What a great post. Much of what is quoted here from Hertz and Yunus seems to echo what John Kenneth Galbraith had been saying for decades. The following books touch on many of the points above (i.e., conveniently misinterpreting Adam Smith, laissez-faire capitalism and markets that haven't reflected consumer wants and needs for decades): The Affluent Society, The New Industrial State and The Culture of Contentment. Great reads.
Amidst so much f-up news of surround our economic markets and leaders, this posting helped bring me back a little more trust in humanity and it's ability to do the right thing. I just hope it's not too late.
This is like reading what I've been thinking but haven't had the terms or knowledge of economics to properly articulate.
I remember watching something with the Dalai Lama and people like the CEO of Ben & Jerry's discussing why ethical business practices could be just as profitable as what we're used to, it's just that very few businesses want to change because a lot of the people involved either don't care or deliberately remain unaware of the consequences.
I do not understand how we can operate like that. It's not sustainable. And even if people don't care about future generations, they don't have to. It's fucking us right now. #capitalism
@tiredfairy: Well, for what it's worth, Ben & Jerry's sells a luxury product that costs a lot more than most people are willing to pay. Same with, say, American Apparel. (And the Dalai Lama is highly overrated, FWIW)
They have a vested interest in promoting a certain specific vision of what constitutes 'ethical business practices', because it's big for their marketing and feeling good about how you're saving the world one pint / shirt at a time is often the value-added that sells their product and gets them noticed.
Drawing a bright line between what's 'ethical' and 'unethical' is often exceedingly difficult in practice. For instance, "Don't lobby Congress to give your industry unfair perks" -- Well, nice to say, but if you don't lobby them they'll often unfairly *punish* you (To an absurd degree -- Shout outs to my hemp farmers and my online poker entrepreneurs!), and what exactly constitutes 'fair' is an open question. Fair as in 'don't hurt, don't help, just let you do your thing'? Fair as in 'don't give you a better deal then they're giving other related industries'? Fair as in 'prop you up only as much as your main foreign competitor's government is giving them'? Not to mention that lobbying is a matter of negotiation, and you have to start out asking for more than you think you can get if you want to get anything. How can you calibrate it so finely so you only get what's 'fair'?
Or 'sweatshops', to pick another example. Plenty of low-wage factory labor in the developing world is emancipating for people, particularly women, who've formerly felt trapped in a rural setting under the thumb of their family. There are myriad issues involved in determining whether a given 'sweatshop' is ethical or not. None of this is easy.
tiredfairy promoted this comment
Edited by CrapCommentFromADude at 11/03/09 10:30 AM
CrapCommentFromADude was starred
CrapCommentFromADude was unstarred
@CrapCommentFromADude: I strongly disagree about the Dalai Lama. He's the only leader of a world religion who even bothers to understand global issues, promotes real equality, and even acknowledges the issues in his own faith. I'm not a Buddhist, but like Jimmy Carter, I think he's a truly decent human being trying to make things better wherever he can.
Of course it's not easy. Neither the article nor I suggested that it is. But it is possible. I don't think it's actually that complicated to find what is and is not ethical in a given situation. Just because something has some benefits doesn't mean it's not exploitive overall, and that we shouldn't work to improve it. Go watch Schmatta: From Rags to Riches to Rags to see what else those liberating sweat shops are doing. Unregulated business does not help things, and while it might improve some things in the short time, tends not to in the long term. Same thing with unchecked capitalism.
I appreciate these issues are complicated, but that's pretty much the point. What we've been doing doesn't work. Time to try something else. And we can start by being far more ethical in how we go about it. #capitalism
@tiredfairy: "Just because something has some benefits doesn't mean it's not exploitive overall, and that we shouldn't work to improve it. Go watch Schmatta: From Rags to Riches to Rags to see what else those liberating sweat shops are doing. "
I'd rather talk to my friend down the street here in Guilin, who spent ~7 years working in a sweatshop in Guangzhou and just finished her law degree. She wouldn't describe herself as 'exploited'. It wasn't a fun experience, but it certainly beat the alternative for her. The Schmatta documentary isn't so much anti-sweatshop as it is anti-trade -- it's lamenting the loss of the New York garment industry. The failing there is in our lack of investment in our education system and communities to reduce the size of our unskilled work-force, not in the trade itself; the gains from trade (the incredibly cheap price of clothing these days, for starters) are very real. The problem isn't the jobs we're losing -- as a tech-heavy, relatively well-off nation, unskilled garment work is the sort of job we *want* to see going overseas. The problem is our lack of adequate commitment to the people who formerly held those jobs.
""Unregulated business does not help things, and while it might improve some things in the short time, tends not to in the long term. Same thing with unchecked capitalism.""
Sorry, but this is a straw-man argument; nobody's arguing in favor of entirely unregulated business or entirely unregulated capitalism. We're talking about whether the core of capitalism is positive or negative, not some extremist, pure version of it. Even on the international policy side of things, the purist 'Washington Consensus' has been out of vogue with most economists and development types for a long while now. Almost everybody goes for Noreena Hertz-style interdisciplinary analysis, to varying degrees. #capitalism
I find this to be something of an oxymoron. It's like searching for a more dry form of water or a nanoscale giant. A more ethical capitalism is like trying to find a master that beats you less often than other masters. #capitalism
@The Media: I agree, but probably from a different angle. What's wrong with just regulating things and taxing the shit out of people? When she says things like "one major change in the theoretical framework of capitalism is necessary-a change that will allow individuals to express themselves in multi-dimensional ways and address the problems left unsolved or even intensified by the existing conceptual framework," I think maybe she's missing the point? Corporations are dynamos here to mindlessly make money, and they're really good at it, and the trick is to rein those wild stallions in or else (as we've all seen recently) they'll stomp our collective faces. Corporations were not designed to make the world better, they were designed to produce. I guess I need to read this woman's book before I talk too much shit about her theory, but my intuition is that a more realistic approach is to contain and control massive forces of production. #capitalism
It's great to see posts like this. Even that people are having this conversation is great. So many people tie our economic system to democracy (and then, oddly, to Christianity sometimes) that when you bring up that maybe things aren't going perfectly, they will attack as though you've insulted their first born. So many people act like you're betraying your country to point out the excesses and the pitfalls of capitalism.
We need to be in a place where we can talk about these things without someone just yelling "Commie!!" and shutting the conversation down, because things are not working, on a lot of different levels. #capitalism
well development theorists have been saying this stuff forever, but it is nice to see someone bringing it into the mainstream. And I like that she isn't trying to scrap capitalism entirely. Finally someone who realizes that while the system sucks, changes do not have to be all-or-nothing #capitalism
Oh Brian Griffiths, I know you're trying to sanitize your greed, but what I think you really meant is: "We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for rich people like me." #capitalism
People, it's called Democratic Socialism. Bernie Sanders, Cornel West, and Barbara Ehrenreich are all due-paying members. I won't try and threadjack or take up space spouting our ideology, so PM me for details or just to talk about the Swedish Economic model... I'm on the Young Democratic Socialists Coordinating Committee and I'm a freaking econ. nerd. #capitalism
@PrisonBreakShaker: Ooooo, Democratic Socialism. I always think that if I HAD to define my politics, that's what they would be as I agree with most everything in it.
Oh, she went interdiscplinary and called the specialists on their crap.
This should be interesting -- presuming she doesn't end up dead in some 'accident', like the associates in The Firm.
Dear Brian Griffiths:
You get an 'A' for Orwellian doublespeak and an 'F' in humanism.
Cudwamper. #capitalism
@Rooo sez BISH PLZ: I got such an academic lady bone when she went all interdisciplinary. I hate how effectively people have been conditioned to believe these problems are all separate issues...instead of interrelated, systemic issues, that exist on multiple levels. #capitalism
Latoya, not to be a kiss ass, but I swear you become more and more awesome with each post - they are truly a joy to read.
And, yeah, Adam Smith did not just tout capitalism as some new awesome thing. It was more along the lines of "here is the way I see markets working. Also, here is the way I see people can be exploited, so we should be careful, here." If Smith heard the "capitalists" of today, he would facepalm. or headdesk. or possibly both. #capitalism
@That_little_attention_whore: Thank you! Even in "Wealth of Nations", when Adam Smith is talking about the invisible hand, he's also talking about anticapitalist forces such as monopolies (which he calls the "collusion of merchants") and acknowledges that they should be prevented from colluding. He also advocates a progressive tax system. It irritates the hell out of me when people just stop at the invisible hand thing and call it a day.
In a similar vein, Marx acknowledged that capitalism is a great way to build wealth. Both of these "worldly philosophers" are much more complex than they are popularly given credit for. #capitalism
I would love to see a "new capitalism" that serves the interests of all the people rather than the few that take what they want. I just feel like our own human nature damns us. Communism won't work because we're fundamentally self-interest seeking. Capitalism won't work because while we seek our own short term self interest, we're remarkably bad at collectively seeking what's best in the long term. We're doomed to a clumsy system of boom and bust, of short term reform and long term forgetfulness and repetition of the same mistakes. As long as even 1% of people in the world are "Fuck You, Pay Me" assholes, the rest of us are going to get fucked. #capitalism
@morninggloria: it's not human nature that condemns us to the current state of affairs. It's systems of control that have been instituted and maintained by privileged classes, first the monarchies before being supplanted by the bourgeoisie, whose world we still live within. I'm not saying there's a cabal of mustachioed vaudevillians cackling over how evil they are, but there's no reason to think things have to be this way due to something fundamental in human nature. If this were the case, it's not a far leap to assume the struggle against patriarchy is equally unwinnable, its explanation just as rooted in fundamental human nature as capitalist exploitation and oppression (and, indeed, nine times out of ten they're teaming up - they went to business school together and play golf on the weekends).
Both are social constructs with pretensions to being a force of nature and the more we believe them, the more entrenched they will become.
@The Media: @morninggloria:
Weirdly, I agree with both of you. I do think that human nature has a tendency towards ugliness and bitterness and animosity...but I also think there's a huge capacity for change and growth.
So much of what happens is due to lack of awareness over how interrelated everything is. Too many people have no idea that these issues feed on each other, propagating, cycling...but we can stop it if we make the effort and stop trying to live our lives like nothing we do matters, like there are no consequences. Not in the religious sense, but basic ethics.
There are days when I think there's hope...and days I don't. #capitalism
A teacher here in Montana showed this movie and one of the parents protested and got the teacher suspended. I'll be helping to vote out the current school board.
11/03/09
11/03/09
Thanks Latoya! #capitalism
11/02/09
I remember watching something with the Dalai Lama and people like the CEO of Ben & Jerry's discussing why ethical business practices could be just as profitable as what we're used to, it's just that very few businesses want to change because a lot of the people involved either don't care or deliberately remain unaware of the consequences.
I do not understand how we can operate like that. It's not sustainable. And even if people don't care about future generations, they don't have to. It's fucking us right now. #capitalism
11/03/09
They have a vested interest in promoting a certain specific vision of what constitutes 'ethical business practices', because it's big for their marketing and feeling good about how you're saving the world one pint / shirt at a time is often the value-added that sells their product and gets them noticed.
Drawing a bright line between what's 'ethical' and 'unethical' is often exceedingly difficult in practice. For instance, "Don't lobby Congress to give your industry unfair perks" -- Well, nice to say, but if you don't lobby them they'll often unfairly *punish* you (To an absurd degree -- Shout outs to my hemp farmers and my online poker entrepreneurs!), and what exactly constitutes 'fair' is an open question. Fair as in 'don't hurt, don't help, just let you do your thing'? Fair as in 'don't give you a better deal then they're giving other related industries'? Fair as in 'prop you up only as much as your main foreign competitor's government is giving them'? Not to mention that lobbying is a matter of negotiation, and you have to start out asking for more than you think you can get if you want to get anything. How can you calibrate it so finely so you only get what's 'fair'?
Or 'sweatshops', to pick another example. Plenty of low-wage factory labor in the developing world is emancipating for people, particularly women, who've formerly felt trapped in a rural setting under the thumb of their family. There are myriad issues involved in determining whether a given 'sweatshop' is ethical or not. None of this is easy.
11/03/09
Of course it's not easy. Neither the article nor I suggested that it is. But it is possible. I don't think it's actually that complicated to find what is and is not ethical in a given situation. Just because something has some benefits doesn't mean it's not exploitive overall, and that we shouldn't work to improve it. Go watch Schmatta: From Rags to Riches to Rags to see what else those liberating sweat shops are doing. Unregulated business does not help things, and while it might improve some things in the short time, tends not to in the long term. Same thing with unchecked capitalism.
I appreciate these issues are complicated, but that's pretty much the point. What we've been doing doesn't work. Time to try something else. And we can start by being far more ethical in how we go about it. #capitalism
11/04/09
I'd rather talk to my friend down the street here in Guilin, who spent ~7 years working in a sweatshop in Guangzhou and just finished her law degree. She wouldn't describe herself as 'exploited'. It wasn't a fun experience, but it certainly beat the alternative for her. The Schmatta documentary isn't so much anti-sweatshop as it is anti-trade -- it's lamenting the loss of the New York garment industry. The failing there is in our lack of investment in our education system and communities to reduce the size of our unskilled work-force, not in the trade itself; the gains from trade (the incredibly cheap price of clothing these days, for starters) are very real. The problem isn't the jobs we're losing -- as a tech-heavy, relatively well-off nation, unskilled garment work is the sort of job we *want* to see going overseas. The problem is our lack of adequate commitment to the people who formerly held those jobs.
""Unregulated business does not help things, and while it might improve some things in the short time, tends not to in the long term. Same thing with unchecked capitalism.""
Sorry, but this is a straw-man argument; nobody's arguing in favor of entirely unregulated business or entirely unregulated capitalism. We're talking about whether the core of capitalism is positive or negative, not some extremist, pure version of it. Even on the international policy side of things, the purist 'Washington Consensus' has been out of vogue with most economists and development types for a long while now. Almost everybody goes for Noreena Hertz-style interdisciplinary analysis, to varying degrees. #capitalism
11/02/09
11/02/09
I find this to be something of an oxymoron. It's like searching for a more dry form of water or a nanoscale giant. A more ethical capitalism is like trying to find a master that beats you less often than other masters. #capitalism
11/03/09
11/02/09
We need to be in a place where we can talk about these things without someone just yelling "Commie!!" and shutting the conversation down, because things are not working, on a lot of different levels. #capitalism
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
11/02/09
This should be interesting -- presuming she doesn't end up dead in some 'accident', like the associates in The Firm.
Dear Brian Griffiths:
You get an 'A' for Orwellian doublespeak and an 'F' in humanism.
Cudwamper. #capitalism
11/02/09
11/02/09
And, yeah, Adam Smith did not just tout capitalism as some new awesome thing. It was more along the lines of "here is the way I see markets working. Also, here is the way I see people can be exploited, so we should be careful, here." If Smith heard the "capitalists" of today, he would facepalm. or headdesk. or possibly both. #capitalism
11/02/09
In a similar vein, Marx acknowledged that capitalism is a great way to build wealth. Both of these "worldly philosophers" are much more complex than they are popularly given credit for. #capitalism
11/02/09
11/02/09
Both are social constructs with pretensions to being a force of nature and the more we believe them, the more entrenched they will become.
11/02/09
Weirdly, I agree with both of you. I do think that human nature has a tendency towards ugliness and bitterness and animosity...but I also think there's a huge capacity for change and growth.
So much of what happens is due to lack of awareness over how interrelated everything is. Too many people have no idea that these issues feed on each other, propagating, cycling...but we can stop it if we make the effort and stop trying to live our lives like nothing we do matters, like there are no consequences. Not in the religious sense, but basic ethics.
There are days when I think there's hope...and days I don't. #capitalism
11/02/09
11/02/09
05/12/09