Confused Justice
Often we see the phrases "widening income gap", "income disparity", and "rising Gini coefficient", but never do we see it referred to as injustice. This is because capitalism is a fair system. Justice essentially is equal opportunity to earn income, not equal income. Those who are more creative, more hardworking, and willing to take more risks are unquestionably rightful to expect more rewards, and to reap all the benefits realised. Likewise, the indolent receives naught. This is just. But the end result of this unfettered capitalism is inevitably extreme income inequality, which as standard economic theory tells us would achieve the highest efficiency gains for the society as a whole, which partly explains its nickname as the dismal science. Among the players, there are winners and losers, but the society as a whole is better off.
We normally measure not our absolute well-being (as in how we fare compared to our predecessors or other countries over time) but relative well-being (relative to our peers, our surroundings). We feel unfair and being left behind to see the affluents in our community, regardless of the improvement from the time of our parents to ours. And governments have to perform outright ransom on the rich to redistribute resources to the poor (i.e. those undeserved) so that everyone enjoys the same benefits (same schools, healthcare, public service etc), to quell the poor’s disquiet. Moreover, we often too readily disregard one of the main losers in this system - the unsuccessful capitalists who have taken risks and failed. The uninformed critics are wholly concerned with how filthy rich the high-flyers are, conveniently ignoring the other side. Therefore, economic growth alone is unstable (though people’s material lives are getting better) and the governments are mandated to orchestrate unjust redistributive programmes (often seen as just) to maintain social order - the so-called "growth-with-equity" model. A corollary is that the rich are already under a compulsory and massive charity scheme. Please think twice in our accusation of them as selfish misers.
The modern system is tilted downward in the income scale. It favours the lower-income group. Those in this group ought to realise that it is their privileges, not their rights, to enjoy the welfare, amenities, benefits and living standards beyond their means which are funded by the rich. They must be appreciative of the largesse not earned by them. Those who abhor this statement can reinvigorate a socialist system, so that everyone is poor and their incomes are nearly equal, and witness for yourself where your definition of justice which does not reward hardwork/risk-taking leads you to. To those who are ready to throw out examples of someone getting rich due not to his diligence but connection or corruption, please note that you are fighting the wrong enemy. Capitalism is not your bull’s eye. It is the politics of it, which exists in all systems.
Note that I am dealing with the idea of justice per se, not with the virtue of embedded liberalism (Ruggie 1982) nor with the demand in an open economy for social transfers to mitigate short-term risk of dislocations due to exposure to external risks (Rodrik 1998; Garrett 2001).
…………………………………………………….
Garrett, Geoffrey (2001), "Globalization and Government Spending around the World", Studies in Comparative International Development, 35/4:3-29.
Rodrik, Dani (1998), "Why Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments?", Journal of Political Economy, 106/5:997-1032.
Ruggie, John Gerard (1982), "International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order", International Organization, 36/2:379-415.
…………………………………………………….
My reply to Adrian:
The importance of wealth distribution is such a common knowledge that one is embarrassed to re-mention. I am not saying that it is inconsequential, rather the gist of my writing is to remind us that this is in fact unfair, as opposed to the public view. And I want the beneficiaries to be appreciative, instead of regarding the kindness of government as their rights. As mentioned, the issue of wealth distribution and well-being in this sense have an emotional appeal, and it so easily blinds our reasoning of justice.
…………………………………………………….
My reply to James:
I thought I am being sufficiently clear that I am not opposed to any form of wealth redistribution. In fact, I champion it. Pure capitalism is unsustainable, and I don’t propose to run it.
The crux of my argument is that we often interpret justice as injustice, and injustice as justice. Income inequality does not come necessarily with injustice. But to maintain social stability, wealth redistribution is indispensable. And the recipients should be aware that they are receiving benefits not earned by them, and to be appreciative of the kindness. Cronyism, lobby groups are not specific to capitalism. I am tired of reiterating it’s not the fault of capitalism. This pattern will exist in whatever system.
On 2nd point, Edmund Phelps made a similar remark too in his article in Wall Street Journal titled "Dynamic Capitalism" on 10 Oct, one day after he received Nobel Prize. The example given is the least advantaged do not have access to quality education. Their opportunities are not that equal. We can see how Singapore attempts to counter it over the yrs, by heavy subsidy + loan to make sure no one forgoes schooling for financial reason.
Again in your 3rd point, in the same way, to think of socialism (or whatever system) as fair is to be a puppet in their game as well. Capitalism is not what u are criticising, it’s the politics, which exists in all frameworks. We can only design incentive structures to minimise the problems.
November 14th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
This is my first read on any of your articles but I am going to be rough because I think that the article lack the heart (and maybe the brains) to understand that for capitalism to succeed, a key will be the distribution of wealth. Look at the difference between the countries that do well and those that don’t. We never measure a society by its richest, we measure it by how the poor are faring… and I am not talking about the economic indicators…
November 14th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
its cool maybe u add more to make it beautiful
November 14th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
what can we expect now? though people suffer economically, government officials and even employers seem not to address all this problems. what they think of is themselves only…this are bunch of selfish morons
November 14th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
hi, im glad that i saw a differnt beautiful pictures im hoping that someday we gonna have chat if it is ok for you! just call me this number for schedule in any transactionto be conduct!thanks again good day!god bless u! this is my cell number 009107109270 or +639107109270
November 14th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Adrian,
The importance of wealth distribution is such a common knowledge that one is embarrassed to re-mention. I am not saying that it is inconsequential, rather the gist of my writing is to remind us that this is in fact unfair, as opposed to the public view. And I want the beneficiaries to be appreciative, instead of regarding the kindness of government as their rights. As mentioned, the issue of wealth distribution and well-being in this sense have an emotional appeal, and it so easily blinds our reasoning of justice.
November 14th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
no cOmMeNt!!
November 14th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
this sounds like a paper in an introductory or 101 undergraduate class in social science…
November 14th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
are you a college student?
November 15th, 2006 at 1:42 am
I agree totally to all that… In no way or time is an economical utopia possible. Its as good as it gets for the poor at the moment; and they should be glad they have what’s been given (although it probably has some part to do with tax deductions & “Free” advertising); the motivations behind the charitable donations are irrelevant.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:27 am
Your entry was listed on my page and I glanced at it…have to just comment. Capitalism as a concept with no outside and historical forces, or in other words as a hypothetical concept appears to be a fair system, but in practice it has been anything but. Obviously this is a complex topic but some simples examples include the fact that capitalism in its pure form has never been practiced, hence there is plenty of inequality, injust, “income disparity”, etc. To believe that any of the current capitalist countries, and I mean any runs a pure form of capitalism is naive. You don’t really believe that there’s no cronyism, big business lobby groups, political coercion, etc. happening behind the public eye? Those are factors in the inequailty in the distribution of wealth, and since these economies operate under the capitalism label, hence you can only say capitalism as a concept seems hypothetically fair, but in practice unfair, otherwise you can say that the system these countries running is not called capitalism.
Secondly, numerous factors such as historical forces render it impossible for capitalism to be fair to start with. Take for example slaves in America. They began with unequal and disadvantaged status and so were never given a equal playing field. It is not possible to expect someone growing up in a household with say US$300 a month and stigma to have “equal opportunity” to a middle class family. The inequality was built in so the basic concept of a level playing field isn’t even available.
The truth is in pratice, capitalism is a disguise for the truly wealthy to perpetuate that wealth. I’m not talking about people who have a few mercedes and patek philippes, but the one’s who are affecting public policy, government, and international trade. To think of capitalism as a fair system is to be a puppet in their game. This is not to say that capitalism as a concept doesn’t have merits, but it is obviously severely flawed.
Obviously such a complex topic cannot be adequately explored in a few paragraphs, you should look at the flip side of the argument and consider further.
November 15th, 2006 at 5:16 am
James,
I thought I am being sufficiently clear that I am not opposed to any form of wealth redistribution. In fact, I champion it. Pure capitalism is unsustainable, and I don’t propose to run it.
The crux of my argument is that we often interpret justice as injustice, and injustice as justice. Income inequality does not come necessarily with injustice. But to maintain social stability, wealth redistribution is indispensable. And the recipients should be aware that they are receiving benefits which are not earned by them, and to be appreciative of the kindness. Cronyism, lobby groups are not specific to capitalism. I am tired of reiterating it’s not the fault of capitalism. This pattern will exist in whatever system.
On 2nd point, Edmund Phelps made a similar remark too in his article in Wall Street Journal titled “Dynamic Capitalism” on 10 Oct, one day after he received Nobel Prize. The example given is the least advantaged do not have access to quality education. Their opportunities are not that equal. We can see how Singapore attempts to counter it over the yrs, by heavy subsidy+loan to make sure no one forgoes schooling for financial reason.
Again in your 3rd point, in the same way, to think of socialism (or whatever system) as fair is to be a puppet in their game as well. Capitalism is not what u are criticising, it’s the politics, which exists in all frameworks. We can only design incentive structures to minimise the problems.
November 15th, 2006 at 6:09 am
Hi Yi Zheng. I find your blog quite thought provoking. But i cannot help but to comment on some of your notions.
Your writeup seems to place capitalism, its “justice” and “injustice” in black and white. I do agree that capitalists should enjoy and reap the benefits of their efforts to bring unto themselves more wealth, just the same as poor people should also work and earn their wealth (although gains from such activity would only reap marginal wealth, especially relative to the rich). However, you devoid capitalists activities from morality. I believe that individuals generating more wealth should not be separated from how they achieve the goal. True, the capitalist’s motivation is to get rich. But how he goes about to achieve that goal is an issue just as important.
Here in the Philippines, many capitalists are able to earn millions, billions, and trillions of pesos because they enter into corrupt deals with the government, they cheat their taxes, they do not remit earnings to the government, they cheat their consumers, they neglect the working conditions of their employees, and so on and so forth. They continuously earn their money in what i truly define as “unjust” ways. I am certain that this doesn’t only happen in our country. I’ve read that this phenomenon is as rampant in other Asian and Latin American countries.
On the sideline, poor people are continously being neglected by the capitalist who form the economic and political elite (since in the Philippines, the group is usually one in the same — both are highly interrelated). While the capitalists continue to enjoy and drown in their wealth that they “earned” through immoral ways, the poor are at the very least “fortunate” to enjoy their scraps or wealth over-runs.
Inequitable? yes. Just? heck no.
November 15th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
There are no perfect solution in this imperfect creation of human !
That’s why human have been swinging the balance from left to right but they have never arrived at it’s balanced position because their imperfectness.
The majority push the minority, the minority raised and defeat the majority only to become the new majority that push the new minority !
Justice can be extremely complicated but simple in the same time. Complicated when we tend to ask others to do justice but simple when we ask ourselves are we just or unjust !
Justice is reflected by do what you want others do for you - not to ask for others !
keen to see your next one…good blog man !
November 15th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Flaunting your intelligence almost always never works. It defeats the purpose of being an intellectual. In the slim chance that you take advice, remember that finding change in your pocket unexpectedly is better than receiving a paycheck in a scheduled time.
I read your home page.
November 15th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
hi
November 16th, 2006 at 12:41 am
the writer(unfortunately) has no idea of what he is talking about. the term ‘appreciative’ of kindness, which i believe refers to social programs executed by ‘governments’ and financed by direct or indirect taxation, investments and trade, is a shallow perspective displayed at the pace of self-humiliation. the writer’s generalized understanding(ridiculously poor) of capitalism and its historicity inevitably trejects his own intellectual death..as if hierarchical mechanisms,contemporarily applied,economically and politically, is intrinsic and absolute in its supposed disposition for a qualitative society. the terms ‘rights’ and ‘justice’ is just poorly understood and interpreted from a cliched central rightists’ excuses for everything. everything is constructed, nothing is ‘natural’ in economics so the concept kindness is hierarchical mentality translated through a sick moral empiricity.
how come your blog got featured? isnt there any simple intelligence out there?
and not to mention the remarks by theses other insipids..
November 16th, 2006 at 7:26 am
Hey, are you suggesting communism as a way of wealth redistribution?
November 17th, 2006 at 2:40 am
There are nothing absolute in the world. It is difficult to define ‘justice’ however it only count for an individual whoever gets the benifit, from my point of view.
I agree with what u said “Those who are more creative, more hardworking, and willing to take more risks are unquestionably rightful to expect more rewards, and to reap all the benefits realised. Likewise, the indolent receives naught.” . But there are time when the so called ‘winner’ should give to the more unfortunate because in one way or another, not everyone are given the same apportunity.
All this are rule by a chain of thoughts, actions, habits,and even the entire civilizations. Not every one stands an equal chance. There are time when the so called ‘looser’ have to obey the rule.
Can u chose to be born in a wealthy family or a poverty stiken one? U cant . Sometimes , somehow , something are meant to be like that and this reason is fair enough for the ‘winner’ to share and give.( to certain extend’) and fair enough for the ‘looser’ to work with what they have and earn what they can.
Justice have different meaning for everyone so dun trouble yourself to ask so much about it cos u can have your own definition.
November 17th, 2006 at 4:32 am
Your analysis is all right, except that it’s a bit shallow. One does not take a purely cold and distant perspective when discussing wealth distribution especially involving disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor. It’s more than that, as the question of social responsibility and intergrating good moral values in each other still applies.
It’s a good start though. Good effort.
November 17th, 2006 at 6:32 am
so many arguments here! one thing is for sure, until the very end we’ll never run out of problems to resolve. this is what we are wrought to do as people of the world.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:19 am
wala lng nmn
November 17th, 2006 at 7:20 am
Justice n Injustice it’s only idea. Where is a value, there a choice of “Who” in the people get’s benefit in society Rich and Poor is a fix to appear. There allways someone’s in the people who get’s benefit from society. In any culture there allways appear people as working class and people above it’s to control and maintain it’s power or the world will just crumble. The Streght of this people almost equal of the streght of the nation. If they fall so will the nation.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
We have to accept that life is not perfect & that in this world not all things are fair.Yet, your blog is thought-provoking but i wonder how simple people would fully understand the high-falutin words in your blog?please read the Cinderella Story in this blog: http//prisco.friendster.com/priscos.familyfriends/
then tell me what’s your comment to this colorful story?
November 17th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
Do not be selective of what you want to receive. Pursuance is futile without an open mind. Life is like this because it is Life. Dwell on these and you may succeed.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Wow!
Firstly I would like to say “good on you mate” for your blog entry. It is a refreshing change to see an author submit a blog entry that doesn’t have anything to do with “how cute a dress looks” or “my trip to the shopping mall” or “how I got wasted in a night”.
Although I don’t much agree with Syed, he is correct in the respect that your proposition (for lack of a better term) does not clearly define certain concepts.
You mentioned that in the current economic system, people who are more hardworking, more creative and more willing to take risks are unquestionably rightful to expect more rewards. When you say hard work, do you mean labor or do you mean contributive labor? When you mention risks, are you referring to all risks in general or financial risks? When you say creativity, do you mean artistic or problem-solving?
A janitor may be creative in removing stains, work from day to night and be exposed to dangerous cleaning chemicals. Should he or she make more than a CEO of a company who sits at home only to appear when there are board decisions that are required of him or her? If you are skeptical about janitors, how about doctors? A doctor who specifically practices medicine can never earn what Bill Gates earns in his or her lifetime. Does that mean Bill Gates is more creative, hardworking and courageous in taking risks?
Now thirdly, a ton of people have mentioned corruption and a variety of vices that do indeed exist in other economic systems. What about inheritance, however? Inheritance causes the perpetuation of inequality, and there is no justice here in that the individual did not have to work for his money. You might counter this by saying that the individual would have to work hard to keep the money but that is not true. As long as one is not frivolous in handling the money, it might not necessarily deplete. This problem does not exist for socialistic economic systems. Would it be justice then? The poor did not choose to be born poor.
Now how about prodigies? Prodigies get more results even with the same input of energy expended by normal folks. The work is the same but the results yielded by the prodigy would indeed be rated as more valuable by society. Equal opportunity only works if individuals are equal.
November 18th, 2006 at 2:45 am
I would rather think that the rich would benefits from having “injustice” done. Would one rich prefer to live beside a slum, housing the poor? Would one rich prefer a street full of homeless, sickly people and corpses? Would one rich prefer to pay more taxes? (I doubt that is a large enough middle class) Given the mobility and the wealth the rich have, they can jolly well pack up and move to a country that does not redistribute wealth or they can fund their political ambition to champion for their “justice”.
November 18th, 2006 at 4:27 am
The greatness of your blog is manifested not by the number of posts but by the fact that the posts evidence a stir-up of minds. Congratulations. I was intellectually stimulated by your article and by posts of other bright people (especially the one by Eugene); and entertained by posts of the not-so-bright people.
Economics as an independent discipline is very wanting. It must be embodied in philosophy, and ultimately in religion. Pls. don’t be shocked. I was an economics major (didn’t finish the course though) and wanted to be an atheist, but I can’t. There is so much spirituality in this world to ignore.
Capitalism is detrimental to that spirituality. Your concept of justice is very capitalist.
I invite you to re-study the economics of James Redfield, Thoreau, BF Skinner and EF Schumacher. You may disagree (except obviously for the last) but these thinkers are some of the greatest economists in history.
Thanks for a really great blog!
November 18th, 2006 at 7:22 am
Pathetic. You’re all miserably missing the big picture. Intelligent you may sound, but dumb for not keeping the “issue” on the ground. Plain and simple guys… the rich desperately need the poor, for without them they wouldn’t be filthy rich! duh!!! The problem with you “wise” guys is that you over analyze but under realize! If everyone were rich… who would toil the earth for the grains, vegetables, and fruits for your fine mahogany dining tables; lovingly raise livestock for your (shhh/quiet) cholesterol rush that you’re all in denial about, bold the seas and fish for your “faddish” sushi? Who would cut and mill the wood, smelt the iron, quarry the stones, blow the glass, recycle the plastics for your “proud as could be” houses (note: I didn’t say homes… you know the idiom)? Who would delicately weave the strands, artistically dye the cloth, masterfully sew the patterns for your… “oh, look what I’m wearing” designer suits… every damn season? Need I say more? And what’s this about government taxation??? Hello!!! Did you guys come from another space-time-dimension??? How simple do you want me to put it? If the government does not in some measure “apeace” the lowly poor, the impoverish hungry, the unfortunately uneducated masses with the mere “peanuts” the rich are paying (I’m sorry, did I offend anyone? I meant… contributing) in the form of net-net-net taxes (after expert tax advisers find so-called loopholes, which they in-fact, built-in themselves… ever heard of lobbyists?) then fine… might as well welcome thieves into your houses, rapists into your bedrooms, and kidnappers into your schools. Bottom-line, the rich perpetuate the existence of the poor and vice-versa… it’s a time and tested evil– if you will–necessity! Let this be the last word(s)… Go out and buy a new Rolex (cuz the old one don’t work stupid!) so you can accurately tell how much time you’ve wasted on this moot and academic non-issue.
November 18th, 2006 at 8:12 am
= )
How nice things look when there is somebody gracious enough to bless people with an ability to put things into perspective. Well, gerry what you say is obviously true. The thing is however, the article was about whether or not there is really justice in capitalism, not reasons why there are rich and poor people. And I think you spelt appease incorrectly. I do find your comment very amusing however.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:14 am
An excellent blog post, I must say. For awhile, I thought most Singaporeans in this generation couldn’t be bothered to see the bigger picture.
Though I acknowledge that I’m not exactly well-informed of the subject, I’ll sey my 2 cents anyway…
I’ll say this: Capitalism is what it is. It isn’t right or just, or wrong and immoral. It perpetuates wealth and forms vicious proverty cycles, and yet it improves the economy as a whole.
Just like evolution, it’s the survival of the fittest. I would put an analogy, but Eugene up there has already done so.
Props to you Yi Zhang. From my experience, an understanding in economics generally brings out facts and truths that no one wants to hear.
November 18th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
capitalism, like all other political-economic systems, is a by-product of human ingenuity and frailty altogether. no absolutism can be attributed to capitalism. no guarantee can be made. neither can be done in a socialist model. one thing, however, is absolute, and that is the declaration of human rights, that every human being has the right to live with dignity and humaneness, and that it is the responsibility of every person to uplift the conditions of everyone else. let it be manifested that the upper class has long violated and abused the labors of the working class. the proletariat has always been the backbone of every economic system. it is of supreme error to say that the poor is undeserving of the government’s aid, to say the least. for their fact of being poor entails the truism that the rich has left nothing for them. the rich has owned every land to till, every business to venture, and every opportunity which could have been that of the poor. capitalism is the shield of the rich. the justification of oppression and the vangard of the status quo.
the world has limited resources, theres not enough for everyone. in a socialist society, everyone may be poor- but at least everyone has enough. but then, the thought exhibits the possibility that when everyone works together, somehow better things can come about. men are to be treated equally, though not born in the same way. but equal opportunity must be given to everyone. and that means giving everyone what is deserving of a human being: the right education and a decent standard of living.
to say that the poor is stealing from the rich is the biggest fallacy one could ever think of. for nobody has ever become rich simply on his own efforts. and nobody has ever compensated the poor in as much as he deserves.
the fish can never swim as far as the birds could fly. but if the fish were given wings, perhaps they could have the chance.
November 18th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Hello Eugene, how apt… in my world, “Eugene” is almost always the pseudonym of the nerdiest guy in class; and I thank you for your half compliment.
If you read, or better, comprehend the article more closely… you will understand that yes, the author indeed questions the “just or unjust” institutions of capitalism. But see, the author specifically utilizes the concept or practice of income redistribution as his underlying argument. That, my good friend, is flawed and unfair. You cannot blame capitalism nor its institutions for a socio-economic reality that has existed since the dawn of civilizations in all its forms and systems, economic or political. Hence my comments… more simply stated for you… there will always be the rich who need the poor, and the poor who need the rich, and governments to act as guardians to this symbiotic relationship to ensure socio-economic order. Are you familiar with the “Paradox of Thrift”? Well, it’s similar… If everyone “saves” there will be no “investment” spending, therefore no economic activity; governments’ role is to ensure that this paradox doesn’t happen… enter: monetary policies. A more intelligent writer, in my view, should not have taken the “easy” route. Instead, one should have cited other more challenging and highly questonable facets of capitalism… like CONGLOMERATION! Think about it Eugene… sooner or later (but luckily and definitely not within my lifetime) we’ll all be directly or indirectly employed by one capitalistic employer… Uncle Sam 
I am glad I amused you. You take care.
November 18th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Gerry, plz resist the temptation to mislead others in economic reasoning behind the Paradox of Thrift.
It dwells on economic theory, rather than the topic of my post. The defenders of capitalism and globalisation are always in the minority. And we are taking the “harder” route, as opposed to the “easy” route, which would be conforming with the public (as shown in the comments) in denouncing capitalism and its defenders, even for a wrong reason. As Joel points out, “an understanding in economics generally brings out facts and truths that no one wants to hear”, and I have no intention to respond individually.
But the mistake in this basic economic theory is too fundamental a flaw. Usually u can find a discussion of it under the chapter of Goods market, in deriving IS curve for the Goods market in equilibrium. Everything is the total opposite of what u propound. Saving = Investment, which means more economic activity. The Paradox states that higher saving in the short run brings lower demand and lower income, but higher income in the long run when investments are ongoing and have borne fruit. And governments’ role, especially in East Asia (Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, and now China), are to make sure this does happen. Their emphases are in the long run. Also, look for this not under monetary policies, but fiscal policy.
I loathe to make this kind of reply…
November 18th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Justice is determined by the strongest. The victor writes history. Laissez faire survived the test of time. Nations adopting the socialist economic system are largely impoverished, the people oppressed and depressed. Look at China, why did they restructure their system? Because they realized the era of socialism has come to pass,it is no longer relevant.
A quote from the late Sir Winston Churchill
” The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”
November 18th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
What justice? Is there ever a just thing in this world. Everything just degenerates to the survival of the fittest. He who has the strongest genes is therefore gifted by the Gods of nature with the resources to obtain materials with which to increase his seed. From the earliest moments of the Earth’s history to the advent of homo sapiens, mother nature has set the primary standards for the propagation of just the right, the strongest species. Thus the most capable one-celled organism prevailed during the primordial soup era and formed over millions of years into rampaging dinosaurs. Then the pseudo-humans appeared, with the eventual emergence of the political homo sapiens as the victor in the struggle for control of the world’s resources.
Homo Sapiens by its bloody and violent self instituted its own guidelines in determining the yardstick by which measure the total worth of a nation or race. War. This and nothing else justifies the means by which nations must define their status and territory. The Israelites, then as now, with the blessing of thier all-powerful God, wrested control of fertile lands through the force of arms. So are the Persians, the Assyrians, and countless other empires that vanguised other peoples while the goddess of history passively watched. The mighty Roman empire held sway over the known world for centuries before her military/economic/ and cultural strength waned and succumbed to the brute force of barbarians.
There is no difference today. The Unitied States is endowed by nature with the awesome power and wealth to control the economy and destiny of most of the world upon her devastating victories in the two global wars and the cold war. Justice and democracy may have been adopted from the Greeks but only one entity, the US has the power to grant these gifts to people it favors.
What race and civilization then will prevail? Its not a question of ideology but whoever will develop the strongest technology to destroy other nations or terrorize them into submission.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:16 am
Wow, I am truly honored… a dedicated direct response from Mssr. Yi Zheng. Hmmmm… If my extreme rendition of the thrift paradox is not palatable to your keen understanding of economic theory, then I stand corrected and apologize. In my simple mind, however, I just wonder what “if” every one (for some reason) decides to save… true, since S=I, there should be that much availaible for investments to stir economic activity; but who would invest in goods and services if no one is spending? That’s why it’s a paradox! You are right of course, because in the long run this scenario might never happen… because government economic managers will ensure that lending rates are sufficiently at levels to induce investment spending; and last I checked… manipulation of interest rates through open market operations, reserve ratios, and/or discount rate adjustments all fall under monetary policy. To lighten your mood further… let me just say this to all the young, budding economists out there… don’t take my word for it… do your own research. The thrift paradox, i used, only as an analogy to the rich man — poor man debacle… that if there were no poor, there would be no rich! Oh and by-the-way, please forgive us poor for not thanking you rich enough for the dole-outs you so graciously provide… we’re too busy looking for our next meal!
Thank you for your reply albeit loathingly… don’t expect praises 100% of the time. A.Einstein: “Genius has always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”
November 19th, 2006 at 2:11 am
Have u been to many places? ur arguments may be applicable to some countries. but then very limiting… maybe u should rewrite this and bring in more convincing arguments. this blog is more like u convincing urself. not effective to people in another place. maybe i should mail to you sometime a more vivid reason as to why im encouraging u to substantiate ur arguments…
November 19th, 2006 at 3:00 am
I agree with Gerry that the article discusses something moot and academic. But a non-issue? If this is a non-issue, what is? It’s good to be critical, but let us mind our terms. And a waste of time? In contrast to what? To a more practical beer drinking spree? I enjoy these exchanges including hits below the belt. Calling the participants pathetic and dumb is very insincere. Did Gerry mean it? Did he also mean it when he said he was poor, and busy looking for his next meal? Indeed, there are other important issues as well, like honesty to one’s self and sincerity in expressing our views.
November 19th, 2006 at 3:24 am
beautiful….!
November 19th, 2006 at 6:37 am
My “kabayan” (fellow countryman) Emmanuel, how are you this fine evening? I’d like to meet with you one day over “a more practical beer drinking spree”
to determine (between us) who has a more open mind… as you say you do. I suppose (it’s quite obvious) you will win hands down… because if you find the thoughts of a self-proclaimed ELITIST mentally stimulating… who skews his cerebral prowess to demand a “THANK YOU” from the under privileged members of society (where it should be he who should thank us for making his life meaningful! For providing him with the comforts so that he can sit back and ponder his richness!)… then I’m afraid you have opened your mind to a “Pandora’s Box.” Open mindedness is a listening skill and not a convenient characteristic (dare I say, excuse?) for ignorance. Pardon my “french terms.” Believe me when I say… I am actually being kind. That, “ka” (same) “bayan” (country), is genuine sincerity!
Oh, and lastly, should you per chance in the future revert back to your aetheistic tendencies, make sure you change your name… just for consistency
May you be enlightened. Ingatz.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Hi,
Thank you for your reply but given your response I think it’s necessary to clarify a few things. First of all, I make no mention that you oppose wealth distribution nor do I propose wealth redistribution as even a preferred method of balancing the rich-poor gap.
Secondly, to be quite honest even to make sweeping statements involving “justice” and “injustice” as well as “fair” and “unfair” without any qualification is meaningless. You jump between the two freely as if they are equivalent. And again, whose justice are we talking about? Justice in Singapore is quite obviously different from the US or France or Germany or Pakistan or Jordan. What’s fair on the other hand is quite different between Bill Gates, Osama Bin Laden, George Bush, Hitler, Gandhi, the thousands of children dying of starvation in developing countries or that 10 year old making shoes in a factory.
Next, wealth in capitalism is hardly always earned, and therefore there is no reason that the less wealthy should be aware that “they are receiving benefits not earned by them, and to be appreciative of the kindness”. The rich are receiving the most benefits that they did not earn in a capitalist system, so should they be appreciating everyone for their kindness? Again I point out all the protectionism and measures in place that purport to uphold “capitalistic free markets” (and I do say that sarcastically), and to perpetuate the rich becoming richer. So let’s take out the cronyism, which feeds the “un-capitalistic” rules and regulations that perpetuate the growing income-gap. So I quote the title of your essay, which so aptly describes your thesis. It is indeed confused justice because capitalism has nothing to do with justice, and can hardly be called fair unless it is further qualified with hard facts and reasons.
Also, you unfortunately used the quite elementary fallacy of either-or thinking when you suggest that I think any other system is therefore fair. I do not mention any other system nor do I support socialism or what not as the answer. I purely point out that capitalism in my opinion has been proven to be unfair, this can be evidenced by the current state of the global economy.
The crux of your argument is really just an unqualified opinion, like someone saying Burger King’s hamburgers are good because they are prepared better.
However, it’s a very important and complex topic that people should think about, and that’s good that the topic is raised. However, the thesis and point of your writing is sorely vague, biased, and unsupported. Remember, the onus is on the person who makes an assertion to back it up with facts and unbiased information. Topics like these cannot be taken personally, or else nothing constructive will come from it. My main point originally was just to say that capitalism in my opinion, is unfair. It is also outdated. It does have its merits, but just like communism, it should be scrapped for something better. And hopefully through intelligent discussion a better system can evolve.
Lastly, the quoting of Winston Churchill for this topic is quite comical. You might as well quote Big Bird from Sesame Street, at least Big Bird has integrity. You’re quoting someone who also said: about using chemcial weapons: “I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.” and about indigenous people: “I do not admit… that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia… by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race… has come in and taken its place.”.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
Sorry, the last paragraph is not intended for the blogger, but for one of the comments…where I incredibly saw Winston Churchill’s name used. It’s the one after one of the blogger’s response, so just wanted to clarify that.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
As they always say,,,” Let Justice Prevail!” more like of Justice League… I guess
More power
November 21st, 2006 at 1:03 am
Facts with probable caused would mean alot,to anybody else they would intitled with their own opinion but I can say as of today how a person, an individual behavior prevail on justice either he/she had done wrong.The justice system in our country would be fair then if not be colored to political powers.The big fishes can do much on unbalanced situation that’s why poor ones becoming poorer and the richmen becoming richer.I believed that education to this matter would be look up.
November 21st, 2006 at 2:06 am
Well done everyone!! For such a deep and intelligent comments from you all, especially from James, Eugene, Gerry, Michael, Alex, & Emmanuel. Each of you express your point of view very well and i can say deserve to be more look up by Yi Zheng as a reference, to improve his next proposition. I felt like attending a class…=) Good indeed, to re-charge my brain!
Wait to read more of your proposition Yi Zheng! Hope it will also raise more comments to exchange more opinions and views, and at the same time to discover more intellectuals..
November 21st, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Capitalism is not fair. It is not fair because in this sytem, capital breeds capital. Those that do not have the capital necessary will always be left behind by those that do have it in abundance, regardless of talent, and absent of any catastrophic events that drive those with capital to be penniless.
The public schools, universal health care, and public services are meant for the poor to be able to catch up somehow with the rich. Without any governmental assitance or philantropies, the poor in a pure capitalism system will not be able to afford good education and health care, thus creating an endless cycle of poverty. That is why taxes should be progressive, not flat or regressive. Yes, the poor should be thankful for the subsidies, but it is not just for the interest for the poor, but for the interest of the society and nation.
No, I’m not advocating a pure socialist system. Socialism nor capitalism in the extreme works well. It’s always in the middle, and in reality, most societies and nations always fall somewhere in the middle. Too much subsisides distorts, level playing field leaves behind the poor.
The world is not black and white. It’s various shades of gray.
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:30 am
I was just wondering, if words thousands of years ago (as that of Buddha or Jesus to take the more well-known examples) still rang true today, doesn’t that mean that humanity is facing the same problems as ever?
If there is reincarnation and karma, isn’t the life what each one of us is given, or has, simply reflects the ‘result’ or manifestations of our previous lifetimes? The well-to-do must’ve done something right in their last lifetimes, while the not so… That’s the drill.
If most of the rich are unjust in achieving their wealth, then are most of the poor just?
The greatest power that a person can have is the Will to change to be better, to have that faith to persist and try to progress.
I think the rich became rich (at least the ones who lifted themselves up and not because of inheritance or some preordained event) because they have the Will and that created their chance to be there when the good, right timing strikes (so-called luck and fortune).
The poor who unintentionally believes that they cant get out of poverty unwittingly remains poor, don’t they? They will remain in that cycle that they can get out, if they are willing, if they are aware.
For example, why does the people at the poverty line (or a little above it anyway) (or people who simply doesn’t care about the kids but sex) in this country (Philippines at the moment) or elsewhere keeps on having sex and giving birth to so many children that they obviously cannot afford to send to school or have enough to eat and eventually end up in the streets and slums and god knows where else and has to rely on outside (philanthropic perhaps) support? It is common that many at 18 (and younger) have had to start working to support their own parents (who are most likely too old to work to support themselves or just plain weary), their sisters and brothers, sometimes even their relatives however distant (particularly of overseas workers who then thinks that the oversea working cousin or brother or sister or aunt are now obliged to support them as well).
Who is responsible? Who is irresponsible?
Has anyone seen Bruce Almighty?
Maybe this is totally out of topic, nevertheless interrelated and interdependent.
Everything starts in the mind. Unfortunately, financial literacy and the leverage of the mind cant be found in the academic curriculum explicitly.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:58 am
i think that both capitalism and socialism or any other structure at that will create injustice…thus the need for state intervention (income redistribution). I am an advocate of capitalism myself and i have a complete trust on markets. I do believe that capitalism has its downside, that is exactly why government is there… but not all market failures (income inequality) requires government intervention because there are also things as government failures (trust me this is more prevalent than market failures). Income redistribution is good, but like Yi Zheng said, it is the politics that operate within the capitalist system which isn’t working. Two reasons could be behind this; i. Corruption (the obvious), ii. government ignorance. Corruption is almost self-explanatory. It is probably the biggest source of inefficiency in any system existing today. The lure of money and the power that comes with it is part to blame…but lets not blame the system where it is found, lets blame the people who work the system down. The second reason is probably the most controversial…government ignorance. The problem with the politics behind sound economics is that it just doesn’t sound good. Even if a lump-sum subsidy to expand the disposable income of the poor is better than a specific subsidy on health care, politics will dictate tell a different story. It is always better for a politician to be seen distributing Medicare, than to just give them money and leave them to spend it on their own in whatever way they want to. From a political stand point…giving money outright does not have the drama of Medicare- in fact to some it makes government look like a factory for money…not a social force. But, both policies are just that…taking money from one group and giving it to another. The difference is that in lump-sum subsidy, we let the person decide what he/she needs most, in specific subsidy, the person who isn’t sick won’t be needing Medicare…he would be needing food on the table. The problem with this set-up is that it does not allow the market to tell the truth. Specific subsidies are always a waste of money- except for disaster reliefe operations- because it does not allow the people to tell the government what they need most- food not insurance, education not a house, etc. With lump sum subsidy, the government can then monitor how these people are spending money to get an idea where to focus development on- health care or education, food security or employment? But, to oppose and criticize a politician distributing Medicare is almost suicidal for another politician…so, politics starts a vicious cycle of ineptness and inefficiency.
You see, its not the system…its the people. Redistribution must come with the mind…not the heart!
December 20th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
no single rules apply for every condition.
what normally economist failed is when they see things in ideal while businessman/politicians exploit the human nature
January 16th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Well said, everyone.
Whether we like it or not, capitalism is deeply entrenched in today’s societies.
Almost everyone will ask thyself “What’s in it for me” before we proceed with certain sets of action.
While being fully aware that knowlegde is a double-edged sword, why do we continue pursuing it? To maximize your brain or maximize wealth?
The more we read and understand about economics, the more critical we become on almost any policies. Sometimes the govt plays the good guy, at other times it’s a bad guy. There’s nothing wrong with it.
It goes to show that Everyone has a mind of its own.
When You think & decide by all yourself, you’re deemed as a ‘tyrant’.
When you reach consensus within a group, another group may not reap the full benefits, thus conflicts arise.
A group of economists can at most put up some very good arguments and give advice to a pair of listening ears. The final decision still invariably rest with the political leader, or whatsoever. This gap can bring a whole lot of difference.
When will an Economist crossover and become a Policy-maker or Politicians, if you like?
For some personal agenda? or to truly serve the public?
Can social ills be completely eradicated?
February 1st, 2007 at 4:55 am
Education…equal education, FINANCIAL EDUCATION, CREATIVE EDUCATION, EDUCATION THAT INSPIRES = great equalizer. Sadly, nowhere in the Philippine curricula. Thus…
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:29 pm
hi
April 30th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
well. I am a big fans here, even someone wondered why ur blog was featured. U know, sometimes people talk a lot and he considers others as insipids, but it’s ok, since the stupidity of human beings may be infinity. I wonder why there’re so many people argue about the defitnition of capitalism, i went through every single comment and find out that, people keep debating about capatalism, and for me, definition of any words is debatable, depends on where u stay, and what u feel it might be correct. And it’s understandable. The argument here is quite rough, and if i have half of the intelligence of Yi Zheng, i think i will spend more days to express this unsatisfaction, which was kept for decades.
I am very agree with this sentence,
“Justice essentially is equal opportunity to earn income, not equal income..” You cant blame when u r not relatively hard working and then, asking for something shouldn’t belong to u. Wealth re-distribution??? Well it’s for social stability but not for your advantage to remain in your slacky position. It sounds stupid when u get something from other’s hardwork.
The best sentence is ..
“Those in this group ought to realise that it is their privileges, not their rights, to enjoy the welfare, amenities, benefits and living standards beyond their means which are funded by the rich. They must be appreciative of the largesse not earned by them.” This sentence is briliant, if u really understand what’s going on.
I know my post is quite stupid. But u know what, everything is sensitive, and the worst situation occurs when these sensitive parts cause some group has their privileges and always lack behind. And i think this blog is just for Yi Zheng to express his unsatisfaction, and it’s tired when people keep arguing when they dont know what u intend to say, but cant say it clearly. That’s all.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Hi… I just browse around and i see your page and about your blog..
and this time everything is about capitalism.. you are right.. people who are rich will be richer and poor become poorer.. but its all back to us i think.. its back to our skill.. if we have skill and can compete to this world.. we can survive.. i dont know how to explain… but this is my thinking.. so what we need is good education, be smart and luck… (^^)