This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Is The Economic Crisis An Indictment Of Capitalism?
Submitted by Shawn Ritenour via the Foundations of Economics blog,
One of the sad narratives of the financial meltdown of 2008 and its aftermath is that it was and remains the result of unbridled capitalism. Too much freedom spoiled the economic broth.
While doing research for a current project I'm working on, I came upon a remarkable essay by Ludwig von Mises. It turns out that Mises considered the question of whether economic crisis is an indictment of laissez-faire capitalism back in 1931 in the wake of the worst global economic downturn of the Twentieth Century.
In an essay, "The Economic Crisis and Capitalism," published in the German Neue Freie Presse (available in English Translation in Selected Writings of Ludwig von Mises, Vol. 2), he explains why the answer to the question is a decided no!
It is almost universally asserted that the severe economic crisis under which the world presently is suffering has provided proof of the impossibility of retaining the capitalist system. Capitalism, it is thought, has failed; and its place must be taken by a better system, which clearly can be none other than socialism.
That the currently dominant system has failed can hardly be contested. But it is another question whether the system that has failed was the capitalist system or whether, in fact, it is not anticapitalist policy--interventionism, and national and municipal socialism--that is to blame for the catastrophe.
The structure of our society resets on the division of labor and on the private ownership of the means of production. In this system the means of production are privately owned and are used either by the owners themselves--capitalists and landowners--for production, or turned over to other entrepreneurs who carry out production partly with their own and partly with others' means of production. In the capitalist system the market functions as the regulator of production. The price structure of the market decides what will be produced, how, and in what quantity. Through the structure of prices, wages, and interest rates the market brings supply and demand into balance and sees to it that each branch of production will be as fully occupied as corresponds to the volume and intensity of the effective demand. Thus capitalist production derives its meaning from the market. Of course, a temporary imbalance between production and demand can occur, but the structure of market prices makes sure that the balance is reestablished in a short time. Only when the mechanism of the market is disturbed by external interventions is the effect of market prices on the regulation of production prevented; they are disturbances that no longer can be remedied by the automatic reactions of the market, disturbance that are not temporary but prolonged.
In a free market rooted in private property, the only way entrepreneurs are able to sustain profits is by serving customers better than anyone else. It is only when they receive special privileges through preferential regulation, subsidies, bailouts and the like that they are able to reap profits for which they have not sowed productive activity.
I was struck by how much of what Mises said about the response of many to the Great Depression applies closely to our current situation. Just like Mises, we must never tire of explaining the fallacies in the thinking of those who think the Great Recession is a clear case of the failure of capitalism. In fact, it is a quintessential example of the failures of interventionism to bring about anything other than economic destruction and relative impoverishment.
»
- 16159 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
So you don't have the knowledge required to make accurate judgement calls and statements, but you feel the need to speak out with your judgement and statements as if they held value with your admitted lack of requisite knowledge.
fatman51 re "Capitalism is an abstraction...":
You can tell 'em and tell 'em and tell 'em but they still don't seem to listen or understand what you're telling 'em. You spelled it out perfectly in the first paragraph and still they don't get it. There is ideal capitalism, real world capitalism and capitalism the religious cult. And what we see here is alot of "Capitalism the Religious Cult".
"Is The Economic Crisis An Indictment Of Capitalism?"
No. It's an Indictment on our career criminal class of elected and appointed officials in Washington DC.
failure of global capitalism is real. When one allows individuals to own unlimited capital some of them will get very rich at expence of everyone else and it will end in some sort of a revolution that will redistribute that wealth more fairly and then the cycle will repeat
When one allows government the power to manipulate economics and confiscate wealth to "redistribute it more fairly" because of beliefs like yours it completely allows very rich people to purchase government and use that power to get even more rich at the expensive of others.
Then after the system has a breakdown those same rich people use the crises to push the government to get even more power over free men so that it may be purchased later the cycle repeats.
Capitalism is a lot of things. If you actually read the communist manifesto, Marx was just gushing about capitalism and how it was able to re-invent itself (creative destruction) and produce goods on an unimaginable scale. His concern was how wealth was distributed i.e just to the 1% or more broadly. Henry George in Progress and Poverty tackled a similar theme.
Prior to 2008 and especially prior to 1970 wealth was distributed very unevenly to "the west" things have been shifting for a long time. FAST FORWARD to today and joe six pack is waking up to having less wealth coming his way. Welcome to capitalism in the new millennium you in "the west" are no longer going to be such a huge beneficiary of all that output.
I will never understand why anyone would listen to what a Socialist has to say about Capitalism. It makes no sense to me, when the Socialist has an incentive to lie and deceive people about his declared opposition to benefit his own position.
How about indicting some politicians and bureaucrats.
crime pays?
crime doesn't pay?
.
.
Arnold Rothstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Rothstein
.
what hasn't been fixed since 1913, or 1919 world series?
does the "fixing" pay to the fixer?
.
29 June 2013
Corporate Media: Journalism In the Service of the Powerful Few
.
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2013/06/corporate-media-journal...
.
" "And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that."
John Dalberg Lord Acton" ...jca
.
first video 3 hr. documentary show the situation for what it is.
second video accurately portrays the state of the news and knowledge
base of the voting public as the corporate media likes it.
the horror !
.
further , capitalism is never discussed without discussing property
rights and that makes sense. but what are the limits to "property
rights", what cannot be financialised, is there anything that is
"sacred"? the same old question.
there you find an interesting and revealing discussion which you will
never hear in the media or in public for that matter because if
that debate was conducted you would see instantly just who the fascists
are, where they stand.
The unregulated capitalism you fuckers wish for will only bring more misery, more environmental destruction, more exploitation of the poor, more neglect of the elderly and dependent, more monopolism, more cronyism, etc.
This is what capitalism is, and it is the inevitable outcome of the system. More money and power for the rich and powerful, less for everyone else, until the breaking point.
The world is waking up to the reality of the exploitative capitalist system. Riots and protests are now the norm. Y'all can continue pushing your heads up your asses with this outdated, simplistic belief that unfettered capitalism will make things better, but you'll find yourselves pushed further and further toward the fringe. No one believes this stuff anymore.
You suck at life.
Ahhh... a Socialist. By definition a very generous person with other people's money.
welcome, another "ism" party are you guys here all week?
Crony-Capitalism is the problem with the Central Banks playing a primary role in the most recent financial mess. The natural world is a competive and variable place. Some years the weather creates bounty and some years famine. Any society that assumes bounty happens every year is doomed. Any society that forces the young to save for the old to consume resources is doomed. Natural law rules and capitalism best reflects natural law.
Any society that fails to teach its young the natural laws is doomed. Life is not fair when natural selection rules unless you are the most adaptable species. I think bacteria or viruses rule. Capitalism forces humans to think for themselves as it rewards the winners and punishes the losers; thus best prepares humans to compete in the natural world. Most people believe humans are above the natural world; thus blame capitalism for the problems of life.
We're all the same species, dude. We can relate to one another in many different ways. If we continue to teach our children that this is a cruel vicious world, we create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some species survive by working together. We are self-aware, not automatons ruled by instinct and incapable of rational thought. Its time we started acting like it.
Oh, we humans do like to believe in fairy tales and the pyschopaths use our dreams to control us.
If you think the NSA is working to protect you and your family, you will discover the human power of group-think. Humans are incapable of controlling the evil power contained in the NSA database until they show up at your home with a copy of your history that implies you are an enemy of the state. Humans are NOT infallible and in groups likely irrational, and likely the most vicious species on the globe.
who's foot is on the windpipe of the first amendment?
For almost the entirety of human existence, abject poverty has been the norm. The great majority have lived destitute lives, where their labor has only been sufficient to increase their daily odds of survival. A vanishingly small percentage of humanity has lived lives of relative opulence and abundance in their role as masters of the many who spent their miserable and short lives in service to them.
In the rare societies where this pattern has been broken, for a time, it was broken by the key principles of liberty; private property and free enterprise. When one needs no special status to engage in trade, and may possess the fruits of their own labor, the incentives exist to allow societies to create a large and growing middle class and an economic engine of innovation and productivity that benefits all.
In each instance, the freedom and property rights enjoyed by all have created not only great abundance but great variability in the outcomes of individual lives. These societies have each inevitably sought to redistribute this abundance in a manner which was intended to narrow the relative gap in quality of life between the haves and the have-nots. The steps taken to achieve this social goal have necessarily undermined the private property rights and altered the free markets, until sufficient damage has been done, and centralized control now dominant, so as to render the result the essential equivalent of the oppressive societies these principles were intended to allow us to escape. In the final phase, the people's leaders are true sociopaths, drawn to the positions of centralized authority like ants to sugar, creating the opportunity for true horrors to be visited on the democratic majority who failed to foresee, and only hoped to help. At the very end, there is only the miserable failure to comprehend by the many, and the deep regret of the understanding few.
Until such time as a sufficient fraction of humanity understands that this variability in the human condition is as much a fact of existence as water is wet, we are doomed to repeat this cycle. Someday, we may hope, a society will arise with the will to pursue true liberty with the understanding that this must include an enduring resolve to protect these individual freedoms as the highest values a society can hold.
Holy shit bro! Great post.
pairadimes...well said.
Thousands of comments on zh threads have produced thousands of tweaks to any and every economic system imaginable. None of these comments have addressed the futility of trying to design a system that cannot be subverted by the sociopaths that always manage to get into control of human systems. Which is why this world is now due for some divine judgement and a fresh governance, well prophesised and generally looked foreward to as Christ on the throne. We just can't run things, it's built in.
When I attribute this to you in the future, people will think I am referring to some Greek philosopher instead of two thin dimes. Thanks.
So common sense is really common after all. Contrary to popular belief, socialists actually have it too. That's how you know that when they always demand alternatives to liberty, you'll know they're full of shit.
Well said sir/madam......well said, you!
No point in arguing with deadbeat commies any longer. Their idiotic polices have reached their end. Prepare for the denoument.
interventionism. wtf does that mean or imply?
.
interventionism (n.) Look up interventionism at Dictionary.com1923, from intervention + -ism. Interventionist, as a noun, is recorded from 1839.
.
intervention (n.) Look up intervention at Dictionary.comearly 15c., "intercession, intercessory prayer," from Middle French intervention or directly from Late Latin interventionem (nominative interventio) "an interposing," noun of action from past participle stem of Latin intervenire "to come between, interrupt," from inter- "between" (see inter-) + venire "come" (see venue).
.
in·ter·ven·tion·ism (ntr-vnsh-nzm)
n.
The policy or practice of intervening, especially:
a. The policy of intervening in the affairs of another sovereign state.
b. The use of government power to control or influence domestic economic activity.
.
so, less government influence is called for here, right? there is a problem
with this though and that specifically is it is not a question of quantity
of influence of government but a question of the quality of the influence.
what is "government"?
anarchists may protest but are we ready to build and pay private tolls on all the
roads, abandon all modern transportation? grow our own food? grow our
own law enforcement, courts and abandon all "commons" and common property?
have we already done it?
it seems there is the crux and devil of it. so it is a question of "according to
whom", who is to say? I assume there is no answer as if there were one it would
have been clearly articulated by now. and if it was articulated, given a few
years, some sorts would find a way to "fix" it, like the 1919 world series or
the election, or the ideological influence in media, or the price of health care
and pharmaceuticals, or the music industry, or intelligence and education ....
etc..
.
come to think about it capitalism is interventionism of the first kind,
we have heard of the terms "marketing" and "lobbying".
I never thought I would see something so stupid posted on ZH. I was obviously wrong.
what is the problem, do tell.
Read the article genius.
think about the meaning of the words and ideas in an
historic context, Einstein.
.
@"In a free market rooted in private property, the only way entrepreneurs are able to sustain profits is by serving customers better than anyone else. "
..
.It is only when they receive special privileges through preferential regulation, subsidies, bailouts and the like that they are able to reap profits for which they have not sowed productive activity.
.
question to Einstein. what is all this "free market rooted in private
property.."? do you not get the whiff of the sermon in this, the pure
religiosity of it that when broken down to actual meaning and practice
is like a prayer and a myth of utopian grandeur?
anyway, in your mind, what is the indictment of the financial "credit" crash of 2008?
You are incorrect, as your premises are flawed. Free-Market Capitalism is rooted in Natural Right's, as is Private Property. You are trying to apply humanist philosophy to something that humanist philosophy does not have the capacity of recognizing. That is the problem with socialism, it's incapable of recognizing individual rights. As a result it doesn't work, as it can not understand that people are self-interested.
This argument is actually the argument between the Humanist Movement from Machiavelli and the Natural Right's movement from Locke. That is all it is. The humanists sees right's as something only others can grant them. The natural right's people say that right's are innate.
The crash of 2008 was the result of government intervention.
straw man argument/conclusion.
@"The crash of 2008 was the result of government intervention."
Einstein.
the government can always be sited
as the guilty party when there is propagation of law
by the government and a bad outcome. would you accrue the
guilt to the "government" of
dismembering the victims of jack the ripper because the
people agreed that dismembering people in the dead of night
is a criminal offense? does not our mr. ripper have his
natural rights?
.
if you mean to say, more specifically, that the government,
by legislating the federal reserve act , etc. of 1913 resulted
in a predictable credit crash of 2008 that might mean something
insightful, otherwise the generalization sounds ideological and hollow.
.
whether rights are innate or granted is a moment by moment and
milieu dependent hard fact that can result in life or death or merely
a spoiled afternoon, depending on the particular circumstances.
.
" did thee murder thy captain on thou's last voyage? "
the part people hate is the part that says natural
rights are associated with natural responsibilities,
they are inseparable, the respecting of other people's
natural rights. capitalist are not keen on that part
history does tell, actually, political philosophy in general
has little use for it as it tends to limit the exercising of
power.
so what? ....
Free-Market Capitalism is rooted in Natural Right's, as is Private Property.
Yes, the problem of course is that resources are limited... thus, the notion that "your rights end where my rights begin" tends to fall on its face. But, there is some neat stuff that can happen in the meantime.
Bailout was ransom money.
ps. the economic crisis is an indictment of the federal
reserve bank and alan greenspan's policies. an indictment
of the money system as has been pointed out by many people
going back to 1985 or so specifically and more generally
back to 1913. the questions raised still stand as relevant.
the author of this piece neglected or underplayed this
actual indictment I thought. and capitalism / vs. interventionism
is a straw man argument imho, as pure capitalism never existed, can
never exist, and would fail or has failed. it implies private
law enforcement or cartel enforcement. is that the nut of the
true religion? go on, tell me where it's at.
.
The present system is not one of free-market capitalism, but rather monopoly capitalism. Just because you have Ford, GM, && Chrysler doesn't mean you have free-market capitalism. These large car makers get together and lobby to raise barriers to competition, which is anti-free-market. They are typical of large corporate interests all across the western industrial world in that they then promote socialsm among society. Why would they do that? Our system is a fascist one, where corporations control government. Then why promote socialism? To force the indebtedness of a once great nation being put into debt-bondage, and to promote the structure of a police force among the people. In a sense, free-market capitalism hasn't failed, because it hasn't been used at the top for generations. What has betrayed us is monopoly capitalism masquerading as free-market capitalism, and mistaken by the people for the same. Many among the people see the failings and danger of this monopoly capitalism, and their solution is sociaism. Great, more big government to which we all must bow and scrape. And the monopoly corporations are taking over society to destroy the constitution and to move everyone into a police state through the actions of corporate empolyees in government.
I would say the near collapse in 2008 was a fair indictment Corporate Fascism...
Capitalism really doesn't exist except on the micro level; anyone getting big enough to influence the macro level will invariably pervert the process that allowed them to rise...
Fascism is the only possible evolution endpoint in a corporate dominanted socio-political system...
I'll donate $5000 bucks to the charity of your choice to anyone that refute what I said re: Fascism in 5 paragraphs or less...
Anyone making shit up it will not be further considered...
Can not refute something that has been proven to be true throughout economic history.
Feel free to send me the $5000 in gold bullion though.
Nice... You do get points for the direct approach, but that really was not quite what we had in mind...
Can't hate me for trying. :-P
Fascism is the only possible evolution endpoint in a corporate dominanted socio-political system...
Ok... so fascism is fascism? got it... brilliant.
Although, you get a pass for this:
Capitalism really doesn't exist except on the micro level; anyone getting big enough to influence the macro level will invariably pervert the process that allowed them to rise...
bingo.
When did America become fascist? In your opinion.
I guess I would first address that the better question would be when was political power corrupted in america? The answer, although I'm sure I'll get negative votes, is "from inception." It's a basic human trait, for better or worse. When this power changed from individuals to associations to corporations (legal entities separate and apart from their owners) is really of no consequence. The entire process is just one big consolidation... leading to less and less liability for consolidated power and, eventually, thereby leading to barriers to entry and slowed narrowing of the wealth gap.
It's tough to say when mere associations succumbed to the corporate form, but it was clearly only a matter of time. It's really tough to say because so much power was had by religious organizations/corporations... but insofar as a more private/commercial type corporate form, that would have to be in the late 1800s/early 1900s sometime (following england's lead of course)... once states opened the floodgates and created simple processes for the creation of a corporation, it was game over... at least with requiring the legislature to approve a corporation, only the wealthiest and most influential could get through.
However, the real answer is "from the first commercial corporation." It set the ball in motion... it was inevitable from that point. (I would even entertain the notion that it was from inception of the corporate form, not just the commercial corporate form, which would go back... probably longer than any viable recorded history). We can split hairs if you want, but I really see no practical difference between our various labels for economic and political systems. It's basically a narrow view of who is doing the commanding at any one point in time... short sighted at best.
Needless to say, I advocate for a return to the three basic forms of private organization: (1) sole proprietorship; (2) partnership; and (3) limited partnership [going back to common law where limited partners were prohibited from participating in management of the business, which has been eliminated that this point... hell, we even have limited liability limited partnerships (which is actually an extra layer of limited liability protection... better mousetraps and what not)]. With sovereign immunity and charitable immunity, there is no practical need for the corporate form for public matters...
Short answer: early 1900s
Long answer: from inception
Thanks for the measured reply:
I'll proffer this the key ruling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
as the turning point. Talk about activist judges intepreting the 14th amendment!
Now, taking your early 1900's as starting point, what segment of the body politic attempted to confront the "fascist forces" at work at that time?
There are only competing forces and we can call each force whatever we want...
But, as an interesting aside and keeping with the topic, most people don't know that at the same time as Santa Clara was handed down, the country was battling over tort reform. As it turns out, corporate interests (e.g. railroads) wanted more limited liability for killing people on the tracks... eventually, for example, pushing through "tort reform" in Pennsylvania, which practically absolved the railroads from damages. After a couple more needless deaths, the yokels got uppity. The battle culminated in a state constitutional amendment prohibiting laws that set limits on damages for lawsuits. Some states (mine included) followed suit and passed similar constitutional measures [many of which still exist].
And yet people still clamor for tort reform... as if we hadn't already decided the matter a century earlier with no apparent change in circumstances to warrant a new debate.
I do not believe the same measures could pass in the present day...
Missed your reply till now...
The only political force that was taking on the corporate power at the turn of the century were the Progressives...
Chrony capitalism is a stage and certainly is a negative value on the capitalism curve. we can only hope that the birth of the next system is an improvement over capitalism....otherwise this and the few generations to follow are in for some heavy mashing of teeth.
The current situation has little to do with capitalism. Capitalism produced the wealth and plenty that is the envy of socialism. We look back at what has been created and blame what we see today on the past. It is the present that is the product of socialism blamed on the long forgotten past.
Stacy Herbert: The Great British Bank Robbery
Posted on June 30, 2013 by maxkeiser
Read more at http://www.maxkeiser.com/#fMDqVOw60PX4E5Xy.99
.
http://www.maxkeiser.com/2013/06/stacy-herbert-the-great-british-bank-ro...
power today, and that is the subject, comes from
setting the rules and then being at liberty to
break those rules by the powerful. that is what we see
today.
everything else is meat-glue for the general public.
Capitalism and Crony-Capitalism are two different things.
Yes, one is the reality of the human condition, the other, a figment of an economist's imagination...
apparently the capitalists are getting mad that you're shit talking their religion...
f16hoser re "Capitalism and Crony-Capitalism are two different things.":
Yes, capitalism always leads to crony capitalism. But don't take my word for it. Get any 18 yo economics student and put him in a room with a 40 yo business man. Now count the amount of seconds before the businessman explains to the "young up-start" that "business is not about economics. It's about building relationships." Building relationships? What relationships? Words that can be so innocent and yet so guilty at the same time! Where does that end?
Bill Black on the delusion of "free market capitalism" where financial markets magically regulate themselves. An exerpt:
"Greenspan, with the rabid support of the Rubin wing of the Clinton administration, along with Republican Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Phil Gramm, crushed [Brooksley] Born’s effort to regulate credit default swaps (CDS). The plutocrats and their political allies deliberately created what’s known as a regulatory black hole – a place where elite criminals could commit their crimes under the cover of perpetual night."
http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-elite-economic-hucksters-drive-ameri...
news flash. you don't have to pay people to shut up and be stupid.
they will do so voluntarily given the right ideology and then
absorb the shame and suffering unto death, blaming themselves
and embracing the guilt that the ideology dishes out.
.
apologies where needed and upon request.
what was the line?
"culture is predicated upon myth and politics (ideology)
is based on culture."
something like that.
John Le Carre is one of my favourite authors about espionage and the cold war. Since he was an employee of her majesty's secret service in his youth, he writes with the depth, wisdom and knowledge rare in publishing these days.
In the forward section of his latest work, A Delicate Truth, which I have yet to read in full, he writes about his main protagonist pontificating that, since we have defeated Communism, the next target of the free world must be Capitalism if we are to remain free.
He has a very good point there. Capitalism only works for those with capital. Basically it is the use of capital to accumulate more capital by exploiting those under your socioeconomic ladder. It is attractive to most because we would all like to aspire to the notion of working hard or getting lucky enough accumulate enough wealth so that somebody else can one day do all the hard work while we live lives of leisure. But don't confuse it with another concept that most people mistakenly believe go hand in hand with capitalism: Democracy - the idea that gives power to the electorate and quite possibly the most important thing of all, the ability to hire and fire our leaders. The latter more important than the former. Conceptually, capitalism and democracy are almost polar opposites. Capitalism positively encourages serfdoms, the cults of kings, and feudal corporcracies where those with the most capital control most of the resources. We are well entrenched in an era of corporations with literal/virtual ownership of government agencies, politicians, and every facet of our individual lives: What we watch, what we learn, what we eat, what we drink, where we sleep, what we breathe, and even how we socialise with each other. There isn't a single micro second in the life of the modern man that is not touched by a multinational corporation and its polluting influences. Multinationals that are owned by the few with real capital. Real wealth. The kind that can change the world for their benefit when it suits their whims and wreck our lives in their quest to accumulate even more capital.
I see capitalism as a kind of serfdom for the rest of us, where we slowly lose more and more of our democratic powers to their corporate entities, while deluding ourselves that exploiting poorer people than us, poisoning them, stealing from them, and using them to make us richer is beneficial to us - makes us better than them. We are serfs dreaming of being overlords, jealous and envious of eachother, constantly bickering among the scraps to put a toehold on a slightly higher rung on the socioeconomic ladder.
Capital, collateral, funds. They all spell money. But when money is based on nothing, as fiat implies, produced by the trillions by the alumni of multinationals in key government positions for the express purpose of disseminating that fiat money to multinationals, first to the banks then to the listed companies on Wall St., the average Joe (And his unborn children to come) has absolutely no chance in hell of ever walking away from being a debt slave to the promise of payment for all the money printed on the false premise that such insurmountable public debt is an asset that can be repaid with taxes and growth in the fantasy future.
I like the idea of getting richer, but I don't like the idea of being exploited or exploiting others to do it. I like the idea of making money work for me, but I don't like the idea of rigged markets and encouraging unethical behaviour like sacrificing perfectly sound companies and their employees to squeeze another buck on the altar of profit and dividends for shareholders.
I feel rather sad for the absurd few who still defend capitalism's worst excesses, and think we'll all be poor if we abandon it, because there are really good working alternatives out there. Capitalization by democracy for example like Kickstarter. Cooperatives if you like old fashioned socialism. Ideas and concepts that encourage small enterprises, give consumer choices and investment opportunities. Give power to the employees and other stakeholders. Democratic virtues need to be defended, not capitalism espoused by the banks and the cronies in government.
So you essentially are admitting you are a freedom destroying, wealth-seizing, liberty eroding, totalitarian-yearning, poverty engendering, neofascist New Age Man. Pleased to make your acquaintance.
Sure. Espousing democratic virtues always makes one a fascist does it?
You really ought to seek professional help for those voices in your head.
Democratic virtues - has a nice ring. Those "virtues" include the forcible reallocation of capital from the commerce between citizens and manufacturing of capital goods, and diverts to the socialist agenda of social justice and "fairness". That this misdirection of capital has failed in every instance won't dissuade devotees such as yourself from insisting on failure yet again. Yes, somehow your system will finally get it right. And you reference the voices in MY head?
You must be reading someone else's post. Cooperatives and ideas like Kickstarter epitomise the accrual and funding process in the hands of the individual - not a central body. Forcible reallocation of capital describes the present doctrines of crony capitalism rather well. You may argue that crony capitalism is not the same, but imo it stems from the age old problem of too much power and wealth in the hands of the few which is the logical consequence of unfettered capitalism. (Also true for communism). The consequence we are actually currently living.
By the tone of your monochromatic posts, I know you can only hold two ideas in your head at the same time, but being against the worst excesses of capitalism does not make me a socialist, just as being against socialism makes a capitalist. That's just infantile.
I like the cut of your jib....
Here is capitalism today, I've got a printing press, hand over all your valuables for this paper. Looks like this ape found a shiny stone, here is some more fresh paper for ya, and keep finding those stones and thank you.
The printing press breaks all the rules, fractional reserve breaks all the rules, rehypothecation breaks all the rules, total information awareness breaks all the rules.
click here for more charts on America's growing income gap.
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes," billionaire hotelier Leona Helmsley famously (and allegedly) sniffed.
..."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-char...
.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/29/bill-hicks-outlaw-comic-and-patr...
bill hicks ..
As I mentioned somewhere before. We have ideal capitalism and we have real capitalism. And ideal capitalism does not exist, did not exist, and never will exist, save for in small pockets here and there. "Capitalism" is a cleaner working for SFA due to an over supply of cleaners versus the fear of starving to death. Meanwhile, the "cream of the capitalists" board their private jets to beg the grabmint for a bail-out. Let me tell you "capitalism" 's dirty secret: If someone has the balls to jump on a private jet, fly to the White House and beg for a multi-billion dollar handout then they are not begging for the first time. They have had a life-time of practise. Capitalism has more in common with begging than anyone dares to admit. In fact, I would assert that a small profit is due to capitalism, excess profit is due to skillful begging, but we can debate that another day.
To assert that ideal capitalism exists is to assert that the ocean is always flat, the wind is always calm, and that tornados, hurricanes and tsunamis will never happen. News flash: In the real world, there will always be one or two capitalists that through fair means or foul, or skill or natural luck, will manage to get ahead of the rest of the crowd. Ideal capitalists refuse to acknowledge this even when the evidence is all around them. The few that get ahead of the flock will eventually buy the government of the day, and that is how capitalism will always devolve into crony capitalism which will always devolve into fascism.
Let's get this real simple: Bullies will always exist. People will always gang up against bullies in order to survive. Gangs will gang up against bully gangs. The biggest gang will eventually be the biggest bully. The names of the gangs are irrelevant. You can take away the guvmint but the bullies will still be there. The bullies will use governments if they can get their hands on one, but if they can't then they'll use whatever is handy.
You pay too much tax? Is government too inefficient and lazy? Like I've said before, where are all the enterprising young capitalists offering cheaper government? Surely there's money to be made ...
... No. The capitalists just bought the bits of government that they needed.