You are here:   Dialogue > Is Capitalism Morally Bankrupt?
 

DJ: So the moral conclusion, as it were, is: don't let's moralise about this?

SB: Well, there are plenty of things to moralise about, but to my mind the most difficult question is that people can behave well in small groups, but all the nastiness is then directed towards outside groups. Take any international crisis that happens to be going at the time of publication - you'll find that there is hatred towards other groups. That has never been resolved and indeed there's more of it. I once shared a tutorial with somebody who was a great devotee of Moral Re-Armament, and I reveal my age a bit because the Korean War was going on at the time, and I said: "Do Moral Re-Armament people oppose the Korean War and do they take a pacifist view?" And he said: "No, they fight better." That was the end of religion for me!

DJ: Edward, what's your view?

EH: I wouldn't draw any enormous conclusions from this crisis - it hardly shows the immorality of the system or anything remotely like that. I think it's a technical crisis, a problem that largely developed because we messed up on one of the things we are supposed to keep track of in running a complex economy. We should adjust for that. I would say that if you want to draw a moralistic lesson from this it is that you should remember that people are not always able to be virtuous and you need certain kinds of checks, whether they are regulatory or competitive, to ensure that they live up to their best nature. This crisis suggests an interesting novel more than a major rethink of public policy.

DJ: In spite of things like Enron. Or do you think this is not a new story, people have always been corrupt?

EH: I think if we had medieval novels, you would discover that the old squire was not really what he was meant to be. Read The Canterbury Tales. But if one wants to address a moral economic issue today, the most outstanding one wouldn't be financial dysfunction, but be the gap between rich and poor countries and rich and poor people, which now really does have some economic significance. I would much rather focus on the questions of poverty that remain in the world than on the excesses of a few ill-tempered or ill-tethered bankers in a badly-designed system.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Postkey
November 17th, 2011
8:11 AM
"The inflationary boom thus leads to distortions of the pricing and production system. Prices of labor and raw materials in the capital goods industries had been bid up during the boom too high to be profitable once the consumers reassert their old consumption/investment preferences." http://mises.org/daily/3127 However: "The period prior to the crisis was the most stable economic environment for generations. And, unlike most previous recessions, this crisis wasn’t preceded by an unsustainable boom in output. In the five years leading up to the crisis, overall GDP growth remained close to its long-run average and inflation differed from the 2% target on average by only 0.2 percentage points." http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/18/bank-of-england-mervyn-ki...

Josie Nguyen
December 15th, 2009
5:12 PM
Why is it that people always want to blame anything and everything such as 'the government' or 'the market' when in fact it is their own individual failure that causes harm to society. Greed is distinctly individual, not caused by the market or by the government. Government in a democratic society must respond to their electorate's stupid demands (such as easy credit to flip houses) based on individual greed. If there are enough stupid people among the electorate, they will form a majority that pressures government to act. Governments simply act democratically by responding to the majority pressure. Markets simply act to respond to the majority demand. Let's stop wasting our time finding faults with the market or the government. People, individually, are responsible for the current crisis, crises in the past and more crises to come.

Riaz Ahmad
December 27th, 2008
9:12 PM
It is rather strange that only since the international financial system went in to a free fall, hurting the western economies, the moral aspects of capitalism are being questioned. When it happened in East Asia, no one battered an eye lid in the west. Capitalism has been robbing the poor of the third world for centuries, no one in the west felt any need to question its morality. As usual, hypocrisy lurks in every nook and corner of west's dealings with the rest.

Anonymous
November 24th, 2008
1:11 PM
Nobody is interested in filling my pockets with money. Or yours. The transactions that have brought about the financial 'crisis' have been made by people hoping to make a profit. Pie in the sky economics, balloons that will pop; and all on a 'global' scale. There have been many warnings but to no avail, and while bitter medicine is being prescribed the conmen continue to prosper -- if you are silly enough to listen.

Escott
November 11th, 2008
4:11 PM
I would urge readers to read this essay by Rothbard http://mises.org/story/3127 which is timeless and the lessons of which we would do well to heed. It is worth noting for those who listen to Sir Brittan's comments that there is nothing free market about the pound, or interest rates, or fractional reserve banking... these are all creatures of the state and the interested observer will notice they happen to be all intricately involved with the current crisis. We do not have a czar fixing the price of oil or bread yet we seem to think it reasonable that we have a central bank fixing interest rates. We do not find it strange that our currency is backed by literally nothing, an experiment that has NEVER endured in history and has so far only been running since 1971 in which time, unsurprisingly to any follower of the Austrian school, levels of debt have exploded to unprecedented levels on nearly every relative measure one can think of. Fractional reserve banking in a private money world would have limited the expansion of credit but in a state backed, incompetently regulated order, we have seen former lions such as RBS end up with assets of 93 times its tangible equity at the end of 2007. (!) None of these features are a result of the free market and it is apodictically incorrect to blame it, the market responds to the institutional framework within which it works. In this case, infinitely elastic credit. Without fiat money and a fractional reserve banking system backed by central bank determined rates and implicit government guarantees of the banking system, we could not be in this mess in the first place.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.