“Businesses exist to serve the general welfare.”

Josh…businesses exist to provide return on investments to investors and owners. Nobody starts a business to provide welfare to the general public…that’s not a business. The welfare is a byproduct of the quest for profit. That’s what freedom is all about.

not according to adam smith and his original vision of an economic system outside of feudalism. granted i haven’t read wealth of nations yet. but i’ve been reading 3 books that extensively quote his original material and that is his underlying premise the entire time.

that businesses exist to serve the general welfare of the community. that’s what they are there for. the community. not the individual. the community is the framework. not the individual. what we have today is businesses acting like individuals. with their best interests in mind and the best interests of other individuals (stockholder). thats why all that matters is the bottom line.

for smith and the early contributors to capitalism it was the opposite. the community was the main thing. and you couldn’t or wouldn’t run a business without considering the community. you could separate the two like we have today.

Actually I have not read Adam Smith, so I have no idea where he is coming from (although I understand he was also a libertarian), but from a quick perusal of the Wikipedia article on him, he seems to agree with me: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages…By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.”

While I am not directly familiar with Smith, I am very familiar with the more recent folks like Bastiat, F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises and they were nowhere near such an understanding of capitalism and free markets.

I would also object to any particular individual being “the father” of capitalism since I see capitalism as simply a framework to provide free exchange of goods and services with little or no interference from a government. That is a natural state for people, to be free from interference and outside influence, I would argue, not something artificial, such as socialism or communism where a government dictates all stages of economic exchange.

again . . . i think you’re assuming that i’m looking for some sort of socialism or communism.

the failure of communism has been mistaken for proof of capitalism’s merit, even its invincibility. – benjamin barber

i’m all about free markets. i’m all about capitalism. but it is not an invincible system. what we have today in our country is highly flawed.

would you say that the market has gotten better over the last 50 years or worse?

and would you say that capitalism and its red headed step sister in the west, hyper-consumerism have played a positive constructive role in the rest of the world in the past or a destructive?

i would certainly argue that hyper-consumerism and it’s colonialism of african oil, asian labor, and latin food has made those countries poorer.

and the rewards that we have gotten our that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. and the middle class get more apathetic and fatter.

when a business ceases to look out for the general welfare it is no longer a business but a selfish individual. and in the same way that being selfish on the playground hurts the health of everyone around . . . so selfishness on the economic end produces poor health in the global village.

“when a business ceases to look out for the general welfare it is no longer a business but a selfish individual.”

But Josh, even Smith recognized that the meat that comes to our kitchen table doesn’t come there because of the welfare or benevolence of the butcher, but because of his own selfish interest to sell the meat for a profit. Selfish or not, that is they key to freedom and free exchange, it is what provides for the entire society. If the butcher would not be motivated by his desire to make money, you would have to raise your own pigs and cows, and butcher them yourself.

The analogy of being selfish on the playground is also unworkable; a selfish kid will soon not have anyone to play with because everyone else will avoid him/her. In the end, it all works out – selfish and greedy corporations WILL lose employees, customers and more because of their excessive greed.

When Jesus told the parable of the talants, he did not conclude that those who were given the talants should have given them away as charity; instead of commanded those who invested the talants and doubled the investment. Granted I think the parable is about Israel and has a higher spiritual meaning, it is also a lesson in investment and growth.

i’m not advocating a social welfare system where wealth is redistributed.

and if selfish companies were naturally rooted out, then we wouldn’t have coca-cola and wal-mart and home depot.

but inevitably i find myself in wal-mart because there are some things that i have to buy there because there are no other alternatives places to buy things at. because they were selfish and wanted to suck up all the other stores. they wanted all the toys on the playground. partly because the american public is un-informed (or uncaring) and partly because we like convenience we tolerate the selfish bully. because we don’t have any options.

so in theory the selfish kid would lose all of his friends. but in practice the selfish kid ends up charging people for the toys he stole. and if you want to play on the playground, you have to go and buy or rent the toys from the selfish kid. and even worse, when you’re done playing with them, you owe more than you originally had. you’re upside down. and the local playground is also poorer because there is no more laughter, everyone is suspicious of each other, and kids are more selfish when they actually get a toy. and unwilling to share themselves.

all because of one bully who only cared about himself.

“and if selfish companies were naturally rooted out, then we wouldn’t have coca-cola and wal-mart and home depot.”

I think you are confusing competition with selfishness. Those companies can offer better prices and more products (you even said so) compared to the small traditional stores which could not keep up. Every single one of those stores started as a mom and pop store; they won over others by being better businessmen and getting more customers with creativity and innovation. They did not steal anything from anyone as far as I know, and they are not forcing customers into their stores to purchase their products.

As far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing anywhere in the scripture or law requiring those people to share their profits with others.

Now if you are going to argue that many businessmen are assholes, I will certainly agree with you; there is a fine line between the two.

dude. again i’m not talking about profit sharing. i’m not an idiot. i’m quite familiar with the concept that profit sharing is communism.

for the thousandth time i’m not a communist. i’m a capitalist. and i am not advocating profit sharing. and i think welfare is for the most part an extremely flawed system.

and i’d rather by from 10 mom and pop stores that each specialize in a certain area. than i would shop at a 24 hour multi-stop like wal-mart who is notorious for treating their employees like shit and exploiting 3rd world labor.

i don’t care if they start off as mom and pop stores. thats my point. capitalism starts off good. but like everything else it reaches a “too big” to care point and then they begin to destroy the health and wealth of communities as opposed to building them up.

when businesses begin to destory rather than construct, i stand with the original adam smith quote, that when a business has no regard for the general welfare for a community and only care about their profit margin, bottom line, and having 2 shower heads in their shower . . . they should cease to exist.

“Every single one of those stores started as a mom and pop store; they won over others by being better businessmen and getting more customers with creativity and innovation.”

and if you mean by creativity and innovation you mean destroying 3rd world countries for cheap labor and cheap materials . . . then by all means, that is one of the more creative ways to make money in comparison with the more straight forward way laid out in scripture and through sane thinking economists throughout history. that being a wise steward of the land and resources that have been entrusted to you.

Josh, I understand you are not a communist, or a socialist, but based on your comments I can’t see how you can label yourself as a capitalist

I am also an environmentalist and want fair practices and social justice; my solution to this is freedom and limited government. The Foundation for Economic Education often covers many of those important issues in a framework of morality, law and order. That is the libertarian way; I recommend you take a look at some of their articles and unique approach to economics and free markets.

The difference between you and I is that when we look at walmart for example, I see a story of success, providing employment to millions of people who would otherwise be unemployed. You see an evil corporation that is plotting behind closed doors how to screw over the next customer and employee walking through their doors.

Maybe in a sense we are both right. Has walmart screwed up in the past? Sure. Could they pay their employees more? Of course. Could they do things better? Sure…who couldn’t?

I would really like to let competition sort it all out. We’ve seen huge corporations being bit hard by competition; see K-Mart for example.

I think it was Bastiat who said something like “Competition is merely the absence of oppression.” Anything less I can’t tolerate.

Good stuff dude…I enjoyed the conversation with you. I’ll stop before we both get pissed off at each other.

sounds good. i just think there is something better and beyond profit.

not everything needs to earn a profit. not everyone needs to be a shopper. the goal shouldn’t be profit at all costs. but justice and equality at all costs.

rock on adam smith. rock on.