Thread: The Hedonistic justification for capitalism

As a former socialist and a current "left winger" so to speak, I undrstand the many moral injustices of capitalism, a person earning £100,000,000/year having the equivilent purchasing power, and perhaps just power of a small town, But can it not be justified as a means of "pleasure currency". When musicians create music, they may earn millions, but in return for increasing the pleasure of millions. Does anyone consider this a reasonable justification of capitalism? I understand flaws such as lottery winners, people who get lucky playing the markets and such but generally is it not a good justification?

Another thing I notice is a flaw in the ratio of currency value/pleasure value between certain products. Surly assuming you had no means of pirating or whatever, the enjoyment you get from a 79p music track is far greater than that you get from a 79p chocolate bar. So how come music companies don't charge more, like £9.99 per single? I know CD's were about £3 per single but the enjoyment is still more than 3/4 chocolate bars, so surly they could get away with it?

Your thoughts.

I think of it this way. You can be from a poor family, you work really hard in school, you get a scholarship to a good college, you get a degree in whatever, you use your degree and make a lot of money. You just rose from poor surroundings and made something of yourself. That is why I like capitalism.

Before a serious discussion starts I believe we should establish a definition of capitalism to weed out any possible strawmen or false connotations.

However, I will reply to the OP's post.

As a former socialist and a current "left winger" so to speak, I undrstand the many moral injustices of capitalism,

Which form of capitalism are you speaking of, and what are those injustices?

a person earning £100,000,000/year having the equivilent purchasing power, and perhaps just power of a small town,

Is this one of your examples of injustice?

But can it not be justified as a means of "pleasure currency". When musicians create music, they may earn millions, but in return for increasing the pleasure of millions. Does anyone consider this a reasonable justification of capitalism? I understand flaws such as lottery winners, people who get lucky playing the markets and such but generally is it not a good justification?

Your so-called "pleasure currency" is merely a business (in this case a musician/group of musicians) satisfying their customers.

Another thing I notice is a flaw in the ratio of currency value/pleasure value between certain products. Surly assuming you had no means of pirating or whatever, the enjoyment you get from a 79p music track is far greater than that you get from a 79p chocolate bar. So how come music companies don't charge more, like £9.99 per single? I know CD's were about £3 per single but the enjoyment is still more than 3/4 chocolate bars, so surly they could get away with it?

You can't really say "surely you get more enjoyment out of music than a candy bar" because for all we know, a candy bar may be orgasmic to a person while music is something they listen to when bored.

Anyway, that aside, the reason companies don't charge $9.99 per single is probably due to the fact that no one would want to spend $10.00 on a single song. They prefer keeping their money to buying the track. Charging almost ten dollars for a single song is a terrible business plan.

Making people happy is a service, and that is a valid way to make money in capitalism. So sure, you can look at it that way. Someone who brings joy and pleasure to others, get paid for it.

As for candy vs music, that is an easy one. People normally buy stuff on the spot. So while the music is probably a better deal, a lot of people just buy the candy on impulse.

I understand what you mean by pleasure currency, however, as the current situation in the US shows you, many of the people at the top got there and/or continue to go higher by screwing over a lot of little people.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

As a former socialist and a current "left winger" so to speak, I undrstand the many moral injustices of capitalism,

This makes you sound like a pompous dimwit.

Part of the reason capitalism looks so bad is because we dont really have capitalism. You know those bailouts on the car companies/banks? Yeah, those companies should have had to make changes to attract customers and/or make stop paying their ceos so much in order to not die. But instead, our govt gave them more money. Now the ceos can keep their big paychecks while staying corrupt.

that being said there is no such thing as a perfect system. I happen to believe that a mix between left and right policies are the best way for a country to move ahead.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

that being said there is no such thing as a perfect system. I happen to believe that a mix between left and right policies are the best way for a country to move ahead.

Wouldn't you say a bailout is an element of a leftist policy?

In defense of bailouts... If you let those big companies go down, millions of jobs are lost. Those jobs are usually lost forever to companies outside the country before new local companies can fill the void. Restructuring a company is generally a better option than starting again from scratch.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

In defense of bailouts... If you let those big companies go down, millions of jobs are lost. Those jobs are usually lost forever to companies outside the country before new local companies can fill the void. Restructuring a company is generally a better option than starting again from scratch.

In defense of a sound economy...If you let those big companies go down, incompetent managers and businessmen go *poof.* Yes, jobs are lost temporarily, but they may go outside the country because labor/business may be cheaper or more efficient there. It is either the fault of the businessman for running a business into the ground or the government for running businesses into the ground. In most cases, the blame lies with the latter.

Stealing people's money via taxes to prop-up companies and delay market corrections due to a vested corporatist interest by the government is generally harmful and unethical.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Yes, jobs are lost temporarily, but they may go outside the country because labor/business may be cheaper or more efficient there.

Not temporarily... If Ford/GM would have gone down for good, that's several hundreds of thousands of jobs (not just in the US actually) that would have been lost in one go. In the time it would take for an upstart American company to grow the massive infrastructure that would require as many jobs as Ford/GM needed, the American automotive market would have long been gobbled up by Asian manufacturers.

The reason business in China is cheaper is because you can get away with paying poverty-level wages there. The reason it's more "efficient" is because standards are iffy at best.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Wouldn't you say a bailout is an element of a leftist policy?

It is, but I feel it is a wrongly applied one.

The price of chocolate is comparable to that of music because chocolate is a consumable resource... It requires more time, more labor to produce, and once it's gone you are required to produce more if you wish to have more. Music, on the other hand, does not go away after one sitting.

I hate the bailouts, however for the companies that repaid them already, I have a little respect for them. Because at least they are not just sucking money out of the system for waste. As for every other company that either isn't or doesn't have to pay back the money any time soon, well they should just die.

It may lose jobs, but nothing is more a drain on the economy than paying people to do nothing, or in this case, paying them to waste money.

I think that farmers bring a lot of happiness to people, but they make little and often end up in debt....
Same with construction workers and manufacturing plant workers. I think it would be hard to be happy without food, structure, or technology.

Instead of paying for what we need, we would much rather pay for what we want. IMHO Entertainment should NOT be payed more than life essentials, just seems retarded to me.