether and start over somewhere else. One might think this last option is surely a ridiculous stretch but in fact is has happened under rent controls in New York. What is the end result? New housing will not be built because it is not profitable to rent. Demand for current housing will increase because the price being charged is artificially low. Renters are not incentivized to optimize their style of living by sharing accommodations and thus the cost with others (flatmates etc.). The incentive to maintain the current housing drops to zero. There are always plenty of renters to fill the housing and maintenance is therefore not required to keep the units occupied. The signal that the market "sees" is that no housing is desired because nobody will pay for it. It is certainly not desired above what it costs other people to provide. So the availability and quality of housing actually contracts. Opposite from what the intended outcome was. Of course this occurs more gradually than the wave of relief that the initial renters felt and to recognize the cause and effect takes a longer view through time. So rent controls can get a positive reputation despite the failed outcome.

One might object that poor and underprivileged people were not who we had in mind at the outset. We were talking about people with a sense of entitlement who feel that their picture of what they will attain with their lives has not materialized and feel that they are owed the difference between their imagined outcome and reality, and that it is "society's responsibility" to provide it for them. But what is the difference? We are merely describing the person doing the demanding with opposite labels, poor and underprivileged (evoking compassion) or entitled (evoking disdain). It is the act of demanding more than you yourself have provided at the expense of others that is at the heart of it. It is selfishness in the true sense -- involuntary trade where the person with whom you trade estimates that he is the worse off for it but is nevertheless coerced into it. It is selfishness in that his priorities, goals, and estimates of value are not considered. Only if a trade is undertaken free from coercion does it ensure that both parties benefit. It does not matter if party A is underprivileged or any number of compassion evoking labels we can put on them, if party B does not want to make the trade and party A feels somehow gypped by this, they are, by the very definition, acting entitled.

[Ondrej]

Obesity is due to people choosing to sell unhealthy food, packing it with artificial sweeteners and semi-addictive substances, because they will sell more that way than if they sold food that was good for you. In other words, obesity is precisely due to people not "considering others with utmost priority" as you said above. Obesity results from businessmen who appeal to the basest animal instincts and lack of self-control in a society in order to make as much money as possible from its members. It preys on people's weakness of will, exploiting their sinfulness rather than trying to encourage virtue.

Let me address this one again more explicitly. You have this completely backward. In saying "businessmen who appeal to" we are revealing who really has the power. The consumer must be catered to. The businessman has to appeal to something the consumer wants. Let me quote from "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mesis:

The direction of all economic affairs is in the market society a task of the entrepreneurs. Theirs is the control of production. They are at the helm and steer the ship. A superficial observer would believe that they are supreme. But they are not. They are bound to obey unconditionally the captain's orders. The captain is the consumer. [p. 270] Neither the entrepreneurs nor the farmers nor the capitalists determine what has to be produced. The consumers do that. If a businessman does not strictly obey the orders of the public as they are conveyed to him by the structure of market prices, he suffers losses, he goes bankrupt, and is thus removed from his eminent position at the helm. Other men who did better in satisfying the demand of the consumers replace him.

The consumers patronize those shops in which they can buy what they want at the cheapest price. Their buying and their abstention from buying decides who should own and run the plants and the farms. They make poor people rich and rich people poor. They determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantities. They are merciless bosses, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. For them nothing counts other than their own satisfaction. They do not care a whit for past merit and vested interests. If something is offered to them that they like better or that is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors. In their capacity as buyers and consumers they are hard-hearted and callous, without consideration for other people.

Only the sellers of goods and services of the first order are in direct contact with the consumers and directly depend on their orders. But they transmit the orders received from the public to all those producing goods and services of the higher orders. For the manufacturers of consumers' goods, the retailers, the service trades, and the professions are forced to acquire what they need for the conduct of their own business from those purveyors who offer them at the cheapest price. If they were not intent upon buying in the cheapest market and arranging their processing of the factors of production so as to fill the demands of the consumers in the best and cheapest way, they would be forced to go out of business. More efficient men who succeeded better in buying and processing the factors of production would supplant them. The consumer is in a position to give free rein to his caprices and fancies. The entrepreneurs, capitalists, and farmers have their hands tied; they are bound to comply in their operations with the orders of the buying public. Every deviation from the lines prescribed by the demand of the consumers debits their account. The slightest deviation, whether willfully brought about or caused by error, bad judgment, or inefficiency, restricts their profits or makes them disappear. A more serious deviation results in losses and thus impairs or entirely absorbs their wealth.Capitalists, entrepreneurs, and landowners can only preserve and increase their wealth by filling best the orders of the consumers. They are not free to spend money [p. 271] which the consumers are not prepared to refund to them in paying more for the products. In the conduct of their business affairs they must be unfeeling and stony-hearted because the consumers, their bosses, are themselves unfeeling and stony-hearted.

The consumers determine ultimately not only the prices of the consumers' goods, but no less the prices of all factors of production. They determine the income of every member of the market economy. The consumers, not the entrepreneurs, pay ultimately the wages earned by every worker, the glamorous movie star as well as the charwoman. With every penny spent the consumers determine the direction of all production processes and the details of the organization of all business activities. This state of affairs has been described by calling the market a democracy in which every penny gives a right to cast a ballot12. It would be more correct to say that a democratic constitution is a scheme to assign to the citizens in the conduct of government the same supremacy the market economy gives them in their capacity as consumers. However, the comparison is imperfect. In the political democracy only the votes cast for the majority candidate or the majority plan are effective in shaping the course of affairs. The votes polled by the minority do not directly influence policies. But on the market no vote is cast in vain. Every penny spent has the power to work upon the production processes. The publishers cater not only to the majority by publishing detective stories, but also to the minority reading lyrical poetry and philosophical tracts. The bakeries bake bread not only for healthy people, but also for the sick on special diets. The decision of a consumer is carried into effect with the full momentum he gives it through his readiness to spend a definite amount of money.

It is true, in the market the various consumers have not the same voting right. The rich cast more votes than the poorer citizens. But this inequality is itself the outcome of a previous voting process. To be rich, in a pure market economy, is the outcome of success in filling best the demands of the consumers. A wealthy man can preserve his wealth only by continuing to serve the consumers in the most efficient way.

Thus the owners of the material factors of production and the entrepreneurs are virtually mandataries or trustees of the consumers, revocably appointed by an election daily repeated.

There is in the operation of a market economy only one instance in which the proprietary class is not completely subject to the supremacy [p. 272] of the consumers. Monopoly prices are an infringement of the sway of the consumers.

In the case of obesity specifically, it has not affected the population randomly or unanimously as one might expect if the evil businessmen were really in control. In "Coming Apart" Charles Murray, in a section entitled "Lifestyle Choices Tending Toward Cultural Separation", describes some of the differences one sees between the "new upper class" and "mainstream America".

If you want to get a quick sense of just how visibly different the new upper class is from mainstream America, attend parents' night at an elementary school in a zip code with a median income at around the national average and then attend parents' night at an elite private elementary school.

... Another visible difference is weight. In the mainstream school, two-thirds of the parents are overweight and about a third of them are obese (proportions that are consistent with the national distribution from the 2009 survey of obesity by the National Center for Health Statistics). At the elite private school, the parents are, on average, a lot thinner, and obesity is rare, because the new upper class pays a lot of attention to health and fitness. They may work out at their health clubs and be attractively lean or run marathons and look emaciated. They may do yoga for an hour a day or mountain bike on the weekends and swim on the weekdays, but one way or another, they are fat much less often than a random assortment of Americans.

The evil businessmen have no power to demand that anybody eat poorly as demonstrated by this section of society. It is rather, people who eat poorly that demand businessmen cater to their eating preferences.

If you suggest that it is the businessman's fault, I am guessing that the object you are inclining toward is that new regulations are in order that will direct the businessmen to steer the market toward an outcome you find more preferable. In other words, seeing the benefits you yourself enjoy, as a result of your own choices, you would try to see that other people also enjoy those benefits by choosing for them through the use of regulation. But this misses the root cause of the problem, other consumer's choices to eat poorly, and misunderstands who is exerting the power in the market. Cracking down on the businessmen will not change consumer preferences.