This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Should We Be "Scared" Of Capitalism?

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man.com,

Physicists Should Stick to Physics

We know already since Einstein that renowned physicists would do better to avoid straying into the field of economics. In 1949 Einstein published an essay on economics and education that is brimming with ignorance. According to Einstein, “The economic anarchy of capitalist society [is] the real source of evil”. Any old Marxist could have written that of course – the “capitalist anarchy of production” was routinely mentioned as an alleged drawback by Marxists, one that their “scientific” central economic planning would overcome.

 

einstein-big-idea-merl

Albert Einstein: great physicist, terrible economist.

Photo credit: Steffen Kugler / Getty Images

This conviction eventually cost the lives of hundreds of millions of people and utterly bankrupted half of the world for good measure. A representative quote from Einstein’s article:

“I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child.”

We have no idea what possessed Einstein to write this clap-trap. Was he not aware, in 1949, of the evils perpetrated by Stalin and the planners of the Soviet Union? Had he not heard of the purges, the famines and the Gulag?

There should be no need to mention that Ludwig von Mises already showed in 1920 that economic calculation is literally impossible in a society in which the State is the sole owner of the means of production. Moreover, a vigorous debate between F.A. Hayek and Lionel Robbins on the one side, and assorted supporters of central economic planning such as Oskar Lange and Henry Dickinson on the other side had been raging between the mid 1930s and early 1940s (previously Marxist writers had proscribed such debates on the basis of polylogism).

Possibly Einstein wasn’t aware of this debate, but a salient feature of it was that the socialist planners had been forced to retreat step by step, until in the end, the only proposal they were left with was that the central planning agency should try to “imitate a market”. As Mises remarked on this later (in Human Action, which incidentally was also published in 1949):

“What these neo-socialists suggest is really paradoxical. They want to abolish private control of the means of production, market exchange, market prices, and competition. But at the same time they want to organize the socialist utopia in such a way that people could act as if these things were still present.

 

They want people to play market as children play war, railroad, or school. They do not comprehend how such childish play differs from the real thing it tries to imitate.”

(italics in original)

If the socialists had succeeded in establishing socialism globally after the Russian revolution, the world would have been back in something resembling the stone age within a few short years. Society would have fallen apart, people would have been forced to lead a hand-to-mouth existence, barely subsiding. The only reason why the communists held on for as long as they did was that socialism was not implemented on a global scale. The planners were therefore able to observe prices in the capitalist societies, allowing them to engage in a rudimentary form of economic calculation.

 

400px-Oskar_Lange_20-65

Polish economist and “Market socialist” Oskar Lange: he lost the socialist calculation debate and didn’t even realize it, as he simply failed to grasp the essence of the argument. Poland’s economy was duly run into the ground by his fellow socialists.

Photo credit: W?adys?aw Miernicki

It is truly remarkable how deeply embedded socialist thought remains in society to this day, in spite of the downfall of the socialist Prison State in the late 1980s/early 1990s, after its utter bankruptcy could no longer be concealed (as an aside, we plan to soon post another article on the enduring popularity of collectivism, a phenomenon that strikes us as more than passing strange). Thus yet another popular and renowned physicist, namely Stephen Hawkins, has jumped into the debate, seemingly attacking capitalism. According to the Huffington Post, “Stephen Hawking Says We Should Really Be Scared Of Capitalism, Not Robots”.

To paraphrase Albert Jay Nock, it is downright absurd that socialist ideas are still so unquestioningly accepted that one is actually forced to discuss and defend capitalism, as if there were any other type of economy! An economy cannot be anything but capitalistic; without economic calculation, there is simply no rational economy to discuss. It makes no sense to call any other system an “economy”.

It follows that the only people who have reason to discuss the viability of the capitalist system are those who want to return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. But they can do that without trying to enforce their nonsense on anyone else. Surely there is enough room in the Amazon forest. If a handful of morons eager to shun civilization want to ship themselves there, we imagine no-one would object (such as e.g. the insane eco death-cult of Paul Kingsnorth in the UK; they probably wouldn’t do it though, due to the lack of wall plugs needed to recharge the batteries of their iPhones).

 

Production and Distribution are not Separate Activities

We are not sure why Mr. Hawking would object to capitalism. Does he not realize that without the free market economy (hampered as it is nowadays), there would be no modern physics as we know it? That the radio telescopes and the particle accelerators used by experimenters to check the validity of his theories wouldn’t exist?

 

hawking

Stephen Hawking, world-renowned theoretical physicist. He has inter alia published books on physics even laymen can enjoy, and which we highly recommend.

Photo credit: NASA

Here is what the Huffington Post writes about Hawking’s remarks (perhaps not surprisingly, French Marxist economist Thomas Piketty is mentioned as well in the commentary proved by the HuffPo’s author. In spite of the – in our opinion artificially blown out of all proportions – popularity of Pikkety’s tome, it is a book that is absolute garbage both in terms of theory and and its misrepresentation of empirical data).

“Machines won’t bring about the economic robot apocalypse — but greedy humans will, according to physicist Stephen Hawking. In a Reddit Ask Me Anything session on Thursday, the scientist predicted that economic inequality will skyrocket as more jobs become automated and the rich owners of machines refuse to share their fast-proliferating wealth.

 

“If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.”

 

Essentially, machine owners will become the bourgeoisie of a new era, in which the corporations they own won’t provide jobs to actual human workers.

As it is, the chasm between the super rich and the rest is growing. For starters, capital — such as stocks or property — accrues value at a much faster rate than the actual economy grows, according to the French economist Thomas Piketty. The wealth of the rich multiplies faster than wages increase, and the working class can never even catch up. But if Hawking is right, the problem won’t be about catching up. It’ll be a struggle to even inch past the starting line.”

(the emphasized part are Hawking’s own words)

First of all, as we have discussed in these pages on many occasions, inequality cannot possibly be a problem as such (here is an example from 2011: “Wealth and Income Inequality in the US”). It may produce envy, but that doesn’t mean inequality is a problem – envy is.

Let us simply consider two hypothetical societies. In one of them, every inhabitant makes the equivalent of $1,000 per month. Perfect equality! In another, three people make $6,000 per month each, while the rest make $2,000 each. Bad, bad, bad….there are three rich people! Rhetorical question: which one do you think people would prefer to live in?

The reason why inequality is seen as a problem nowadays, is that the incomes of the middle class and the poor have stagnated or even declined since the adoption of the full-fledged fiat money system in the 1970s, while already rich owners of assets have seen their wealth and income soar. Had everybody’s wealth increased, even if at unequal rates, there would be precisely zero reason to complain.

What is the reason for this deplorable development? It certainly isn’t the fact that the “machine-owners” (read: capitalists) have successfully lobbied against wealth redistribution” as Mr. Hawking avers. As a matter of fact, in the US a tiny minority of the population pays the vast bulk of the taxes the State then redistributes. As of 2015, the top 20% of income earners pay 84% of all income tax. It seems their “lobbying against wealth redistribution” hasn’t been all that successful so far.

The bottom 20% (up to annual earnings of $47,300) pay no income tax at all – on the contrary, they receive a net income tax benefit. The slightly dated chart below shows the situation as of 2012 (it shows the bottom 50% as a single group, so one doesn’t see the tax beneficiaries, but it also shows a more finely grained overview of the top earners and how much they are paying).

 

wrd

Wealth redistribution hardly seems to be a “problem” (chart by Erik Soderstrom) – click to enlarge.

As Murray Rothbard notes in Man, Economy and State, in a free market there is no such thing as “distribution” that is separate from production:

“The theory of the market determines the prices and incomes accruing to productive factors, thereby also determining the “functional distribution” of the factors. “Personal distribution”— how much money each person receives from the productive system—is determined, in turn, by the functions that he or his property performs in that system. There is no separation between production and distribution, and it is completely erroneous for writers to treat the productive system as if producers dump their product onto some stockpile, to be later “distributed” in some way to the people in the society. “Distribution” is only the other side of the coin of production on the market.

 

Many people criticize the free market as follows: Yes, we agree that production and prices will be allocated on the free market in a way best fitted to serve the needs of the consumers. But this law is necessarily based on a given initial distribution of income among the consumers; some consumers begin with only a little money, others with a great deal. The market system of production can be commended only if the original distribution of income meets with our approval.

 

This initial distribution of income (or rather of money assets) did not originate in thin air, however. It, too, was the necessary consequence of a market allocation of prices and production. It was the consequence of serving the needs of previous consumers. It was not an arbitrarily given distribution, but one that itself emerged from satisfying consumer needs. It too was inextricably bound up with production.”

(italics in original)

 

MurrayBW

Murray Rothbard: production and distribution are not separate activities

Photo credit: Ludwig von Mises Institute

This leaves the question why the real incomes of the middle class and the poor have stagnated and declined – and the answer was already implicit in what we wrote further above. It is the unfettered fiat money inflation that has been in train since Nixon’s gold default that is to blame. Newly printed money always enters the economy at discrete points, and there will be earlier and later receivers of this money. Wealth will be redistributed from the latter to the former. The rich are in a better position than the poor, as asset prices tend to rise earlier and disproportionately relative to other prices. However, the central bank and its fiat money system are not capitalist free market institutions – they are socialist central planning agencies and tools.

It seems to us Mr. Hawking should be worried about socialism, not about capitalism. To be fair, we cannot really see as strong an indictment of capitalism in Mr. Hawking’s words as insinuated by the HuffPo’s author and the title of his article. Hawking definitely sounds a lot more harmless than Einstein did. However, he still seems to be advocating some sort of forcible wealth redistribution – plenty of which is already occurring.

 

Fear of Robots and the Problem of Scarcity

Hawking also seems to some extent express the fear of modern-day Luddites, that “robots will take all our jobs”. First of all, economic activity is primarily about producing more with less. It is about “economizing” – to relieve us of the drudgery of the pre-capitalistic order is its very object. It is absurd to complain and worry about its success in this department. The assertion that machines will “steal jobs” is of course as old as the first machines.

And yet, in spite of ever greater progress and ever more work being done by machines, human prosperity has continued to increase (by any measure one can possibly apply). Instead of jobs simply “disappearing”, different and better ones have taken their place. No-one can as of yet know what industries there will be in the future. No-one knew in 1990 that one day, a “social media company” would employ 10s of thousands of people and earn $10 billion per year.

Simply put, as long as there is more land (in the widest sense) than there are people on the planet, labor will always remain a scarce resource. What unemployment there is, is in part catallactic (voluntary), while the rest consists of “institutional” unemployment. The latter is to 100% the result of government intervention in the economy and specifically the labor market – it is not a result of capitalism or technological progress.

We also want to briefly address the belief that “robots will do all the work and produce everything”, the implied assertion that these production processes will somehow come for free, and that therefore only the “distribution question” remains. It is in a sense true that we are no longer constrained by a scarcity framework as long as we have a capitalist system. As Israel Kirzner wrote in this context in Discovery and the Capitalist Process – encapsulating both what we said above regarding the as of yet unknown future and the fact that capitalism is not confined by the problem of scarcity:

“We are not able to chart the future of capitalism in any specificity. Our reason for this incapability is precisely that which assures us . . . the economic future of capitalism will be one of progress and advance. The circumstance that precludes our viewing the future of capitalism as a determinate one is the very circumstance in which, with entrepreneurship at work, we are no longer confined by any scarcity framework. It is therefore the very absence of this element of determinacy and predictability that, paradoxically, permits us to feel confidence in the long-run vitality and progress of the economy under capitalism.”

However, “not confined” doesn’t mean that scarcity has all of a sudden ceased to exist. If not for scarcity, there would be no need to allocate resources properly. In fact, there would be no economic goods and no prices. We may not be confined by scarcity under capitalism, but we still have to deal with it; it is a fact of life.

 

Kirzner

A stern looking Israel Kirzner. Kirzner’s has produced highly interesting works on the entrepreneurial process, partly based on Hayek’s ideas about the role of knowledge in society

What many of the “robot worriers” overlook is that while we have enormous knowledge, and in theory could probably automate a great many production processes that are as of yet not automated, we are still faced with the fact that capital is scarce. The main reason why e.g. the Central African Republic is not at the level of development of an industrialized nation is precisely that it lacks capital. In other words, it is not “technology” or know-how that is the obstacle to the Utopia Hawking imagines to come into being – it is scarcity.

 

744px-Atlas_frontview_2013

Caution, job thief!

Image credit: DARPA

However, if the problem of scarcity were licked once and for all, why should there still be a problem of distribution? As we noted above: scarcity is why there are economic goods that have prices. The air we breathe is an example of a non-scarce good. Has anyone ever worried about its “distribution”? If there is no longer any scarcity, i.e. once Utopia or the Land of Cockaigne has been achieved, everything will indeed come for free. There will no longer be anything worth stealing and redistributing.

 

Conclusion

Stephen Hawking is undoubtedly a nice man and a genius in his field. This is probably also the field he should stick with. Anyway, we can lay his worries to rest: once there is no longer scarcity in the world, nobody will have reason to worry about wealth redistribution. Of course, it’s also not going to happen anytime soon and probably never will. There is also no reason to worry about employment while at least vestiges of a free market exist: as long as there remain unsatisfied human wants and as long as there are more resources than people, everybody will find work. The only real problem is government intervention in the market process.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:40 | 6653474 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

People should be free to live their lives as they please. Governments should not have a right to interfere with people's personal contracts. They are just taking their cut from the racket. To take the corruption out of capitalism is unrealistic. So why not go the other way and take the bribes off the table. De-crim pot would increase taxes and decrease crime. There is morality involved. Why would the same not be applied to our markets?

https://atokenmanblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/is-money-still-necessary/

Automate the farms and spend some time with your kids.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:53 | 6653529 LowerSlowerDela...
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture
"Should We Be "Scared" Of Capitalism?"

 

Only the stupid and overly emotional, non-thinking, ones.  The rational thinkers: No.

Free market capitalisim, that is.  Not this crony "capitalisim" that isn't capitalisim at all.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:01 | 6653562 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

What then, is the end goal of capitalism (as we know it?) Progress? To what ends?

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:33 | 6653667 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

What then, is the end goal of capitalism (as we know it?) Progress? To what ends?

 

Increased productivity so that folks can like, you know, eat and stuff.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:35 | 6653669 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

Nice avatar! Is that a Vonnegut thing?

People have been eating for quite some time, now.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:52 | 6653718 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

Nice avatar! Is that a Vonnegut thing?

 

Yes.

 

People have been eating for quite some time, now.

 

But if you take away capitalism there can be no plows or bushel baskets or barns or fences (which are capital equipment). Without capital equipment you will have to catch all your food by hand. Does that sound like a good idea to you?

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:01 | 6653735 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

That's an assumption that when people haven't the means to compare themselves to others, they stop doing anything. Money is the measuring stick, but the need to compete is the problem. This wouldn't change the fact that people would still have interests and goals. Not being paid by someone would just give us more time to achieve those goals.

People can still share the duties of farming, raising cattle etc. Capitalism just turns that labour into a caste system.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:12 | 6653766 Cornfedbloodstool
Cornfedbloodstool's picture

Hawkins and Einstien are/were both subnormals that do/did impossible things in their physics like divide by zero and multiply by infinity.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:47 | 6653853 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Easy to see why Hawkins would be so fond of "the idea" of a robot body.

Just sayin ;-)

Sun, 10/11/2015 - 03:34 | 6654646 old naughty
old naughty's picture

Um, could it be he's already in one?

Sun, 10/11/2015 - 12:08 | 6655317 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Please get the bugger's name right - Hawking

 

Sun, 10/11/2015 - 12:09 | 6655319 logicalman
logicalman's picture

You are obviously way more intelligent than those two!

 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:17 | 6653769 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

No offense but what have you been smoking? There's just so much wrong with what you've said. But lets's just look at this:

 

People can still share the duties of farming, raising cattle etc. Capitalism just turns that labour into a caste system.

 

In a free market system you are free to form a collective and do all those things you want to do. In a system without freedom where oligarchs make the rules you likely wouldn't have that freedom at least not without regulations and taxation which would strain your resources. You have a completely distorted idea about who is your enemy and who is your ally.

The people with guns who take your money and claim to keep you safe from violence and theft are not your friends. Those of us who assert the right of self determination and recognize that all individuals have that same right would be very good friends to you if you just opened your eyes.

 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:36 | 6653823 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, I'm just saying that whenever we use an -ism, we subject ourselves to a virtual measuring stick, no more. We don't need anybody pulling the strings for us. Maybe we did when we were all illiterate, but that isn't the case anymore. Capitalism leads to competition, and that is the worst thing for efficiency.

e.g. If we didn't have thousands of car companies, public transport would probably be teleporting people from New York to Tokyo by now.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:51 | 6653862 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

Language is a necessary tool and that's why some people try to co-opt it and use it to misdirect you and take your wealth. It's better to understand the real meaning of words and not accept what the liars and propagandists tell you. Bush said he bombed Iraq for "freedom." He was a liar but his bombs and his lies doesn't mean that "freedom" itself is bad.

The same is true of the word "capitalism." The oligarchs lie about capitalism all the time. Sometimes they claim to be capitalists when they rip you off so you think that capitalism is bad. Sometimes the oligarchs say that capitalism is bad so that they can more easily take away what you earned. They play it each and every way they can to confuse you,  steal your stuff and set neighbor against neighbor.

But I don't care what you call it. If you agree that I have a right to interact with others as I see fit and that no one has a right to hurt me or take my stuff then we'll get along.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:59 | 6653894 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

Agreed, cheers.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 20:00 | 6653898 nmewn
nmewn's picture

It never ceases to amaze me the people who defend social-ism want to do away with ism's when it comes to capital-ism and then launch into the "probablity" of present day teleportation...lol.

Apparently you're thinking only by government owning the means of production can our atoms be scattered from one end of the globe to the other and reassembled?

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 20:08 | 6653915 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

There are other systems, you know. Why only the left or the right, red or blue? Maybe its your political system which has engrained this into you all, but there can be many ways to get along and trade stuff without it being all or nothing.

Sun, 10/11/2015 - 00:02 | 6654026 nmewn
nmewn's picture
Ok, well, halftime (yes, I enjoy college football, always have, always will for the "competitiveness" and expectation of greatness)...and I'm constantly told by (what I'll charitably say are "middle-grounders") there are "other systems" (apparently needing enforcement of those systems, I would suspect)...so, in your informed opinion...they would be what? And thanks for the common courtesy of not replying earlier, so we can continue... //// The question was...what systems?
Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:43 | 6653838 nmewn
nmewn's picture

1) "People can still share the duties of farming, raising cattle etc."

And if they don't, preferring to sit in the shade of any available tree watching others work for them, what do 'we" (collectively...lol) do about them?

2) "Capitalism just turns that labour into a caste system."

Socialism just turns that guy under the tree into a government employee ;-)

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 20:04 | 6653910 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

Most people have goals, dreams, and ambitions. Some will want to sit under a tree and think. We need thinkers, too. Some will draw and sculpt and play the guitar... we need artisis, as well. Most people will choose to contribute to society in more concrete ways.

People who don't have jobs have time to volunteer, philosophize, and raise better kids for the future as opposed to hard-working capitalists who don't see their kids 'till graduation and let the state do it.

There will always be lazy people who take advantage of the labour of others, but I don't think they are the bums, I think they are the elite.

Sun, 10/11/2015 - 00:25 | 6654461 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I have zero interest in being expected to pay (through government taxation) someone playing the guitar or sculpting or drawing. It's the competition & appreciation of their art that makes these things valuable, not some statist compensation department scrutinization of their "work". 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:51 | 6653717 Elliott Eldrich
Elliott Eldrich's picture

"What then, is the end goal of capitalism (as we know it?) Progress? To what ends?"

The end goal of capitalism is oligarchy. Argue all you want, but that is where it always ends up. Oligarchies are inherently unstable, and can only maintain control with extreme repression. Therefore, the end goal of capitalism is oligarchy, instability, and repression. Res ipsa loquitur.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:18 | 6653724 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

No! The demand for oligarchy creates oligarchy. People like you say "No one should be free because freedom means that powerful people take over so lets give some powerful people guns so that they can take our freedoms and that way there won't be an oligarchy."  It's moronic in the extreme.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:03 | 6653569 kliguy38
kliguy38's picture

or even simpler FASCISM......... "I care not what your ism is, just let me control your money"

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:15 | 6653599 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Exactly.  Isms are meaningless when applied to real world human beings.  Corruption always seeps into every system.  Marx made sense to a lot of people because his ideas were on paper.  When applied in the real world, the ideas turn into a system run by a few privileged elites who use the power of the state to live in luxury while the masses starve.  But the same is true of unfettered capitalism, or even regulated capitalism.  See the United States, which has become fascist by any definition.  Anyone who believes in pure ideological concepts -- including this author -- is a fool.  Unlike physics which obey certain laws, human beings tend to break the laws and act in their own self-interest.  The sociopaths who are best at this take control.  The best outcome is always a muddle through.  The US system is better than most, but it has been horribly corrupted by allowing unfettered money into the election process, which in turn allows cronyism to exist unchecked.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:41 | 6653687 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

 When applied in the real world, the ideas turn into a system run by a few privileged elites who use the power of the state to live in luxury while the masses starve.  But the same is true of unfettered capitalism, 

 

Would you like to produce some evidence of that assertion before you declare that human being should not be free to interact voluntarily with each other? And how are you going to take away the freedom of individuals without creating the very elite class you claim to be preventing? 

 

Unlike physics which obey certain laws, human beings tend to break the laws and act in their own self-interest.

 

The vast majority of people are not interested in breaking laws because interacting as peaceful capitalist fulfills self interest in a way nothing else can.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:50 | 6653715 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You want evidence?  How about all of human history.  Sociopaths have ruled every society since there were societies, and people do not just get along (even if most would but for the sociopaths).  I saw your exchange the other day with Yen Cross.  Rather than engage in a similar exchange, I'm going to move on to other things.  I know that the chances of me convincing you of anything are nil, and likewise you are wasting your breath spouting Randisms to me.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:04 | 6653744 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

 I saw your exchange the other day with Yen Cross.

Yen Cross misunderstood what I had said and later apologized like the gentleman he is.

 

Sociopaths have ruled every society

So you admit that rulers are the problem and not freedom of the individual.

 

spouting Randisms to me.

Then let's try a  different tack. Why don't you give me your money in exachnge for nothing? Rand would be opposed to the idea but a wealth redistrubutionist like you will surely jump at the chance, right? You certainly wouldn't claim that you have a right to dispose of your own money yourself, would you? That would be free market capitalism for God's sake!

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:20 | 6653790 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Largely all "isms" are popularized as a means of control, of getting everyone to capitulate to a set of rules...rules created by those in control who want to stay that way. It may not be the prime objective at creation, but those who seek power will use it, be it political, financial or religious system, to centralize power and induce us to voluntarily surrender our liberties for the common good and hopefully our own as well. Corruption always seeps into this and as the centralized power becomes more concentrated, it is naturally more difficult to restrain corruption. But we dream. OUR ideology is THE ideology, only lacking in the purity of its execution to achieve its perfection.

As far as these "scientists" extolling their wisdom upon us, it is our nature. We start off as idealists, so ready to accept the Utopian solutions to make the "the more perfect world", then we actually experience life and for those who actually attempt to succeed, truth seeps into our idealism and we understand that all life and all success depends on competition, on the greater effort required to really succeed. It is as we get old, when our frailties really become apparent, that we gradually revert to our childhood visions, our growing belief in the collective forces that fight against competitiveness and protect the weak and insecure.

Add in academia, that is always looking for progressively idealist mentors to further their cause, and those looking for the gratuities of fame and idolization in the waning years...and there you go. Everyone looking for the "Einstein" accolades.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:33 | 6653817 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Yes, scientists are certainly human, and they tend to think they know everything about everything when in fact nobody does, even the smartest among us.  A good lesson to us all.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 20:21 | 6653954 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

scientists and academia are definitely not immune to ego, but none exceeds the ego of the politician, as they have "selected" through popular vote, but not just from popularity, but the fact that people have willingly handed over their liberty and power to them.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:00 | 6653734 monoloco
monoloco's picture

No one knows if capitalism will work or not because it's never been tried, at least not in this century or the last.

 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:07 | 6653754 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

Capitalism is all around you. The parasites would have nothing to feed from if there weren't productive individuals investing the fruits of today's labor in the hope of being more productive  tomorrow. If a fisherman buys a bigger net or even stitches up the holes in his old net then he is practicing capitalism.

What hasn't existed for a long time is free market capitalism in which the producer has the exclusive right to determine the disposition of his earning.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:11 | 6653763 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

He could have traded some fish for a new net.

It is only capital under a capitalist system. That definition of capitalism is perhaps a little too broad. A net is not capital, it costs labour, but has no value to anyone but a fisherman.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:26 | 6653803 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

While I have always embraced the notion of capitalism, What I really embrace is freedom, with some very basic rules. These rules are not so much rules as they are a promise of honesty, honesty being the necessary singular component for any "system" to be sustainable, whatever we choose to call it. The "ism" is irrelevant if there is honesty, transparency and accountability.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:31 | 6653814 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

One Law:

No individual has the right to cause injury to another individual or to an individual's property. When an individual's person or property is threatened the individual has a right to self defense in proportion to the threat.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:50 | 6653855 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

What of my feelings...your micro-aggressions towards me, that disable and limit my own productivities? While we debate gun control on other threads, far, far more "injuries" are suffered from the slings and arrows of our words.

This is our "progressive" definition of injury, and as we continually see, it is the definition of things that fucks us. Every time we awake, it is to a new definition of what injuries or transgressions have occurred by our "mindless, hateful actions".

For example, we used to live in a world where the smart and intelligent people were "discriminating" in their actions and choices. That word "discriminating" is now right up there with the "N" word. More importantly it tells us that we can no longer "discriminate" or effectively make any value judgement that is not preordained by the "collective".

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:57 | 6653884 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

Yes, misdirection through distorted language can be a problem. But with only one law (and there is only one natural law for human individuals) then the minutia about micro-aggression can't really become an issue unless the adjudicator chosen by litigants thinks along those lines. I would not personally agree to such an adjudicator nor do I think that such an adjudicator could remain in operation for long in a society which recognizes the One Law.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 20:17 | 6653940 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

But what we face is "who makes the law"? Our personal take on it is irrelevant when we are left to be adjudicated by those who can truly "injure" us. We are being directly harmed every day by this government. Not physically as your laws requires, but injured none the less. Some are imprisoned while others are just "fined" directly or by taxation. Like it or not our lives are controlled by others. It is their rules we live by. The one law that is universal and requires the greatest denial of reality to ignore, is honesty. The justification of a lie is the last ditch of a scoundrel...and they all know it.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 20:36 | 6653984 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

Either Nature or Nature's God (your choice) made the One Law. We have a natural right to engage in adjudication voluntarily (just as a couple might voluntarily seek the services of a marriage counselor) and so the prospect of being ruled over does not apply.

 

We are being directly harmed every day by this government.

 

That's the only outcome possible when one is subjected to an involuntary system.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:48 | 6653859 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

I would add to that, slightly.

1- Don't hurt people.

2- Don't bust their stuff.

3- Honour your contracts.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 20:03 | 6653907 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

All reasonable requests although two of them are covered by the One Law:

 

1- Don't hurt people.

No individual has the right to cause injury to another individual or to an individual's property. When an individual's person or property is threatened the individual has a right to self defense in proportion to the threat.

 

2- Don't bust their stuff.

 

No individual has the right to cause injury to another individual or to an individual's property. When an individual's person or property is threatened the individual has a right to self defense in proportion to the threat.

 

As for contracts that would be worked out by non-fulfillment clauses in the contract, additional negotiation or in a voluntary court of adjudication.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 20:11 | 6653925 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

"For that which could not hinder a man from promising, ought not to be admitted as a hindrance of performing."

-Thomas Hobbes

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:28 | 6653807 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

He could have traded some fish for a new net.

 

That is capitalism. The fisherman had more fish than he could eat and the textile worker was hungry so they voluntarily agreed to exchange fish for a net.

 

That definition of capitalism is perhaps a little too broad

 

No, envious control freaks who want to rip you off have told you that the idea that you (and everyone else) should be free to interact voluntarily with others of your choosing when making    economic transactions is bad. You have adopted this misunderstanding of what capitalism is and the people who lied to you and claim to protect you siphon off your earnings. They win and you lose but only because you agree to be conned by them.

 

A net is not capital,

 

A fish net is most certainly capital equipment in the hands of a fisherman.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:46 | 6653848 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

"No, envious control freaks who want to rip you off have told you that the idea that you (and everyone else) should be free to interact voluntarily with others of your choosing when making    economic transactions is bad."

I think we agree.

But a net is no good to anyone else. Anyone can eat a fish. Putting a value on the net is a virtual measure for taxation purposes. We don't need capitalism to own tools.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 20:20 | 6653943 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

But a net is no good to anyone else.

 

The utility of a good is determined by the use which the owner will put it to. To the textile worker and the merchant who distributes the nets made by that worker the utility of the net is a product to be sold. To the fisherman it is capital equipment to be used more easily catching fish. A rolling mill isn't any use to anyone who doesn't manufacture large quantities of metal but that doesn't mean it isn't capital equipment. A rolling mill capital equipment to the foundry owner.

 

Putting a value on the net is a virtual measure for taxation purposes.

You said that a fisherman could trade fish for a net which is true. But how can the trade be made if the parties involved don't come to an agreement about how many fish the net is worth? But there's more to it than that. The textile worker has to know what the net is worth because he may be able to obtain more calories of food for his family by making sweaters and trading them for chickens, pigs or cows. So the participants in an economy have to have an idea of the relative value of goods and services so that each one know what to produce and what quantity. That's called "price discovery" and that's what the author of this article meant when he said that communist nations had to look toward capitalist systems in order to create a faux market. Otherwise the communist nations could not function economically.

 

 

We don't need capitalism to own tools.

 

 

Tools are capital equipment.

 

Capital Equipment

Definition: Equipment that you use to manufacture a product, provide a service or use to sell, store and deliver merchandise. This equipment has an extended life so that it is properly regarded as a fixed asset.

http://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/capital-equipment

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 20:24 | 6653961 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

"Tools are capital equipment.

 

Capital Equipment Definition: Equipment that you use to manufacture a product, provide a service or use to sell, store and deliver merchandise. This equipment has an extended life so that it is properly regarded as a fixed asset."

Under capitalism, the above is true. It is a virtual reality, a conditional reality. Under any other system, tools are just tools.

Just cause you call a hammer a screwdriver won't help you remove screws.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 20:40 | 6653973 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

Just cause you call a hammer a screwdriver won't help you remove screws.

 

I never said that. It would seem that this is simply an expression of your confusion over the subject matter.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:50 | 6653865 ThirdWorldDude
ThirdWorldDude's picture

He could've also traded fish for a net in a feudalist system.

Equaling all trade with capitalism is wrong on so many levels.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:58 | 6653886 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

+1

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 20:27 | 6653966 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

He could've also traded fish for a net in a feudalist system.

 

Capitalism is an economic system in which one invests some of today's profit in order to be more profitable tomorrow.

Feudalism is a political system in which the fruits of capitalist endeavors are redistributed by a tiered system of usually hereditary rulers.

A Free Market is a political system in which the producer of goods and services has sole discretion in how the profits made from such labors are employed.

 

Equaling all trade with capitalism is wrong on so many levels.

 

Apart from raw meat or berries which one might gather from the forest please describe a trade in which capital equipment was not used to produce the items which the participants in a trade might exchange.

Sun, 10/11/2015 - 06:43 | 6654697 ThirdWorldDude
ThirdWorldDude's picture

There exists no system by the name of Free Market. It is but a characteristic of certain types of economic systems with regards to the manner in which products' and services' market price (worth) is determined. In a free market this is done by the forces of supply and demand and they are not strictly limited to capitalist systems. Your definitions of capitalism and feudalism are wrong as well (property rights and rights of free enterprenourship are missing from the equation). 

 

"Apart from raw meat or berries which one might gather from the forest please describe a trade in which capital equipment was not used to produce the items which the participants in a trade might exchange."

 

 What about the creation of capital goods by people's skills and know-how? For instance, knitting wooden baskets from cost-free and abundant resources? Or selling your idea (patent) to produce capital equipment to someone else...?

IMHO, you're completely lost in the economic woods. Just because the Western world currently experiences a period of some sort of "capitalism", it doesn't implicitly mean that the period or capitalism are good per se. As an illustration, the 'free market price discovery' component was removed from the current system at the very moment financial instruments such as securities, options and derivatives came into existence. Ever since there's been no need to hand over an actual physical amount of pork bellies to your counterparty when you make a trade, which means the contracted price does not actually reflect real world factors, only future expectations of said factors. Your "free market" is nothing but a casino where various actors speculate and gamble on the future development of prices.

Sun, 10/11/2015 - 07:58 | 6654812 ersatz007
ersatz007's picture

+100

I don't understand how many seemingly smart people who read ZH can't seem to fathom that there is no such thing as free market capitalism, nor true communism or socialism for that matter. What we have is a mish-mash of many of these systems because the pure theories don't work in the real world. Capitalism devolves into monopoly capitalism or some variant thereof. Communism and socialism devolve into some distorted form of totalitarianism.

We currently have privitization of profits but socialized losses (i.e. Bailouts) because the so called capitalists and financiers of the world have enough power to bend legislation in their favor so as to allow collusion, the elimination of healthy competition, and many other distortions of capitalism. The same things happen in socialist or communist socio-economic systems where those in power distort the system to their favor.

Human nature is imperfect. So we will never have a perfect system. Instead of blaming socialism and communism for the distortions that occur in a so-called capitalist economy, wouldn't we be better served recognizing that none of these systems is perfect because humans aren't perfect and develop systems which are based on 21st century ideas instead of 300-400 year old philosophical ideas which have been proven to be false?

Sun, 10/11/2015 - 01:11 | 6654509 luckylongshot
luckylongshot's picture

The headline is a shocker. One of the ways the elite hide their abuse of power is through divide and conquer strategies that utilise isms. For example if you get women blaming men for their situation (feminism) or blacks blaming whites (racism) the role of the elite who are holding power and are truly responsible for the situation disappears. This means any article about an ism is either written by an idiot or someone paid by the elite to write the article. 

Free market capitalism, while it sounds good is actually problematic as a concept as it is a double oxymoron. There never were free markets-kings started markets to try to recover gold they paid mercenaries, and market capitalism is an oxymoron as markets see a commodity money commodity CMC process while capitalism is MCM. Free markets are also non existant in a world where one entity owns and controls 96.2% of all multinationals (Vitali et al 2011)

The answer is to stop looking at the systems and start looking at who has the real power and how they are using it.

 

Sun, 10/11/2015 - 02:04 | 6654567 ersatz007
ersatz007's picture

And "free market capitalism" is as much of a fairy tale as a successful centrally planned economy.

That said, one might be better served at least check out what some ACTUAL scientists have to say before dismissing it out of hand because one, instead, prefers to listen to the pseudo scientists otherwise known as "economists" because they desparately want to believe that true free market capitalism will someday exist.

What the fuck have economists actually created? Except, as yet, a bunch of theories that don't actually work in the REAL world. At least scientists have given us theories which have been instrumental in creating REAL things like computers, the Internet, umm electric motors, etc...

So maybe some of you brain washed Austrians might want to consider the principle that nothing keeps a man in ever lasting ignorance as contempt prior to investigation.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:53 | 6653530 SafelyGraze
SafelyGraze's picture

 correct... there... is... no...reason.. .for... alarm.. robots... may... not... injure... a... human... being... robots... must... obey... the... orders... given... by... human...

we... come... in... peace...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:12 | 6653731 lucitanian
lucitanian's picture

Capitalism is a system that measures progress on what can be acquired and possessed. One can gain and measure wealth but it gives no philosophical satisfaction or any reason or meaning for living or dying.

Capital is only a small quite irrelevant part of life, but its pursuit and the lust for its possession or control and for its expansion contributes to a delusional relationship to perceived power, the sad siren that leads most of humanity to misery if not sociopathic madness.

Capitalism is a waste of human enterprise stemming from exploitation and engendering mostly misery for the deluded egotistical capitalist as well as those he exploits.

We are born to serve our fellow humankind not to profit from them or their circumstances or their resources. When we learn that, we know how to live happy and useful lives. Amassing capital is like masturbating, totally useless and fundamentally unsatisfying.

Capitalism can only be justified if a greater good can be served in society from the capital amassed; greater by multiples compared to the suffering and exploitation caused in the process of amassing it.

 

 

 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:16 | 6653774 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

+1

"Amassing capital is like masturbating, totally useless and fundamentally unsatisfying."

Maybe you're doing it wrong. Masturbating, I mean. Like amassing capital, it's more satisfying if you can get someone else to do it for you.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:35 | 6653476 Batman11
Batman11's picture

The profit motive in action:

If I manufacture my product in China I can gain a competitive advantage.

I am losing profits as that firm manufacturing stuff in China is under-cutting our prices.

I must move my manufacturing to China.

Sometime later.

Everyone is manufacturing stuff in China and there is no competitive advantage.

China has become a new super-power.

There are no decent jobs left in the US.

Domestic consumption and GDP fall.

China becomes the dominant super power.

The balance of power shifts from West to East through one businessman's short term increase in profit.

Not to mention decades of product development and manufacturing expertise handed to China on a plate.

The businessmen never did take into account China's lax attitude to intellectual property rights.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:38 | 6653486 Batman11
Batman11's picture

Another good and current example.

Profit can be increased by reducing wages.

When you are the only one that does it you gain competitive advantage.

When everyone has reduced wages to the minimum to maximise profits there is no competitive advantage.

All employees = (approx.) all consumers

Consumers now no longer have the purchasing power to buy the goods and services on offer and demand falls.

Add credit to the mix and you get a disaster, credit fills the gap in purchasing power until the consumer maxes out on credit.

Then his purchasing power is lower than it would have been due to the credit repayments.

 

Today’s situation.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:59 | 6653549 chunga
chunga's picture

Don't forget absolute rampant fraud. Take any kind of ism you want and mix it with today's level of systemic fraud and it's gonna suck for the majority of people.

We live in the Age of Fraud. It's taken the place of growth.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:10 | 6653586 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

What's so great about growth? Growth is the problem; an exponential curve is the 'long-enough timeline' along which we all head to zero.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:17 | 6653617 chunga
chunga's picture

Isn't growth a keystone of capitalism? It seems to be something the wall street fraudsters have to have at all costs even if it's completely fake.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:43 | 6653693 Handful of Dust
Handful of Dust's picture

Capitalism (the Middle Class private sector) will be working on Monday, Columbus Day --- Gubmint parasites, the FSA and Bankers will not be.

 

The first is pulling the wagon for all those in the back.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:52 | 6653870 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

So snap to it, slacker!!

People are depending on you!!

Sun, 10/11/2015 - 02:08 | 6654572 ersatz007
ersatz007's picture

Middle class - the horse in animal farm. Does it matter if he busts his ass for the farmer or the pig if all he does is bust his ass?

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:47 | 6653711 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

You guys have been so brainwashed by the system that you can't see that oligarchs cause the problems which you blame on capitalism. Capitalism seeks greater productivity through investment of today's profits so that one may be more productive tomorrow. Wall Street "growth" is a Keynesian phenomenon based on an ever expanding money supply which benefits those at the top and not the bottom.

Like the author said, if you want to give up capitalism you'll have to become a hunter gatherer. Not only that, you'll have to refrain from using any tools (capital goods) while you hunt and gather.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:19 | 6653785 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

It is ridiculous to claim that without capitalism, people cannot organize themselves to produce truly valuable things. Ridding ourselves of capitalism won't erase our IQs, our skills, or our cumulative knowledge.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:40 | 6653826 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

Capitalism means that you invest some of today's profit so that you can be more productive tomorrow. If you save seed for next year's planting you are practicing capitalism. If you make a bow so that you can more effectively hunt deer you are practicing capitalism. If you build a grist mill so that you can mill the wheat grown by local farmers you are practicing capitalism. It is impossible for there to be any effective means of production without capitalism. Why can't you understand that simple fact?

Free market capitalism means that you get to determine how your wealth is used and not someone else. It's simple!

 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:56 | 6653879 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

"Why can't you understand that simple fact?"

Capitalism is just a word. It sets up a virtual world of cause and effect. You can call it whatever you want, it just isn't necessary anymore. You don't need to be a capitalist to invest in the future. Saving seed is a capitalist act under a capitalist system only. If there were no money, people would still save seed; under (disaster) capitalism, Monsanto says you can't.

I don't see why you are getting impatient, we seem to agree on everything but the definition of a made-up word.

"Free market capitalism means that you get to determine how your wealth is used and not someone else. It's simple!"

Guns do the same thing.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 20:56 | 6654019 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

Capitalism isn't "just a word" any more than any other word  is "just a word." "Word" is just a word but if we don t define it in a similar way then we won't be able to talk to each other.

 

I don't see why you are getting impatient, we seem to agree on everything but the definition of a made-up word.

 

It's a matter of life and death. Have you seen what happens when a society is captured by anti-capitalists?

 

"Free market capitalism means that you get to determine how your wealth is used and not someone else. It's simple!"

Guns do the same thing.

 

For the time being guns are an effective way to promote safety and freedom. That's why those who hate capitalism hate guns as well.

 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:42 | 6653835 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

Without growth, capitalism is military ponzism.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 21:05 | 6654036 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

Without growth, capitalism is military ponzism.

 

Capitalism is a system which works most effectively with private rather than state ownership. The military is a tool of the state so how can you blame capitalism for miltary issues?

 

Sun, 10/11/2015 - 02:34 | 6654594 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

When a economy is not really growing (like ours), then that economy -- like ours -- must be thriving on selling weapons, jet planes, Patriot missiles, elaborate radar systems to our locked-in customer base of NATO members.  

So 'capitalism is military ponzism' is the exporting of war machinery and sales to the US military -- and hopefully starting a war -- which makes our nation's economy look much better than it is because there will be no buyers there when the war is over.    :o)

Sun, 10/11/2015 - 17:03 | 6656096 Billy the Poet
Billy the Poet's picture

But a systemy based on the protected and subsidized military-indistrial complex is not a capitalist system. Capitalism thrives on peace not war. I know you've been told differently but that was all lies.

Mon, 10/12/2015 - 03:25 | 6657446 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

Well, Billy, perhaps your capitalism is gone with the wind.  And exists only in text books like the nano-second before the Big Bang.

Mon, 10/12/2015 - 15:59 | 6659837 BigJim
BigJim's picture

So, because Capitalism has always been hijacked by oligarchs and governments and partially socialised, producing the distortions and outright fraud we decry in today's system, the answer is to call for... more government and oilgarchic intervention?

Mon, 10/12/2015 - 22:58 | 6661352 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

If Capitalism has always been hijacked by whomever, then Capitalism has a fatal flaw and eventually will always be found to be unworkable.

I suppose it looks good on paper but that is hardly a reason to pull on your boots and go marching after it.

If it weren't hijacked by the oligarchs, I personally think 'diminishing returns' would have kicked Capitalism in its kiester.

 

Tue, 10/13/2015 - 13:19 | 6663334 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

not to call for

more government and oilgarchic intervention?

just to call what today's Capitalisic system has wrought, what it really is

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

(outcomes that are not the ones foreseen and intended).


  

Like an economic venereal disease. A lot of fun in the beginning, but then your willy falls off. 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:07 | 6653578 negative rates
negative rates's picture

Either way you are making junk that does'nt last the test of time, it's in vain. Under a truth in design scenario once a product is proved defective it's a lot easier to locate the problem maker if it is made here in the states. Once you send manufactoring overseas you never get the chance to talk to Mr. big to resolve the problems or recoup your money that is lost. You have to make as much as is humanly possible here at home and make it last the test of time. Todays stuff is doomed to fail no matter where it is made, face it, this place is fucked over 8 ways to sunday, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:12 | 6653594 Fahque Imuhnutjahb
Fahque Imuhnutjahb's picture

 

 

Your tone implies that this is a bad development, and ,from my perspective, I agree.  But to some it is the desired development.

There is a contingent that views life as a zero sum game, and presumably yearn for a neo-feudal society where they are the chosen

and the rest of humanity live to serve; to essentially service the accumulated debts, and consequentially the rent seekers that hold the notes.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:09 | 6653728 Anasteus
Anasteus's picture

As regards capitalism, I find the Einstein's analysis brilliant and almost as ingenious as his works in physics. Just try reading it several times without prejudice.

He shows that even non-deformed capitalism can gradually evolve into crony capitalism in a natural way. By eliminating the competition (which can happen naturally as a consequence of unique superior abilities), creation of monopoly is a logical result. Anti-monopoly provisions are an example of anti-capitalist state intervention acts yet necessary and commonly accepted form of economic stabilization. The equally natural is a convergence of capital with power as both need each other; the capital needs those in power to eliminate the competition and to gain access to vast sources of public wealth, whereas the power needs money for expansion of political influence. So far so good.

His proposed solution of socialism is coherent and has nothing to do with that of Stalin's but the fact is he got tragically fooled by both Lenin and Stalin in a naive belief that such socialism can be 'established'. The established socialism turned out to be a mere utopia much like the natural 'innocent ' capitalism.

In my honest opinion, both the concepts are already obsolete.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:56 | 6653880 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

No ISM is sustainable unless it is voluntary, not dependent upon force, intimidation, manipulation or indoctrination. What many of us would consider freedom. Ignorance is the device by which all ISMs ultimatley aquire and hold power, so we know that all of their claims for higher education are a sham and cover for simple indoctrination.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:56 | 6653544 robertsgt40
robertsgt40's picture

Al's classic tribal mentality is in clear view for all to see.  He avoids noting  his fellow travelers who control international finance have brought us to a probable third and final world war.  All by design. As a side note, Al  plagiarized most of his work. Search "Einstein plagiarism. No wonder he thinks capitalism doesn't work. Gotta follow the rules Al. 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:07 | 6653574 LowerSlowerDela...
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture

You missed MAJOR portions of the story.

Part of what you missed:

Ms. Brave Business Woman decides to keep her toaster manufacturing plant in the U.S., paying great wages.  Her toasters cost $100 each to purchase directly from the company.  Multiple toasters that are being made in China are sold in the U.S. for $22 each.  Joe and Jane Sixpack regularly decide to buy the toaster that costs $22 instead of the toaster that costs $100.  By keeping her business in the U.S. Ms Brave Business Woman goes out of business because nobody buys her product. 

If everyone INSISTED on buying products made in the U.S. products would be made in the U.S.

Now enter government regulation that strangles small businesses via a miriad of agencies employing hundreds of thousands of government employees.  Small businesses are strangled by local, state, and federal government.  Prices MUST go up to pay for all of the government costs and regulations that must be met.

In the end, 99% of all people will buy what they feel is the best value for their money.  They don't stop to be sure that it is made in the U.S.  Therefore, manufacturing wages will eventually equalize globally - minus shipping and government regulation costs.  You won't get around this until people refuse to pay $22 for a foreign made toaster, instead buying the made in the USA toaster for $100.

 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:16 | 6653607 Batman11
Batman11's picture

Precisely, Capitalism effectively forces everyone to move their manufacturing base and creates a new super power in China.

The danger of unregulated Capitalism for the US.

Too late now  ......


Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:19 | 6653622 Fahque Imuhnutjahb
Fahque Imuhnutjahb's picture

 

 

Ultimately, the drive for maximum profit and efficiency forces the market to commoditize everything and subvert it to capital.

 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:35 | 6653675 chunga
chunga's picture

TPP is a bunch of giant corporations that have collectively bargained to do just what you say. They bought the politicians to make it a law and also bought the gov's to enforce it.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:21 | 6653636 LowerSlowerDela...
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture

Although there is no such thing as unregulated capitalism in the U.S.  The U.S. is far from free market capitalism.

Also, it is the CONSUMER who drives businesses overseas by insisting that they lower prices.  Yes, the governemnt plays a large part by driving prices up with regualtion after regualtion. 

Like I said, if people insist on buying made in the USA products they will be made in the USA.  Period.  No regulation is needed to do that.  The problem, again, is that people refuse to do it.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 20:10 | 6653924 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

It has been the American consumer who has driven our jobs off shore. All we had to do was refuse to buy known imports (like Toyota was a big secret), but we did not. Even workers at US auto plants had the never to drive their foreign cars to work. Business and government have made it easy for sure, and there will always be liars lined up to "sell" us things. And I see debt as their principle tool, enabling us to buy goods we couldn't otherwise afford, to buy imports that further endanger our jobs. But we chose, and now we have few if any choices left in that realm. As a small business building furniture, you can imagine how I see imports. I predominantly do work for large corporations, and as I tell them, if THEY can't afford and justify buying American, who can? We will sell the rope for our own hanging.

We are watching...have been watch for years, American business withering away. Sure, maybe not if you count as American business, those who offshore their production and services, but those who hire Americans? Dying off. Because Americans will not by American. And don't tell mt they can't afford it. Americans still spend incredible amounts of money on bullshit crap they do not need and constitute entertainment at best. If we actually chose to buy American for those things we MUST have, the true necessities of life, we would see a resurgence. Instead we buy imports because they are the better value....nit considering whether they will have a job tomorrow or not. But then again, who needs a stinking job??

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:58 | 6653890 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

So a regulated capitalism would force unprofitable businesses to stay open, or force people to buy domestically?

Sun, 10/11/2015 - 13:36 | 6655035 LowerSlowerDela...
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture

Exactly.  Just like ObamaCare - a law that forces you to buy certain products - or go to jail.  A law which has double insurance premiums or more for millions of people.  Isn't government control of the economy great?!?!  Now (according to the brain dead progressives) all the government has to do is pass a bunch of laws telling people what they must buy and from where.  Then life will be swell!  Of course in reality life will become MUCH harder as can be seen in any Marxist/totalitarian country.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:20 | 6653614 Fahque Imuhnutjahb
Fahque Imuhnutjahb's picture

 

 

Ms. Brave Business Woman needs to gold plate the toaster, put some sort of LED or LCD display on it, mark it up to $1300, market

it through Tiffanys etc...  Go where the money is.  Sell many fewer items at much higher margin.  And the toast tastes the same.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:24 | 6653644 o r c k
o r c k's picture

So we're toast?

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:35 | 6653477 PacOps
PacOps's picture

Stick to physics, Stephen.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:45 | 6653504 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

I've known a number of scientists who are very good in their fields, but they fail to apply their methodology when thinking about things outside of their field.  If you've got to have facts and data to support your assertions in physics, why not politics?  Why not economics?  It is why being a really smart scientist in one's field does not impress me when that person starts pontificating about topics outside of that field, unless they prove to me that they have looked at the facts and data and drawn the conclusions from those. 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:03 | 6653556 RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

Scientists use logic and the scientific process. It is decidedly less useful when applied to non sciences like economics, etc.

Medical Drs have the same weakness, they apply their memory based knowledge on other different fields and expect to be correct the same way they are in their primary field...
Not so.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:04 | 6653572 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

I've been in many a political and economic argument with scientists.  They can be coldly analytical when doing geology or physics, but once they get outside of that, they get emotional and will outright ignore facts and data that you throw at them.  Not all are like that, but many are. 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:08 | 6653581 corsair
corsair's picture

But notice that neither Einstein nor Hawking are talking about efficiency of an economic system. They are talking about humanity, a subject which is not easily quantified with "facts and data". Indeed, it is a subject that anybody should be free to "pontificate" about.

In contrast, the author of this article offers an often-used and disingenuous argument that socialism = Stalin's purges.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:14 | 6653598 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

How we get the goods that we consume and the subject of humanity that he was thinking of are inseperable, because we must consume to survive.  That requires an economic system.   You can find facts and data to talk about humanity if you are willing to look.  But that takes work.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:46 | 6653705 agent default
agent default's picture

Yeah ok, but this is not the point.  If I write an essay on general relativity or black holes it will be discarded and rightly so as nonsense, because I have no real working knowledge of what I am talking about.  How come everyone and his dog(economists included) is entitled to write an essay about capitalism or economics and somehow his opinion is treated as valid?  Lets cut the crap here, Einstein and Hawking are both tenured professors, they got a salary from a university.  It is about as protected as it gets. They have zero working knowledge of running a business or competing in a real economic environment.  I don't see why their opinions on the subject should even be mentioned or looked at.  They are irrelevant and outside their area of expertise.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:07 | 6653753 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

Because they are/were incredibly smart, people are going to listen to them.  It doesn't mater if people should listen to them on that particular topic.  On the flip side, if you were to spend the next 8 years teaching yourself the math and physics without the aid of a university, you ought to be able to submit such a paper and have it accepted.  It doesn't mean that somebody at whatever journal won't nix your paper because you don't have the credentials. 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:54 | 6653872 agent default
agent default's picture

No.  It is very difficult to publish in a journal these days without academic or corporate affiliation.  This is my experience with the IEEE review process.  Even if you accept it as a reviewer, the editor will most likely step in somewhere along the way. For theoretical physics it is near impossible.  On the other hand, as long as you put a University affiliation down, they will accept damn near every piece of tripe you throw at them.  See the Bogdanov affair with CQG.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:36 | 6653478 Hobbleknee
Hobbleknee's picture

Which ism was it that invented Hawking's speak-n-spell?

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:44 | 6653505 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

It wasn't an -ism, it was an -osophy.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:37 | 6653483 DeanWinchester717
DeanWinchester717's picture

Yes, because Capitalism as it has existed for so many years has been Sooooo successful for everyone thus far.  Before dismissing these highly intelligent people's concerns of capitalism, maybe the writer of this article should take a long look around the world's majority of people to see how they truly are faring in this "system".  Pay close attention to the US right now especially and think about this very principal- Quality of Life.  What are people truly getting out of their lives lived perpetually chasing a fictional place of balance and stability that MOST rarely reach in this system. 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:46 | 6653509 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

This is not real capatilism that we are living in.  We in the US would have a lower standard of living under a real capatilist system.  But we might also be a lot more content. 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:39 | 6653488 Consuelo
Consuelo's picture

 

 

- Control Freaks will always Freak

- The laws of physics and human nature aren't necessarily compatible

 

 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:01 | 6653560 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

Human nature will conform to the laws of physics, whether it wants to or not. 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:42 | 6653499 Batman11
Batman11's picture

We have armies of advertising and marketing people trying to get consumers to buy products that they neither wanted nor needed in the first place.

Modern scarcity ..... the scarcity of consumers for all the crap that is produced.

 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:54 | 6653503 RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

" The only real problem is government intervention in the market process."

I enjoyed the article, for what it was, a fluff piece. It provided some points I did not know, but the writer was shoddy in his logic including the last point, a summary, unrelated to all his other points.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:45 | 6653506 U4 eee aaa
U4 eee aaa's picture

The problem in our society is not capitalism or socialism. It is morality. Corrupt people will cheat each other in either system. Moral people will work together in either system

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 17:54 | 6653531 Joe A
Joe A's picture

Ha! Economists say that of all the social sciences, theirs is the most logical and rational. And then....they leave it all to the market.....which is often not logical and rational but emotional.

All 'isms' are utopian pipe dreams.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:00 | 6653557 One Eyed Jack
One Eyed Jack's picture

I would expect a robot to say that.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:02 | 6653565 MASTER OF UNIVERSE
MASTER OF UNIVERSE's picture

I destroyed Ponzi Casino Capitalism March 10th 2008. Since then we have _MASTER OF UNIVERSE-ISM_ and no 'free markets', BuckO.

 

Get with the programme, eh!

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:03 | 6653570 mpnut
mpnut's picture

Actually Einstien is right.  Anyway you look at it, money corrupts and spreads inequality.  Inequality will never be solved so long as there is money, credit, and debt.  With a society that works together and gets the same luxury and benefit as everyone, the quality of life is greatly enhanced.  But lets not call it communism, after all.  Star Trek never called it that either and everyone seems to be satisfied and enjoy their work.  I think eliminatiing money would eliminate drug dealers, Thieves, War, and Famine.  Because without money, bad behaviour wouldnt be encouraged.  Drug Dealers would not sell drugs because theres no money to be made, Thieves would not steal because they cannot sell it, War would not happen because it does not increase societal well being, and there would be no famine because then technology and innovation would not be held back and ideas would accelerate the progress of human kind.  It can also accelerate a cure for disease, and save our environment and our species from possible extinction event.  

 

People need to open their mind and dig deeper rather than to quickly dismiss these ideas.  If everyone had a job or a task to do in this world, the time we spend at work would drastically get reduced.  Society would be a very efficient at getting results, and arts, entertainment, quality of life, and ingenuity does not have to be sacrificed.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:10 | 6653582 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

In Star Trek, the society was much less corrupt than ours is and they had developed safe ways for people to get high.  They had also developed what amounts to virtually unlimited energy sources. If you want me to give up ownership of my stuff, you need to offer me something of equal or greater value in exchange.  It might work if we had that virtually unlimited energy thing nailed down, but we don't. 

Sun, 10/11/2015 - 01:12 | 6654510 r00t61
r00t61's picture

Hey genius,

Were homo sapiens stealing from each other before the invention of money?

Yes.

Were homo sapiens lying to each other before the invention of money?

Yes.

Were homo sapines killing each other before the invention of money?

Yes.

Money is just a tool.  Like a gun.  You can use it for good, or you can use it for evil.

You plan on outlawing money in your utopia?  How will you accomplish it?  You're going to need a bunch of goons with badges and guns, right?  Are they going to get paid?

Your ideas aren't even new.  The Fabian state-mongerers already came up with it 100 years ago, and they can point to great nations like Cuba, North Korea, and the Soviet Union as models of their success.

Sun, 10/11/2015 - 02:22 | 6654586 mpnut
mpnut's picture

There was, but you are assuming that homo sapiens did not evolve to become somewhat civillized.  If everyone thought about helping each other no one would be alone to fend for themselves and have that "me first" mentaility...

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:06 | 6653577 VWAndy
VWAndy's picture

Id like to try it. Of course for it to work something would need to be done about the value of the coin thing.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:10 | 6653588 Moustache Rides
Moustache Rides's picture

Hawkings is a full of shit fraud whom no one will question due to his condition out of "sensitivity".  Marketwatch puts up some of his bullshit pieces on god and "how the universe will end". 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:13 | 6653597 Raybo
Raybo's picture

What's capitalism?

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:16 | 6653606 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

Efficiency at the cost of everything else.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:19 | 6653624 MASTER OF UNIVERSE
MASTER OF UNIVERSE's picture

Remember Gainsburgers back in the 70s? You know that fake hamburger swill that you fed your dog? Well, Capitalism is kind of like that, I think.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:34 | 6653670 o r c k
o r c k's picture

You should capitalize that.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:20 | 6653787 Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

"What's Capitalism?"

 

Good question. It depends who you ask. Marx, Hayek, and Keynes all had different definitions of captalism.

 

The question that should be asked is, can you exchange goods and services free from third party interference?

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:15 | 6653600 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

...the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. Einstein

 

Society does not exist. There are individuals who want to be left alone and live free of the interference of others.

 

Then there are individuals (socialists and statists) who directly or indirectly want to control others because they think that have all the answers, they mean well, their hearts are in the right place, and all kinds of other BS justifications...and on their way to utopia, they murder millions upon millions.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:16 | 6653610 Raybo
Raybo's picture

Should I listen to Einstein? Should I listen to Hawking? No, I'll listen to . ROFL

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:17 | 6653616 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

there is no such thing as capitalism. it has been a mix of fascism, cronyism, and socialism from the beginning. libertarian capitalist dreamers are every bit as naive as utopian socialists. no system works for everyone. every system oppresses the many for the sake of the few. this will never change.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 20:03 | 6653905 agent default
agent default's picture

You are right, there can be no such thing as capitalism as long as central banks exist.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 22:28 | 6654222 Spiritof42
Spiritof42's picture

 libertarian capitalist dreamers are every bit as naive as utopian socialists. 

You would be wrong. Explaining the causes and effects of human action does not mean Austrians expect humans to change their nature. Austrians have been explaining for over a hundred years why governments are ill suited to manage market economies. They've been right every time.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:26 | 6653621 falak pema
falak pema's picture

Capitalism is a MEANS; the beast is human nature; just like the Quest is human salvation-- to the extent where salvation means "pursuit of happiness in equitable fashion" in this existence.

Polltics is the legal means to ensuring that in civilization. Politics basically means find a workable compromise between rival mindsets which may be valid per se but are at loggerheads. There are no perfect solutions for imperfect man and his wayward nature which forever changes as he is difficult to satisfy.

People find that capitalism as a means makes human nature more mean which defeats the purpose of ensuring "pursuit of happiness for the majority" in the civilization construct.

History teaches us that the powerful always cross the Rubicon to ensure their own "salvation" of the few at the expense of the majority; whence the Hoi polloi who blame the Hoi Oligoi about the End being corrupted by the Means of Capitalism.

If you don't understand what that means just remember its all Greek.

Hoi polloi and Hoi Olgoi are what civilization has bequeathed as in class warfare ever since civilization was born.

Capitalism is Archimedes's lever gone "Malvoisin" when it attacks the common man as Malvoisin did in the siege of Dover Castle.

Malvoisin was the name of the first Trebuchet invented by the French and used by Louis VIII in the seige of Dover when he laid claim to England after the death of King John  in 2016.

The Barons who had extracted the Magna Carta the previous year from John revolted to this french pretence and threw Louis the Lion and Malvoisin back into the Channel !

I think these "tops hats" of science feel the same way about capitalism now gone berserk : "Its Malvoisin !!!"

Malvoisin means "bad neighbour" and was Louis's joke on the English when he brought the giant trebuchet into play, but the Castle resisted.

Making materialism the be all of man's quest is an illusion; whence optimisation of material wealth via markets is only one aspect of civilization. Capitalism makes it the be all of life. Hayek was a quack. He wanted to forward guide markets using algos! Some shaman!

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:26 | 6653652 Raybo
Raybo's picture

You've taught me something new. Thank you.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:12 | 6653767 falak pema
falak pema's picture

too many misprints : 1216 when John died ! the siege was in 1217.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:22 | 6653623 Bunga Bunga
Bunga Bunga's picture

Looks like Congress, Bernanke and Obama made those Marxists' dreams come true.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:20 | 6653627 KJWqonfo7
KJWqonfo7's picture

Quote from the movie Grand Canyon

"Why is it when someone's successful in one field, they think they know about everything"

Suck it Einstein.....

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:20 | 6653630 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Capitalisme with the human factor is great!!

Under capitalisme, companies grow, get cocky and burn out and other small once take over where one or a few grow larger and repeat the process.

It's like a forest.

But when you keep letting the bigger companies survive and kill the small plants... you eventually kill the forest.

And that's what we've done.

We kept the zombies alive, killed all the small companies who try to grow, give money to the zombies to buy the small after which they eat and kill them.

Capitalisme died 2 decades ago, we don't have capitalisme anymore AT ALL!!!

WE HAVE A CENTRALLY PLANED ECONOMY, JUST LIKE COMMUNISME FOR ALREADY 2 DECADES!!

He who says he loves our capitalisme system now is a communist.

And it's rotten to the core.

If small companies grow, the bigger introduce rules to kill them.

Takeovers with free government money.

Corrupt government.

Just look at how a president is elected in America... it's a sad process and the people allowing that system are the people responsable.

What America needs is a french revolution and a educated population.

CHINA IS 100 TIMES MORE CAPITALIST THEN AMERICA!!!

How did that ever happen???

 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:23 | 6653641 MASTER OF UNIVERSE
MASTER OF UNIVERSE's picture

Sir Issac Newton is a relative of mine. Einstein ain't, and neither is Hawking, thank God.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:35 | 6653673 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 Late stage 'Parkinson's Disease', is knocking on Mr. Hawkings' doorstep.

  He's offered brilliant insight regarding particle physics, and multi tangent theory Einstein proved the " Theory of  relativity", but was scorned/ shunned in his later works.

 
Ridiculed Science Mavericks Vindicated 

 It is possible> Faster-than-light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

  Wormholes excluded. The physics that state an object becomes heavier as speed increases are wrong.

 

 

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 18:35 | 6653674 Nostradumbass
Nostradumbass's picture

According to The Electric Universe theory Einstein is wrong.

According to others, Hawking is not Hawking at all...

http://blog.banditobooks.com/thoughts-on-stephen-hawking/

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:02 | 6653742 withglee
withglee's picture

The only real problem is government intervention in the market process.

The bigger problem is money changer intervention in the trading business.

And why is it again that someone must find a saver or someone with capital before they can make a trading promise and get it certified?

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:55 | 6653743 honestann
honestann's picture

Well, for what it's worth (which the author presumably claims is "nothing"), every scientist, engineer [and philosopher] that works with me is an anarchist ("government" is fiction).

Pretty much all of us consider the term "capitalism" to be pointless... why create a separate name to refer-to "individualism" AKA "individual liberty" AKA "non-aggression" AKA "exclusively voluntary interaction" in the economic realm?

We tend to consider our brains and bodies to be our most valuable and fundamental "capital", which makes the terms "capital" and "capitalism"... feel a bit odd.

But I suppose many would consider us "capitalists".  However, we suspect a great many people consider rip-off-artists who happen to practice their trade in "business" to be "capitalists", which we most certainly do not identify with.

As a side node, I'd guess most modern fascists call themselves "capitalists".

How scientists and engineers can possibly justify statism, tyranny and authoritarianism is beyond us.  Just goes to show how harmful a few fictions or false premises can be.  Oh, and of course those so-called "scientists" and "engineers" who are paid by government (via contract or employment), have a built-in bias (and/or self-selection for failure to apply ethics in practice).

Sun, 10/11/2015 - 10:38 | 6655117 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

We use definitions as rationalizations for doing what we KNOW is wrong and destructive. Many have associated the term capitalism with freedom or free trade, when in reality it is just a word used to either justify or vilify our actions.

We all know the difference between a trade where both parties are satisfied winners and those where one party is defrauded by the other. Our justifications for abusing the weaknesses of others by calling it "capitalism" is simple rationalization, and consumerism has made this not only acceptable, but desirable.

We kept slaves ignorant, depriving them of an education using the excuse that too much knowledge would create discontent. We are now led to believe that debt, manipulation, "marketing" is necessary and desirable in order to create demand that truth, honesty and the lack of manipulation would never provide. What would we do for jobs if not selling to people what they do not need, or even want, without proper "motivations".

No, we really don't know what capitalism is now as it has been so abused and manipulated so as to make the term meaningless. We still know what truth and honesty is, but we don't want that as it would destroy our "economy".

Mon, 10/12/2015 - 01:54 | 6657375 honestann
honestann's picture

Agree, except honesty does not destroy the economy.  Rather, honesty makes [virtually] everyone more efficient, and thus improves quality of life.  Waste is not a benefit.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:05 | 6653746 DeanWinchester717
DeanWinchester717's picture

If THIS is true, then capitalism, materialism and all that these things entail, are more than likely- POINTLESS. 

http://yournewswire.com/scientists-finally-prove-that-life-after-death-e...

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:06 | 6653750 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

  We should be scared of the people, that are scared of CAPITALISM.

 Postulate that sentence.

Sat, 10/10/2015 - 19:07 | 6653751 Goldilocks
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!