“Altruism”
For this paper, I watched a lecture video by Dr. Steve Trost that basically summarized chapter 3 of George Gilder’s book, Poverty and Wealth, and then I read the chapter as well. The basic message from it all is the same as what the message has been and continues to be, which is that, in a capitalist free market, everything flourishes. I will say, however, that George Gilder had a bigger message to the whole chapter. The chapter spoke on how entrepreneurial sympathetic givers are those who run a capitalist society. This is something that is hard to read, because I don’t think of capitalists as these selfless, giving people. I see them as greedy, and that is exactly what Gilder was trying to disprove in chapter 3 of his book. Gilder told us of primitive societies whose potlatching (which is a gifting of feasts) is the epitome of the gift phenomenon. These societies basically compete for who gives the best gift, and it is what inspires creativity and entrepreneurship. It is important to learn about these acts of “altruism” from these primitive societies, as they are what preceded modern capitalist societies. I understand where Gilder is coming from, and it is really very interesting to learn about the exchanging of gifts as a precursor to capitalism, but to call these exchanges acts of altruism is wrong to me… altruism explicitly means selfless, and from what I have gathered from these “altruistic” acts, is that there was a motive. The motive being becoming a Mumi, which gives these “givers” higher social and political status. That certainly is not selfless giving.
Gifting = Capitalism
Gilder’s comparison of an inappropriate gift to the capitalist economy is actually very interesting, because it made me see things in a new way. He explains how if you're given an inappropriate, yet expensive gift, it is kind of upsetting, as it does not serve you well, but you’re expected to give something greater in return. When you gift something to someone, you have to know them to give them something that has any real value to them. That is where money is important, as currency gives us the freedom to give something of greater value to the entrepreneur (money), while we get something of greater value to us (the product or service) in exchange. Gilder makes it a point to explain that this whole gifting process is important to capitalism, because it represents the idea that entrepreneurs take a risk with their own capital in order to please a consumer, not knowing if it will succeed. But I still have issue with the idea that the entrepreneurs are somehow fearless and brave, as well as selfless and kind. I feel like although it is pessimistic in a way, I resonate way more with Adam Smith who believed that self interest is what keeps capitalism thriving. He looked at the whole idea of capitalism as a mechanism, and I feel that sort of way too. I think that it isn’t selfless to make products that will serve us as consumers, because there is ultimately one big reason for the entrepreneur to be making that product, and it is to receive a greater return. There’s also nothing wrong with that, though. I believe that it is an equal exchange, and I don’t think it matters which way we see it, because either way, capitalism still functions.
Free Market Vs. Socialism
In the book, Gilder says, “In a capitalist economy every worker and businessman knows in the marrow of his bones that his buying power consists of his supplying power, no more, no less. He goes to the store and buys this book, not in essence with money, but with work transmuted into money.” This is really important to me, because I really sat and thought about why that is important to society in general (the need to value what you’re spending). If I didn’t earn the money I spent, then why would I value the product or service that I have just spent my own money on? Well, I have thought about it, and here is what I think… First of all, I do value the money I haven’t earned (through scholarships and financial aid), as it is very limited, and I am very poor. When not provided with necessities, I will always value what little money I have to spend… but I will always value the money that I actually earned more, because I will never get that time back. So how does this segue into the topic of socialism? It always somehow does. Gilder explains that no matter how it goes, a planned society is never going to be prepared for what comes next; and it ultimately does not incentivize entrepreneurs, who are obviously important to society. I agree with him on this. I just don’t think we’re on the same page when it comes to where the capital belongs, because he believes that the entrepreneurs should be allowed to retain wealth, but to me that sounds like “I like billionaires”. I don’t know. Maybe I’m reading too much into it. It’s a complicated topic. Either way, I get what he’s trying to say, and while I’m not on his side, I suddenly understand the real importance of money as a way of liberty, and that is the power it holds for me as a consumer to choose.
“Capitalism Class”
We’re approaching a close to what I like to call my “capitalism class”, and I would have loved to come out of it without having changed my view, but the reality of it is that I am certainly more educated on the topic of capitalism and socialism, even if those topics seemed sort of one-sided. And what I have learned is that I think I do really value capitalism, even though I hate saying that. It’s just that I feel there needs to be reform. I still seriously believe that food, housing, and education are necessities and should never be in question for any human. It’s inhumane to believe that people are just not working hard enough. There is plenty to go around. Maybe we should have a Universal Basic Stipend, or whatever it was accurately labeled, that Dr. Steve Trost brought to my attention. Either way, I don’t think that any of this should be seen as one-sided. There is a reason we thrive as a country, and I don’t think it’s all that fair to knock on every aspect of capitalism. It wouldn’t be realistic for me to do so, I like -things- too much.