Is capitalism a religion?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I'm starting to think that it is. People seem to get all defensive when you dare to criticize it, as if it's their religion or something.

Capitalism is like a religion that worships the green, wrinkly god with Presidents' faces and numbers on it.

[Gabu]

No.  It has no deity (money is not exactly an omnipotent sentient being), nor any prescribed way of life.

However, there are many who (quite foolishly, in my opinion) completely refuse to admit any fault in the free market whatsoever.

[Frodo]

No more than socialism or communism in their heyday.   

[GOP = Terrorists]

No more than socialism or communism in their heyday.   

But no less either.

[MaC]

No.  It has no deity (money is not exactly an omnipotent sentient being), nor any prescribed way of life.

However, there are many who (quite foolishly, in my opinion) completely refuse to admit any fault in the free market whatsoever.

There are faults as in any system, but it does work a good deal more effectively than government controlled economies.

[opebo]

However, there are many who (quite foolishly, in my opinion) completely refuse to admit any fault in the free market whatsoever.

There are faults as in any system, but it does work a good deal more effectively than government controlled economies.

All economies are State controlled, CC.

[MaC]

However, there are many who (quite foolishly, in my opinion) completely refuse to admit any fault in the free market whatsoever.

There are faults as in any system, but it does work a good deal more effectively than government controlled economies.

All economies are State controlled, CC.

True to some extent.  The line of ambiguity I should've made clear is that government is in control of production-ex. socialism.  As a general rule the less government involvement in an economic system, the better.

[Bono]

Only for randroids.

[Gabu]

No.  It has no deity (money is not exactly an omnipotent sentient being), nor any prescribed way of life.

However, there are many who (quite foolishly, in my opinion) completely refuse to admit any fault in the free market whatsoever.

There are faults as in any system, but it does work a good deal more effectively than government controlled economies.

No arguments from me on this point, for the most part.  If you're not in the group I described, I was not talking about you.

[MODU]

Anything can be a religion.  If you put faith and hope into an idea or object, you raise it to a higher level. 

[Emsworth]

To some people, capitalism certainly is a religion. Ayn Rand comes to mind as a capitalism-worshipper; she and her fellow "objectivists" believed that capitalism was the only moral system in history.

While the morality of capitalism is debatable, it is certainly quite clear that capitalism is the most efficient economic system. Even Marxists admit it.

[Gabu]

I use my wealth for the good of all.

But you haven't killed yourself yet.

[Citizen James]

No.  It has no deity (money is not exactly an omnipotent sentient being), nor any prescribed way of life.

However, there are many who (quite foolishly, in my opinion) completely refuse to admit any fault in the free market whatsoever.

Well, you could say mammon (material wealth and power) - which does get biblical reference as a competing faith.

By the formal definition of a religion, a group which venerates and follows a specific diety or dieties - no, it isn't.   In looser terms of a set of philosophical ideas that some people get dogmatic about - sure, I suppose so.

Like most economic systems, it is pretty good in theory.  Unlike many economic systems, capitalism can be made to work quite efficiently if there are safeguards in place to keep dealings above board and prevent monopolies and similar practices which harm the general good in favor of short term gain for a few.

[Gabu]

Like most economic systems, it is pretty good in theory.  Unlike many economic systems, capitalism can be made to work quite efficiently if there are safeguards in place to keep dealings above board and prevent monopolies and similar practices which harm the general good in favor of short term gain for a few.

The ironic part of capitalism and the free market is that, sometimes, government intervention can actually help along the idealized model in economic theory.  The problem with the free market is that there are two very large assumptions made in economic theory, which are overlooked by most of those who advocate a pure laissez-faire system:

1. That people will always act in a rational manner; and
2. That people will always pursue the course of action that will bring themselves the most benefit.

The first assumption is just flat-out wrong sometimes.  Segregation is an excellent example of people acting in a fundamentally irrational manner.

The second assumption could be improved by stating it as, "That people will always pursue the course of action that they think will bring themselves the most benefit."  Were the second assumption true in the unaltered form given above, scams would be unheard of and con artists would not receive any business whatsoever.  One might note that people taken by scam artists are generally not acting in a rational way, and one might think that the failure of the first assumption is necessary for the failure of the second; however, this is not so.  Even if the first assumption is true, rational people can still make the second assumption fail: the classic example of this is the Prisoner's Dilemma, where people, acting in a purely rational and logical way, completely and utterly fail to achieve the best outcome possible; rather, they achieve the worst outcome possible, as no one benefits at all in any way.

When either of these assumptions fails, the free market system fails as well, and simply leaving it up to the free market will not solve a thing.

[Emsworth]

The first assumption is just flat-out wrong sometimes.  Segregation is an excellent example of people acting in a fundamentally irrational manner.

Left to itself, the free market certainly would not have embraced segregation. Segregation was caused primarily by government intervention.

Consider, for example, what happened in the South during the late nineteenth century. Several companies resisted "separate but equal" laws, because paying for separate facilities for different races was expensive. The famous case Plessy v. Ferguson, which challenged the validity of a Louisiana railroad segregation law, was brought with the encouragement of the railroad companies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Leaving the free market alone might not solve anything, but government interference will tend to make things worse. So-called market failures are caused, not solved, by the government.

[Alcon]

Small southern towns with white majorities would probably have been more than happy to keep their segregated shop systems, because - aside from occasional agitations - it's what worked for them.  Say what you will about the benefits of the free market, but that's not one thing it would have fixed nearly fast enough to be just.

[Emsworth]

Say what you will about the benefits of the free market, but that's not one thing it would have fixed nearly fast enough to be just.

Well, the purpose of the free market system is not justice, equality, or fairness, but the efficient distribution of goods and services. If the ultimate goal is justice rather than efficiency, then, I suppose, you might support a different economic system.

In my personal opinion, however, no system is more just than pure capitalism, in which all economic transactions are voluntary and in which personal freedom is maximized.

[Alcon]

Say what you will about the benefits of the free market, but that's not one thing it would have fixed nearly fast enough to be just.

Well, the purpose of the free market system is not justice, equality, or fairness, but the efficient distribution of goods and services. If the ultimate goal is justice rather than efficiency, then, I suppose, you might support a different economic system.

In my personal opinion, however, no system is more just than pure capitalism, in which all economic transactions are voluntary and in which personal freedom is maximized.

Personal freedom is not necessarily maximised.  The potential for freedom is.  On the other hand, if you are born into an economically depressed area where a good education is unaffordable and inaccessible, the potential for total freedom is not there beyond luck.  Personal freedom may be theoretically maximised, but in practise, this is far from always true.

[opebo]

Say what you will about the benefits of the free market, but that's not one thing it would have fixed nearly fast enough to be just.

Well, the purpose of the free market system is not justice, equality, or fairness, but the efficient distribution of goods and services. If the ultimate goal is justice rather than efficiency, then, I suppose, you might support a different economic system.

Each person will judge each economic system subjectively, Emsworth, so to the vast majority - the working class - the 'efficiency' of the capitalist system is of no use.  To them it is higly inefficient at serving their interests, however efficient it may be at serving the interests of the owners.  Efficiency as in which system can produce the most from a given economy is of course of little interest to individuals, except as it effects their interests.

So, laissez faire capitalism fails the interest test for the great majority of people because of its distribution of production, and socialism fails the test (I am willing to assume) because of its inadequate overall production.  Either one is a bad choice for most people.  Which is why I advocate a perfect compromise between the two.

[Emsworth]

Personal freedom is not necessarily maximised.  The potential for freedom is.  On the other hand, if you are born into an economically depressed area where a good education is unaffordable and inaccessible, the potential for total freedom is not there beyond luck.  Personal freedom may be theoretically maximised, but in practise, this is far from always true.

I would have to disagree with that interpretation. I, personally, define freedom as the absence of coercion. In a capitalist system, therefore, freedom is maximized, because coercion is minimized.

[Bono]

Like most economic systems, it is pretty good in theory.  Unlike many economic systems, capitalism can be made to work quite efficiently if there are safeguards in place to keep dealings above board and prevent monopolies and similar practices which harm the general good in favor of short term gain for a few.

The ironic part of capitalism and the free market is that, sometimes, government intervention can actually help along the idealized model in economic theory.  The problem with the free market is that there are two very large assumptions made in economic theory, which are overlooked by most of those who advocate a pure laissez-faire system:

1. That people will always act in a rational manner; and
2. That people will always pursue the course of action that will bring themselves the most benefit.

The first assumption is just flat-out wrong sometimes.  Segregation is an excellent example of people acting in a fundamentally irrational manner.

The second assumption could be improved by stating it as, "That people will always pursue the course of action that they think will bring themselves the most benefit."  Were the second assumption true in the unaltered form given above, scams would be unheard of and con artists would not receive any business whatsoever.  One might note that people taken by scam artists are generally not acting in a rational way, and one might think that the failure of the first assumption is necessary for the failure of the second; however, this is not so.  Even if the first assumption is true, rational people can still make the second assumption fail: the classic example of this is the Prisoner's Dilemma, where people, acting in a purely rational and logical way, completely and utterly fail to achieve the best outcome possible; rather, they achieve the worst outcome possible, as no one benefits at all in any way.

When either of these assumptions fails, the free market system fails as well, and simply leaving it up to the free market will not solve a thing.

Actually, one of teh cornerstones of the austrian school is that man doesn't act in a rational way, nor he could since he doens't have perfect information. But you're just happy creating a huge strawman.

[Emsworth]

Actually, one of teh cornerstones of the austrian school is that man doesn't act in a rational way, nor he could since he doens't have perfect information.

Absolutely right. A lot of people believe that capitalism depends on the "rationality" of individuals, and that capitalism will "fail" if this assumption proves false. However, Austrian Economics accepts that people cannot behave perfectly rationally, but also demonstrates laissez-faire capitalism is the most efficient economic system.

[Bono]

Actually, one of teh cornerstones of the austrian school is that man doesn't act in a rational way, nor he could since he doens't have perfect information.

Absolutely right. A lot of people believe that capitalism depends on the "rationality" of individuals, and that capitalism will "fail" if this assumption proves false. However, Austrian Economics accepts that people cannot behave perfectly rationally, but also demonstrates laissez-faire capitalism is the most efficient economic system.

Exactly.
In fact, the same objection can, much more correctly, be raised against central planing.