As I read the chapter, I thought of Shark Tank. The entrepreneurs on that show always come eager to share their ideas mainly because they have some personal investment in the products they sell. They experienced pain and suffering and found an inventive way to alleviate it for themselves and society. For some, “giving” did come first in their capitalist journey. For others, the need to satisfy their own self-interest came first. Therefore, I don’t think that the statement “capitalism begins with giving” is a rule of thumb, as it could also begin by wanting something greater in life.
The chapter stated that the cultures that wanted to ‘transcend’ their current system would engage in gift-giving, implying that they started to give because they wanted to broaden their experiences. For example, a man who wanted to accrue supporters and become a mumi would offer these incredible feasts to his community. I think Adam Smith summarized this idea perfectly: “Not from benevolence do we expect bread from the baker, but from his self-love” (Wealth and Poverty, 41).
I don’t think there is anything wrong with favoring one’s personal interests, and self-servitude doesn’t have to be the only reason capitalists exist. The baker might sell bread for his own sustainment, but also because he finds great pleasure in giving food to his community. Furthermore, some entrepreneurs want to satisfy their own desires so much that they choose to develop the deep understanding of society Gilder mentioned to create the best value for society. In my opinion, having a profound comprehension of the world and wanting to fulfill one's self-interest are not mutually exclusive. Self-servitude isn’t negative, it’s human nature. The point I’m trying to illustrate is that giving isn’t always where capitalism begins, and just because ideas of self-servitude came first doesn’t mean that giving doesn’t also play a crucial part in capitalism or is of less importance.
Gilder describes that all the risks that entrepreneurs have to take like investing in buildings and inventories without any guarantee of success or without any return exemplify the generosity in gift-giving, but in my opinion, I don’t think capitalists bear this risk out of their kindness, but on the possibility that they could earn incredible interests on that risk.
As he explained, the nature of giving does not rely on getting something in return, it relies on the uncertainty of it.Capitalism beings with taking a risk for the sake of an opportunity to get something greater. Entrepreneurs risk with the hope of some magnified return.
The uncertainty of giving and the faith the government must have in entrepreneurs is crucial for societies to progress. Whether it is rooted in greed or benevolence, capitalism requires trusting an individual's ideas and the uncertainty that comes with them in order to see growth. This is because there are no limits to giving, and there will always be a better solution to society’s pain and suffering. If you risk providing a better offering, the chances of finding something better increase. Socialist states favor controlled environments for the sake of stability and will never be exposed to the possibility of finding superior ways of living, therefore, they are stagnant.
Trust in “individual creativity” is the primary strength of capitalism, emphasizing that successful societies rely on people who take personal responsibility for the betterment of society as well as their own lives. This is exemplified by the case of subsidies, and how the government became extremely ineffective and wasteful by sponsoring individuals who did not have the responsibility of giving the best solution. In a successful capitalist system, the government should have faith in “individual creativity” to spark the economy and catch up with the rest of the world.
The idea of responsibility is also reflected in the Law of Reciprocity. In socialist states, no matter how much one gives to society, whether it is plenty or nothing, everyone receives the same return from the government. By contrast, in capitalist economies, you must give in order to receive, and the magnitude of your receipt is completely reflected in your contribution. This means that people are fully responsible for what obtain, and have the freedom to choose their outcomes.
The recurring idea in Gilder’s work is that giving sparked more giving, innovation, and growth, which is an idea I supported. Every time a tribe made a feast or offering, the other tribe was naturally inclined or obliged to create one of greater proportions. Giving was one of the first stepping stones for the capitalist system, and then competition came in to favor the chief giver or the person that was able to understand societal needs best. The key is to recognize that everyone can win by giving because, after all, it represents risk and responsibility.
