18

Is Capitalism a Game of the Survival of the Fittest?

Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
132 comments | Share | Flag

It is quite common to be in a discussion about economics and proposing a capitalist solution when someone pipes-in “that’s just survival of the fittest.” What they are talking about is “Social Darwinism” and the image they mean to conjure up is that capitalism is like a bunch of gladiators fighting it out to the death until there is just one winner. Unfortunately, this tends to trip many of us because we often say that capitalism is about competition and that competition is what makes America great.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is an expansion of the idea of someone profiting from a government monopoly, and includes profiting from regulations, etc. It is what most people mean by a crony capitalist As one book put it these people are political entrepreneurs not market entrepreneurs
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think that economic thinking often fails because they do not control for independent variables. When you control for competition vs. invention, it is invention. Competition is not inherently about man being a rational animal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by broskjold22 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Neither. You are assuming the the only non-material entity is the soul/god/the supernatural. There are many non-material entities; the number 2, for example. But the fact that 2, a concept, exists, does not imply an immaterial soul any more than it implies that 2 universes exist. Existence exists, and only existence exists. Refer to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology for details.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 9 years, 7 months ago
    It is a very good article. "Dog-eat-dog" (which I
    believe it was Ayn Rand who said "does not apply
    to capitalism nor to dogs") implies attacking others
    rather than competing with them. However I am
    unfamiliar with the expression "rent seeking" as a synonym for "laziness".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    None taken so a more sanitized version...Fascism. the line of reasoning is both property tax and income tax are not what they are advertised to be. Property tax in the US. Purchasing real estate in the US only provides the buyer with liability responsibility and the right to pay rent in the form of property tax to the government at whatever level. There is no real ownership as it may be taken at any time. I
    ncome tax has as it's purpose control of the wealth of the citizens with money collecting a secondary objective at best. I'll add VAT is not value added as it adds no value but rather subtracts value making goods or services cost more and is a tax on a series of embedded taxes from tree cutting or mineral mining etc. to a finished product in the house and paid for with value diminished paychecks which have been raided for income tax. Paying for something with value diminished earnings as an employee and value diminished by embedded, enhanced etc other taxes and value diminished by devaluation of the buying power to add it all together is all about control. The governments already taken huge bites before the cash register rings up ...oh yes one last bite called sales tax.

    Basically you are working for approximately half your salary or less and getting little in return except more of the same.

    At the end when an income tax form is sent in and it used to take a signature now it's just a goes without saying law you also walk away with not only less money but complete liability and a felony charge hanging over your head.

    No one can say their taxes are correct when the Revenue Service Itself disagrees with itself and or refuses to explain how to do the taxes. Catch 22 you sign the form or not but send it in you are automatically a criminal.

    That's the fascist part government control of the citizens by any and all means.

    the result is get less spending power while prices are going up as each level in the production chain adds to their overhead.

    Business taxes including VAT are not paid for by the corporation or small business but are added under Cost of Government even if it's just the cost of collection.

    And that's the way it goes with a lot of shinola to fool people.

    One more is with holding tax ...people commonly say they didn't pay taxes the government sent them money. they forgot about with holding which IF "refunded offers no interest another way of saying cost of the loan to the government including loss in buying power of the years time..I like to owe a little bit and pay them in devalued dollars far more than get a refund.

    I also pay $100 a month for Medicare for which I have zero use and only got a flu shot if i paid $200 for travel expenses north of the border. Now the government of Mexico gives them at no charge including visitors and expats.

    I don't give a hundred dollars a month it's taken and we were supposed to get for our military service lifetime medical care....So i survived 24 years in the infantry and pushing five years in combat areas only to find out i now have to pay for what I earned.

    How does it work down there with Evita and Juanito gone? We refer to them as left wingers.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank you.

    Based on your analysis of what is an improvement, why do you say that Drebble (Leewenhook) is the inventor of the microscope? Was he not just turning a telescope around? Was he not just using two lenses together, which had already been done?

    I am sure about Wm's philosophical foundations - because it follows logically from his statements and Austrian Economics is wrong and dangerous - as dangerous as any socialist.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Fine. But a better vacuum tube will do until the transistor gets invented. Do you get the feeling that we're actually saying the same thing in a different way?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, but this is not what creates real wealth. We don't need people competing to create the best Model T, we want people to invent an airplane. We don't want people competing to create a better vacuum tube, we want them to create a transistor, and IC and then microprocessor.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In another article I show that inventions are the evolutionary equivalent of genetic modifications
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 7 months ago
    but capitalism raises the standard of living of everyone,
    even the indigent -- by increasing the size of the pie,
    of course. . convincing others of this takes persistence,
    IMHO. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank you for replying rationally, and not just making angry comments. I have known Wm for 25+ years and worked with him for over 20. I think that you are projecting your worst nightmares onto him simply because he disagrees with you on patent/copyright issues.

    Even in his above comments, Wm says only that 'the majority' of the patents are due to improvements to make a product more competitive; this leaves plenty of room (in his brain, my brain, and potentially your brain) for totally 'new stuff'. Cornelius Drebble is accorded the credit for invention of the first microscope. (I did not know that Drebble even existed...thought it was Leewenhook.) All microscopes since then have been 'improvements'. But WOW, what a difference our modern microscopes are from the 17th century variety. There is value in improvement; there is also value in total innovation. Win-win.

    Were Wm to write an AS style book, the hero would be triumphant. I know this because I have read some of the things he has written: the heroes are smart (/brilliant), competent, and win out over their opponents in the end.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The reason Darwinism no longer applies to Man is that unlike all other animals humans do not submit to their environment but change the environment to suit themselves. Once we stop doing that it will mean we have stopped using our reasoning faculties, that is the road to extinction. As an aside -- Utopia has got to be boring as hell.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If it's competition in the economic sense, then it includes inventions, reason as applied to practical problems, etc. One of the mottos we used in our publishing firm and prior enterprises was "No Problems, Only Solutions." The competition comes when entering a field with a new product, a better product, a better idea. Sometimes the product or idea is the same or similar (UPS VS FEDEX) to what's already there but does it better, or faster or advertises better. Competition takes many forms and when all is said and done, we all benefit. That is a beauty of Capitalism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    One of the problems laymen have is that they work with a very vague definition of an invention. I clearly cannot speak to your product, but Wm thinks everything is an improvement not an invention. This is because his definition of an invention is that you create something out of nothing, which is impossible.

    Shipley is a perfect example of what i have been posting on conservatives and Austrians and libertarians. He is the product of Hume, Burke, Hayek and Mises. He is skeptical of reason and he really does not believe that anyone creates anything, a perfect follower of Hayek's cultural evolution. He is impervious to empirical evidence since like Mises he does not think economics is subject to empirical evidence.

    He of course would deny this, however Obama denies he is trying to turn the US into a socialist state. He may be unaware of all the intellectual influences that shape his ideas. However, he is a true believer either way and he has absolutely no interest in objectivism and he is only here to disrupt and attack objectivism.

    If Wm Shipley wrote AS the ending would be that Galt was a fraud, not a great inventor and philosopher, and Galt would be thrown in jail as a fraud. Wm is the very personification of Ellsworth Toohey.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Pure capitalism has a profound concern for everyone else, The creation of business is base on seeing a need and fulfilling that need.
    What your confused with is called "Crony Crapitalism" and is a progressive perversion.

    One should listen when I say that it is 'governments'.., the worlds kakistocracy's that control big businesses...mostly through the board room, majority stock holding and always by someone connected to the kakistocracy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by illucio 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Down Under, but same continent. Argie Land specifically. I understand the terms, just not how you´ve combined them into an answer to my comment. No disrespect intended
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Capitalism is all about what you do with your assets. The person who starts with significant monetary assets is able to overcome capital-based barriers to entry, but doesn't dictate success (unless a nosy politician butts in). I don't hold a grudge against people who inherit wealth, I just look at what they do with it: do they build on it or merely squander it away?

    (And I would note that I do not condemn that person for business failures which result in a loss of fortune. Most entrepreneurs fail several times before finally succeeding.)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Capitalism focuses on value-adds - either through improvements in the product itself or better service offerings (customer support, personal relationships, etc.) As we add to the products, their value increases and we end up with more than we started with. Collectivists want to own the labor portion of any process, in effect denying the creation of wealth and value.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What part don't you understand? income tax? Fascism, individualism and families, mooching, looting, or stealing?

    Australian? I know they use different definitions down under. If you are a Gold Coaster go to Town Center area and find the Zarraffas's Coffee headquarters. One of the owners is a former yankwank turned honest Ozzie. As for me I'm an Ozzies worst nightmare even more than a kiwi. Half Yank and half Pommy
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Competition by itself provides almost no economic advancement as shown by the 100 meter dash example. It is inventions - reason applied to practical problems that makes us wealthier.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But...but...Wm is right. We did not invent the concept of the "Laboratory Information System": We came up with the first LIS that used a graphic interface - which is an 'improvement to an existing product to make it more competitive'. (It had some innovative design elements in it too, based on my 17 years as a bench med tech.)

    The 'newness' of our product was not that it invented a mousetrap, but that it invented a Better mousetrap. (No, the world did not beat a path to our door.) I have not observed any game-changing innovation in any of our competitors (they are now graphic too, but since we were the first, they can't take credit for that); many of them compete on the basis of having a good sales team to sell what is essentially 'the same thing everyone else has'.

    Wm's remarks were not venomous, and he did not swear. This is a discussion.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo