I really enjoyed reading your writing. There were things I found interesting and had me wanting to discuss. I have placed my responses and thoughts after the quotes that get me pondering.
Individuals must give before receiving, while it is important to work with your best interest in mind, I believe it allows for the possibility of greed. Therefore, I agree that the attribution of capitalism is to giving.
I agree with what you said. I do think the attribution of capitalism is rooted in giving because risking the initial investment whether financial, labor or otherwise is a form of giving. It may not be one that we like, the idea of capitalist pursuits paving the way for societal giving, but the big business providing benefits to socies is very much a true thing. It is this giving that helps certain companies stand the test of time.
Yet, I still think it allows the possibility of greed, as it can create a self-fulfilling process, where acting more with self-interest allows for more giving. I think it can lead to a conflating of “being good” vs simply ”giving good”, one is a personal character trait the other is largely subjective in personal qualities and weight. That is to say, if capitalism and the invisible hand allow greed to proliferate due to one’s success in such a system and this proliferation can feed the self-belief that one is “good”, then where is the line between being good as a capitalist or being good as human being?
What I believe he is explaining here is that people who give large amounts, also receive large amounts, and vice versa. Through this I was able to see the relation to the market and our economy. People who contribute little to the community and their work typically do not attain wealth, but instead face losses.
I am not so sure that I agree. I believe that one can contribute very little and while they may not attain wealth they will not face losses. Well, I guess we would have to define little. I would consider little contribution to the community the bare minimum, i.e. self-autonomy. Meaning in the 21st century western capitalist society perspective, all bills always payable, and some tangibly feeling extra money for random pursuits. In other words, money for your bills, and some for freedom.
I would call that little contribution to a society as one does not need to do much other than be a part of the market and economy machine enough to have that capital. They do not need to care, shelter, pursue higher education, chase a higher job, climb the market or economy, because what they ask of it is not much.
If what you want out of the market is not much then why should one be required to put in much? One could say that is a positive a capitalist society that the everyman is not inherently forced into higher pursuits in the name of basic living. Will they have to work a 9 to 5 or 40-hour week, your typical full-time rate, most likely but how different would that have been for hard labor of self-sustainment. One makes it your choice on some level and lets you decide the amount of juice you get from it, the other is life simply demanding sustenance in the name of seeing another day. Granted we are speaking idealistically here, but it is worth the mention. This speaks to the self-sacrifice involved in capitalism.
Capitalism does not work to be fair, it works to be just. Because the U.S economy was built on capitalism, it rewards those who work hard and make sacrifices.
This is the benefit I spoke on my last point. I ideally agree but as the world has shown that is not always the case.
We can look at East Palestine where Norfolk is being awarded with media portrayal that only shows the positives and minimal payments and derailment costs due to using a loophole to avoid having to actually deal with its contaminated waste. In releasing its chemicals into the air, they were able to avoid labelling the containers as hazardous waste, thus reducing the cost to handle them. A perfect example where the contribution of society from a company this massive to help change train railyard structure and company guidelines from her on out cut corners in the name of greed. Instead, taking from the people, the consumers that invested in them, and giving back the mess. Where was the invisible hand then, Adam Smith? I digress, the point is nothing is fair and just in capitalism, and in my belief it is just a process with no moral alignment.
I had fun engaging with your essay Hanson, thank you.
RE: Giving, Risking, and Taking