Theses on Capitalism

[Winterhaze13]

First, it would be most helpful if you would learn how to quote properly, responding directly beneath each bit of quoted material. Else it becomes too difficult to follow the discussion.

There, the ruling class is made up of apparatchiks, upper level bureacrats with alliances and power. I frankly don't see how that is better than the legal bribery which allows wealthy corporations such significant control of government in capitalist nations.

1. I'm not sure therewill always be a ruling class. You can't prove that. In the democracy it isn't suppose to exist, but capitalism has created one and that is not right. Also, there is not a ruling class in socialism and communism because class is not suppose to exist in those two systems.

To say that there are no ruling classes in Socialism or Communism is almost painfully naive. You get to be a ruling class through privilege, and all systems have their privileged players. Under Communism, those in power got the best of everything, and so did their families. They got the best food, went to the best schools and hospitals, and stayed in the most comfortable residences. The common people waited out in the cold in long lines for food while the ruling members of the Communist party had servants to take care of their needs.

Every type of government exploits the disadvantaged. I'm confused about what you mean when you suggest that paying them less is a means to exploitation. They are paid less because they are disadvantaged? Or are they disadvantaged because they receive less payment for their lower skills? There is and always has been a disadvantaged group in every society made up of losers, alcoholics and other addicts, the lazy, the dull-witted, and those who simply made poor choices or had bad luck.

2.Disadvantaged are not what you say they are. That is a disgusting characterization. The poor are poor because they are exploited by being paid less than they deserve. And if you don't believe me, answer me this. Who works harder in society than single mothers? No one Who is poorer than single mothers? No one.

I have seen working single mothers who work hard, while others sit happy and fat on welfare and don't lift a finger. When they want more money, they have another kid. Some of the disadvantaged are that way because of circumstances, and some because of a lack of motivation, work ethic, intelligence or attitude. And hard work is beside the point. Any idiot can swing a hammer. What is rewarded in any culture is not just how hard one works but how skilled one is. And if you fail to reward people for having more skill and education they will not invest the time and effort to acquire skill and education, and you will be left with an unskilled, ignorant population and poverty.

3. capitalism just merely tolerates democracy because they share some common liberal principles. In fact, without democracy capitalism would be more destructive. Capitalism does not want the workers to gain political power, that's why there is a ruling class.

Capitalism is an economic model, not political. It does not care who rules. And you cannot explain why every democracy has capitalism. Meanwhile, no nation which has failed to embrace capitalism is a democracy of any kind.

It seems to be a feature of human nation in virtually all cultures that without competition a significant portion of the population just coasts and does nothing. See the Soviet Union as an example. Where enterprise is not rewarded, there is no enterprise

4. That's a rediculous argument. Do you honestly believe that the hardest working triumphs under capitalism. I don't think so. Social mobility is rare.

I did not say the hardest working people always triumph. I said that without personal motivation people don't work hard. If you will earn as much by doing nothing as by doing something then many will do nothing.

6. We are not talking about any alternatives. We are discussing capitalism. Whenever people can't defend capitalism they begin to discredit socialism and communism.

If you start out with the proposition that Capitalism is a failed system, antithetical to human needs then you are implicitly calling for a change to another system. Churchill's admonition then stands, that Capitalism is the worst system except for the others. You can also use Hayek's belief that systems be judged on the extent which it promotes human liberty and freedom, and once again, judge what has happened in Capitalist nations to what has happened in Communist nations.

7. The problem is that workers are at the mercy of employers. The workers accept low paid jobs because there are only so many jobs out there. But employers could always go looking for better workers for less pay.

Contrarily, workers are free to go looking for less work for more pay. They are also free to attempt to upgrade their skills and education in order to increase the value of their labour.

8. I think it does keep people from obtaining wealth. All wealthy people inherited their wealth, while social mobility is rare.

All wealthy people did not inherit their wealth. That is again demonstrably untrue. It is true that many extremely wealthy individuals inherited wealth, but there are innumerable examples of individuals who became grossly wealthy within their lifetimes. Think of Bill Gates, as one example, or the Walton (Wal-Mart) family as another. Social mobility is greater in capitalist systems, at least, in the ones with democratic forms of government, than in any other type of system the world has ever known.

9. The best education is the most expensive. And as a result it is not accessable to everyone. Just another example of how capitalism creates inequality and disadvantages.

Education is available to everyone. If you have the intelligence and really, seriously put in the effort you will get yourself a good education. Will it be at an ivy league school? Probably not, but who says the education obtained there can't be surpassed through extra effort at a state university? Do you have to only read the books assigned you? Can't you choose other books in the library and read them to? Can't you attend lectures which aren't mandatory? Can't you do extra research?

To say that there are no ruling classes in Socialism or Communism is almost painfully naive.

To say that there is a ruling class in communism is stupid. There are no classes in socialism, there aren't suppose to be. Socialism was created for class struggle.

I have seen working single mothers who work hard, while others sit happy and fat on welfare and don't lift a finger. When they want more money, they have another kid. Some of the disadvantaged are that way because of circumstances, and some because of a lack of motivation, work ethic, intelligence or attitude. And hard work is beside the point. Any idiot can swing a hammer. What is rewarded in any culture is not just how hard one works but how skilled one is. And if you fail to reward people for having more skill and education they will not invest the time and effort to acquire skill and education, and you will be left with an unskilled, ignorant population and poverty.

I don't know what you are trying to say, but you seem to think that the hardest working thrive under capitalism. So, according to you the wealthiest are the hardest working. Working class mothers to the majority of labour in society.

Capitalism is an economic model, not political. It does not care who rules. And you cannot explain why every democracy has capitalism. Meanwhile, no nation which has failed to embrace capitalism is a democracy of any kind.

But the reality is that capitalism and democracy co-exist and they just merely tolerate one another. Capitalism does not have an interest in seeing workers in power. And capitalism creates inequality which contradicts what democracy is about.

It seems to be a feature of human nation in virtually all cultures that without competition a significant portion of the population just coasts and does nothing. See the Soviet Union as an example. Where enterprise is not rewarded, there is no enterprise

But that doesn't justify inequality.

I did not say the hardest working people always triumph. I said that without personal motivation people don't work hard. If you will earn as much by doing nothing as by doing something then many will do nothing.

Your point?

Churchill's admonition then stands, that Capitalism is the worst system except for the others. You can also use Hayek's belief that systems be judged on the extent which it promotes human liberty and freedom, and once again, judge what has happened in Capitalist nations to what has happened in Communist nations.

So, you acknowledge that capitalism has its flaws. And whenever people can't defend capitalism they usually bring up communism. But let's concentrate on the problems with capitalism.

Contrarily, workers are free to go looking for less work for more pay. They are also free to attempt to upgrade their skills and education in order to increase the value of their labour.

But out of concern for their families many workers don't want to take that risk and therefore they are stuck in a job they hate. Remember there are only so many jobs available in capitalism

All wealthy people did not inherit their wealth. That is again demonstrably untrue. It is true that many extremely wealthy individuals inherited wealth, but there are innumerable examples of individuals who became grossly wealthy within their lifetimes. Think of Bill Gates, as one example, or the Walton (Wal-Mart)  family as another. Social mobility is greater in capitalist systems, at least, in the ones with democratic forms of government, than in any other type of system the world has ever known.

But its very rare, infact Bill gates came from a well to do family that was well off enough to send him to Ivy league. You are just giving me isolated examples.

Education is available to everyone. If you have the intelligence and really, seriously put in the effort you will get yourself a good education. Will it be at an ivy league school? Probably not, but who says the education obtained there can't be surpassed through extra effort at a state university? Do you have to only read the books assigned you? Can't you choose other books in the library and read them to? Can't you attend lectures which aren't mandatory? Can't you do extra research?

But the problem remains that the wealthy have access to the best education and this is a disadvantage for everyone else. And don't tell me that capitalism creates an fair playing surface.

[Winterhaze13]

3. Capitalism is incompatible with democracy in the sense that capitalism is competitive while democracy should be cooperative.

Capitalism has created more wealth and put it in the hands of more people than any other system ever created. If it is incompatible with democracy, then perhaps we should get rid of democracy, or at least those versions that are.

Capitalism has created more wealth and put it in the hands of more people than any other system ever created. If it is incompatible with democracy, then perhaps we should get rid of democracy, or at least those versions that are.

Capitalism has created inequality based on capital. Sure some people are wealthy, but ask your self, who does capitalism most benefit. And because capitalism is the root of inequality in our society we should look to eliminate it, rather than democracy which preaches equality.

[Winterhaze13]

Yawn. More Marxist dogma, why is this tired nonsense still being peddled?

Yawn!! Simple-minded capitalist ignorance.

Capitalism creates an "elite" of consumers, since they are the ones who decide what they will buy, and capitalists have to pander to their whims or watch their sales dwindle. Since we are all consumers, capitalism makes everyone a member of the "ruling class."

Explain to me how consumers run the state. How do consumers make decisions for everyone?

Since the advent of capitalism real wages increased faster than they ever had before and faster than they have after socialistic regulations were introduced. The tendency under capitalism is for prices to decrease and real wages to increase over time.

At the same time it has created a large discrepency in wealth. Businesses pay workers enough so they can get by in order to maximize profit.

Capitalism is liberty and democracy is incompatible with liberty. Democracy rests upon the assumption that a person, or many people, have the right to pick a person who can dictate to other people how they may live their lives.

Absolutely rediculous claim. Capitalism only advocates economic liberty while democracy advocates freedom and equality. While capitalism is against equality because they don't have an interest in seeing worker's gain political power.

You refute this point yourself. If citizens are pitched against each other, how could capitalism create "powerful multi-national corporations"?

What?

Corporations are often given free reign by the state, which grants them legal personhood, limited liability, and monopoly powers. Blame the enabler.

It is because these corporations are so powerful that the state is powerless to stop them.

This is backwards. The amount of federal laws in the USA that govern corporate regulation are comparable to the length of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The DoJ went after Bill Gates. Government regulation destroyed Bethlehem Steel. John Connally, the most corporate-backed Presidential candidate in history, got only one delegate from all the primaries. No single corporation employs more people than the Department of Defense, or the combined numbers of the Depts. of Health, Human Services and Welfare. In 1980, Congress confiscated $100bn from oil companies. It goes on. Very few corporations have more employees than a large university. The fact is that the largest employer, most powerful and richest entity is the state, not corporations. Moreover, the state has the power and the 'right' to use violence and coercion should it wish to, which no corporation has.

But these laws aren't deturring these corporations from inflicting harm on society. This is indicative of the growing power of business under globalization. And its not backwards.

This does not explain why wages kept on rising since the advent of capitalism. It displays a fundamental ignorance of wage theory. Employers pay a wage that will attract them the workers that they want. Many companies offer raises for tenure and performance, which isn't mandated by any government regulation.

Wages rise because capitalists want to see the consumer spend more money. See fordism. Use Brittanica.

This assumes that the work done by managers, investors and inventors is worthless. It derives from a labour-centric theory of value, which nobody (not even socialists) have held in the last hundred years. Production is made possible by three factors: labour, ideas and capital. Workers provide the labour, inventors provide the ideas, and investors provide the capital. 

That's fair but how do people get rich in the first place, by exploiting the labour of workers. Mr. Robbins touches on that.

Besides, we are all investors now. If you have a savings account or an insurance policy, welcome to the ranks of the capitalists.

Not everyone who lives in a capitalist society is a capitalist. Someone shoose to raise me in the west, where the wealth is. And I have accepted that I must live like a capitalist, because someone already made that decision for me.

Many things prevent social equality, like genetics. Some people are born smart and others, stupid. Furthermore, capitalistic production of food has made access to food universal. The only countries that still have famines are socialist ones. Capitalistic production of cars and televisions has made them pretty much universal as well. So it would have gone with education, if the state had not abducted that service for itself, causing a decline in quality and increase in price that is particular to state-run enterprise but wholly absent in the free market.

Okay then, let's blame it on God and human nature.

So don't vote for them. But I would say that this is a problem with a system that gives any person arbitrary, coercive power over another. Capitalism is not such a system, all transactions are voluntary.

Then explain to me, who am I going to vote for. That is the problem here. I get this response alot. I choices consist of wealthy and very wealthy.

[Winterhaze13]

I can't help but notice a confounding lack of rigor in this discussion.  Could people maybe try to be clear about what they are talking about? 

For example, Winterhaze, what do you mean by Capitalism?  Do your criticisms apply to the 'capitalist' economic system as it exists now, or do you mean them to apply to the very concept of having the market allocate economic production?  (Or both, or neither?)

Without clarification on this, most of your comments cannot be properly evaluated.  However ...

3. Capitalism is incompatible with democracy in the sense that capitalism is competitive while democracy should be cooperative.

There are several problems of logic in this comment:

-you assume that cooperation is incompatible with competition, this is questionable. My local darts league is competitive, but it's a league because we cooperate to be competitive.

-you assert that capitalism 'is' competitive. In light of the above comment, what do you mean by 'is'?

-the suggestion that democracy should be cooperative is wrong. Democracy is a competition for selecting the best ideas and the best leaders. It's a darwinian machine.

I can't help but notice a confounding lack of rigor in this discussion.  Could people maybe try to be clear about what they are talking about? 

And I can't help but notice a profound sense of ignorance in yours.

For example, Winterhaze, what do you mean by Capitalism?  Do your criticisms apply to the 'capitalist' economic system as it exists now, or do you mean them to apply to the very concept of having the market allocate economic production?  (Or both, or neither?)

CAPITALISM, as for as I know there is only one variant.

CAPITALISM, what other types are there?

Without clarification on this, most of your comments cannot be properly evaluated.  However ...

Can't or you just have nothing to say.

-you assume that cooperation is incompatible with competition, this is questionable.  My local darts league is competitive, but it's a league because we cooperate to be competitive.

Your local dart league is not the capitalist market. And don't you think that competition leads to inequality and hostility and tension.

-you assert that capitalism 'is' competitive.  In light of the above comment, what do you mean by 'is'?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=is

-the suggestion that democracy should be cooperative is wrong.  Democracy is a competition for selecting the best ideas and the best leaders.  It's a darwinian machine.

Democracy should be cooperative because it is suppose to mediate between conflicting forces in society. But because of capitalism, there is inequality and the wealthy class seem to control everything. Also, I get the Darwinian argument alot. Charles Darwin was not an economist, he was a scientist. He certainly did not mean it to be used in an economic context. Read the Origin of the Species. You will discover the lack of economic assertions.

[The Terrible Sweal]

...

I can't help but notice a confounding lack of rigor in this discussion.  Could people maybe try to be clear about what they are talking about? 

And I can't help but notice a profound sense of ignorance in yours.

I can't help but notice a nasty attitude on your part.

Ignorance??? My dear chap, ignorance is not being able to discuss topics on which you loudly assert "truths".

Winterhaze13, eh? Are those digits your age?

For example, Winterhaze, what do you mean by Capitalism?  Do your criticisms apply to the 'capitalist' economic system as it exists now, or do you mean them to apply to the very concept of having the market allocate economic production?  (Or both, or neither?)

CAPITALISM, as for as I know there is only one variant.

Then why not tell me which ONE you mean rather than this odd evasion? I specified the distinctions I think exist. You should try to address them.

Democracy whould be cooperative because it is suppose to mediate between conflicting forces in society. But because of capitalism, there is inequality and the wealthy class seem to control everything.

Well, again you resort to that as yet unclarified term 'capitalism'. Do you even know what you think you mean?

Charles Darwin was not an economist, he was a scientists. He certainly did not mean it to be used in an economic context.

This is a red-herring argument. Darwin's 'intentions' have no relevance whatsoever to my use of the expression darwinian.

[Winterhaze13]

I have always been taught that there was only one type of capitalism. Please enlighten me only the different variants. Because right now it looks as if you are just trying to avoid the truth about capitalism. But if there are some variants, then there is probably very little difference between them.

[The Terrible Sweal]

What do you mean by Capitalism? Do your criticisms apply to the 'capitalist' economic system as it exists now, or do you mean them to apply to the very concept of having the market allocate economic production? (Or both, or neither?)

[Winterhaze13]

Capitalism allocates economic production its self, so they are the same thing. It's just a feature of capitalism.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Capitalism allocates economic production its self, so they are the same thing. It's just a feature of capitalism.

The fact that capitalism as we practice it today DOES allocate production does not mean that capitalism is the same thing as the PROCESS of allocating production.

Perhaps you simply mean that you see no distinction between capitalism as we practice it today and the very concept of using the market to allocate production.

If so, I would not agree. Capitalism as we practice it today gives lip-service to the market, but adopts it in a debased and corrupted way.

[Hugo]

Explain to me how consumers run the state. How do consumers make decisions for everyone?

They don't. And statists such as yourself don't understand that it is immoral for anyone to make decisions for everyone. The only decisions for a person should be made by that person, and capitalism is the only system that makes that possible or even approaches it.

At the same time it has created a large discrepency in wealth. Businesses pay workers enough so they can get by in order to maximize profit.

Yes, and consumers pay as little as possible for a product. What a crime! Of course, you can pay workers more, but then your products cost more, and real incomes drop anyway. It's a seesaw, but you're pretending that you can remove the fulcrum. Sorry, but you can't.

Furthermore, your answer omits something vital. Businesses don't pay workers enough so that they can get by, they pay the going wage rate for that type of work. You pretend that only businesses set wage rates. This isn't true. Wage rates are in effect negotiated between employers and employees. If you don't believe this, try offering to pay your dentist minimum wage for his work and see what happens.

Capitalism only advocates economic liberty while democracy advocates freedom and equality.

Wrong. Democracy is not freedom at all, it is the opposite. Don't believe me? There are people in jail right now, in our democracy, for doing things with their own money and their own bodies that the state disapproves of. There are people in jail for freely entering into contracts with others, who also entered of their own free will. There are people in jail for speaking their minds on sensitive issues. There are people in jail because they did not want the state to steal their property. There are people in jail whose "crimes" had absolutely no identifiable victims. It goes on, and it always will, because democracy does not grant freedom. It grants some people power over others.

Democracy also does not grant equality, but even if it did, why should it? We are not all equal. Some are smart, some are stupid, some are handsome, some ugly. If you are in favour of equality, then you should advocate lobotomy for all those more intelligent than the stupidest in our society, scarring and disfiguration for all those better-looking than the ugliest in our society.

What?

You heard. If citizens are pitched against each other, how could capitalism create "powerful multi-national corporations"? In other words, if capitalism makes every man for himself and creates a war of all against all, why is it that tens of thousands of people co-operate with each other for common goals every single day under the capitalist system?

It is because these corporations are so powerful that the state is powerless to stop them.

Are they? Perhaps you'll show me the corporate armies that exceed the strength of the US military. Perhaps you'll show me the right to confiscate property and imprison people granted to corporations.

But these laws aren't deturring these corporations from inflicting harm on society.

What harm? Do you think that only corporations have done harm to society, and the state never has?

Wages rise because capitalists want to see the consumer spend more money. See fordism. Use Brittanica.

False. Read up on it. It doesn't even make sense - the only point in a "capitalist" raising his wages so that workers can buy more is if he can force them to buy only his products, and not his competitors.

That's fair but how do people get rich in the first place, by exploiting the labour of workers.

How can people who work for you of their own free will be exploited? The only exploited workers live in communist countries, where they are enslaved by the state. Sure, if you don't work you don't get money - but if consumers don't buy your products, you go out of business, too. So it simply isn't true that capitalists run the whole thing. They are dictated to by the consumers.

Not everyone who lives in a capitalist society is a capitalist.

Everyone who has insurance or a savings account - even a chequing account that carries a balance - is a capitalist, by the Marxist definition. The proletariat is dead.

Okay then, let's blame it on God and human nature.

Why do that, when we can blame it on people, torture and execute them en masse, like communist regimes always do?

Then explain to me, who am I going to vote for. That is the problem here.

I don't care. I don't advocate democracy and I won't defend a system I don't believe in.

CAPITALISM, as for as I know there is only one variant... Please enlighten me only the different variants

Current "capitalist" systems are actually more mercantilist than capitalist. Even in "pure" capitalism there are many different schools: Chicagoite (e.g. Milton Friedman), Austrian (e.g. Karl Menger, Ayn Rand), Smithian (e.g. Adam Smith), Rothbardian (e.g. Murray Rothbard, David Friedman), etc.

Capitalism allocates economic production its self, so they are the same thing.

Capitalism is a concept. It's not an acting agent and cannot allocate anything. Under capitalism, economic production is allocated by people, citizens, workers, consumers. Under communism, economic production is allocated by bureaucrats.

[Winterhaze13]

They don't. And statists such as yourself don't understand that it is immoral for anyone to make decisions for everyone. The only decisions for a person should be made by that person, and capitalism is the only system that makes that possible or even approaches it.

But in today's society a very small group si making all the decisions. That isn't right, everything in a democratic society should be democratic.

Yes, and consumers pay as little as possible for a product. What a crime! Of course, you can pay workers more, but then your products cost more, and real incomes drop anyway. It's a seesaw, but you're pretending that you can remove the fulcrum. Sorry, but you can't.

Furthermore, your answer omits something vital. Businesses don't pay workers enough so that they can get by, they pay the going wage rate for that type of work. You pretend that only businesses set wage rates. This isn't true. Wage rates are in effect negotiated between employers and employees. If you don't believe this, try offering to pay your dentist minimum wage for his work and see what happens.

But consumer's don't inflict harm on society.And the rest I disagree and I'll leave it at that.

Wrong. Democracy is not freedom at all, it is the opposite. Don't believe me? There are people in jail right now, in our democracy, for doing things with their own money and their own bodies that the state disapproves of. There are people in jail for freely entering into contracts with others, who also entered of their own free will. There are people in jail for speaking their minds on sensitive issues. There are people in jail because they did not want the state to steal their property. There are people in jail whose "crimes" had absolutely no identifiable victims. It goes on, and it always will, because democracy does not grant freedom. It grants some people power over others.

Democracy also does not grant equality, but even if it did, why should it? We are not all equal. Some are smart, some are stupid, some are handsome, some ugly. If you are in favour of equality, then you should advocate lobotomy for all those more intelligent than the stupidest in our society, scarring and disfiguration for all those better-looking than the ugliest in our society.

Okay, you are an idiot. Democracy is meant to inject equality and fairness into society. That is it's intention. And by equality I mean that everyone should have equal opportunity. But it doesn't always work out that way and I believe that that is because of capitalism. Your jail example is stupid, they did something that warrants imprisonment. And sometimes it is necessary to restrict people's freedom.

You heard. If citizens are pitched against each other, how could capitalism create "powerful multi-national corporations"? In other words, if capitalism makes every man for himself and creates a war of all against all, why is it that tens of thousands of people co-operate with each other for common goals every single day under the capitalist system?

What?

I'm not going to bother replying to the rest of your points. They are ignorent and it almost seems like you dislike democracy. I admit that it isn't perfect but it's intentions are good we just haven't fully realized it's full benefit.

[Hugo]

But in today's society a very small group si making all the decisions. That isn't right, everything in a democratic society should be democratic.

What very small group - the government? I agree, and democracy is exactly what creates that situation. The free market opens the decision-making process to the largest group of all: consumers.

But consumer's don't inflict harm on society.And the rest I disagree and I'll leave it at that.

Whose fault is it if a person buys an SUV? And why are you leaving it at that - can't find an argument?

Democracy is meant to inject equality and fairness into society. That is it's intention. And by equality I mean that everyone should have equal opportunity.

They don't, and never will. Some people are stupid, some people smart. Democracy takes fairness out of society. It forces people to submit to the will of others, giving up their rights on pain of jail, death or emigration.

Your jail example is stupid, they did something that warrants imprisonment.

By the same standard, somebody at the bottom of the East River wearing concrete overshoes did something that warranted their murder, so we shouldn't worry about the Mafia.

What?

How can you not hear? This is in print. Stop saying "what" and answer the question.

They are ignorent and it almost seems like you dislike democracy.

I don't dislike democracy, I hate it. It is a system of exploitation and violation of rights which even in our democracy we pretend are sacred. It is the means by which the majority can tyrannize the minority (and even whereby the minority can tyrannize the majority, if the constitution is worded in certain ways). Democracy basically legitimizes the imposition of the will of other people onto you against your will and without your consent.

[Winterhaze13]

But in today's society a very small group si making all the decisions. That isn't right, everything in a democratic society should be democratic.

What very small group - the government? I agree, and democracy is exactly what creates that situation. The free market opens the decision-making process to the largest group of all: consumers.

But consumer's don't inflict harm on society.And the rest I disagree and I'll leave it at that.

Whose fault is it if a person buys an SUV? And why are you leaving it at that - can't find an argument?

Democracy is meant to inject equality and fairness into society. That is it's intention. And by equality I mean that everyone should have equal opportunity.

They don't, and never will. Some people are stupid, some people smart. Democracy takes fairness out of society. It forces people to submit to the will of others, giving up their rights on pain of jail, death or emigration.

Your jail example is stupid, they did something that warrants imprisonment.

By the same standard, somebody at the bottom of the East River wearing concrete overshoes did something that warranted their murder, so we shouldn't worry about the Mafia.

What?

How can you not hear? This is in print. Stop saying "what" and answer the question.

They are ignorent and it almost seems like you dislike democracy.

I don't dislike democracy, I hate it. It is a system of exploitation and violation of rights which even in our democracy we pretend are sacred. It is the means by which the majority can tyrannize the minority (and even whereby the minority can tyrannize the majority, if the constitution is worded in certain ways). Democracy basically legitimizes the imposition of the will of other people onto you against your will and without your consent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't dislike democracy, I hate it. It is a system of exploitation and violation of rights which even in our democracy we pretend are sacred. It is the means by which the majority can tyrannize the minority (and even whereby the minority can tyrannize the majority, if the constitution is worded in certain ways). Democracy basically legitimizes the imposition of the will of other people onto you against your will and without your consent.

I agree democracy isn't perfect but can you name a greater alternative that doesn't do what you accuse democracy of doing.

[PatM]

I think many people simply don't understand what capitalism actually is. This isn't suprising since there are no capitalist countries left in the world.

THE authority on capitalism is (was) Ludwig Von Mises. He wrote extensively on the topic and completely described its workings.

http://www.mises.org

What we have in Canada (and the rest of the world) is Crapitalism. This is Crony Capitalism - subversion of the capitalist system to favour those that are already rich.

Fascism is crony capitalism taken to the extreme - or in the words of FDR

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of the government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power."

-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

As incredible as it may seem - Canada is much closer to a fascist state than a democratic one. As my NAIRU post shows, economic policy in Canada is tailored to make the rich richer while making the poor poorer - to the point of destitution. The USA is teetering on the edge of outright fascism - the latest attempt to push it over being the elimination of requirements for a judge to authorize search warrents. The FBI is being given the power of search ans siezure without any judicial oversight.

No, I'm not a "left winger" - I'm a capitalist. I want to see capitalism restored to Canada and that means doing things like breaking up our information oligopoly (you know three media companies own nearly all the media in Canada?), Restoring the four pillars of finance (which is now a SINGLE entity and led to things like Enron).

The biggest thing that needs to be done is to have fractional reserve banking institutions busted up and their power to create money (I dont mean profit, I mean literally creating new money) severly curtailed.

From WWII until the 70s we operated under Keynesian economics. Capitalism with rational limits. Inflation was almost non existant, unemployment was at or very close to FULL employment rates (3%-4%), and the distribution of wealth was FAR better than it is now.

In 1967 the Canada Bank Act was gutted. Limits on bank created money were greatly reduced. The great inflation of the 70s was the result (similar measures were taken in almost all western nations at the same time which is why the great inflation was world-wide).

Take a look at this graph showing data from Stats Canada.

Look what happened to the money supply after the 1967 changes.

In 1974 the bank of Canada adopted Monetarism, an economic theory centered around controlling bank created money through demand. The results were horrible! The policy created our devestating recessions!

later, the Bank modified its approach. Instead of controlling bank created money directly, it controls unemployment - see my NAIRU post for more on that.

So, plainly put - if you're saying "Capitalism is bad, look at what it is doing to the world" you are just wrong. We dont HAVE a capitalist system. Its more akin to fascism than capitalism.

[Hugo]

THE authority on capitalism is (was) Ludwig Von Mises. He wrote extensively on the topic and completely described its workings... No, I'm not a "left winger" - I'm a capitalist.

Hooray, a man possessed of sense and intelligence.

I do agree with your post but there are a few points I shall embellish upon.

breaking up our information oligopoly (you know three media companies own nearly all the media in Canada?)

I think that if you were to abolish the heavy and massive government controls and regulations on the media, regulations that greatly favour large companies, you would find that such a breakup would happen on its own. The internet is a medium that is almost completely unregulated and free-market, and there is not even a semblance of oligopoly there.

Fascism is crony capitalism taken to the extreme - or in the words of FDR

Or Benito Mussolini, surely a man who understood Fascism.

The biggest thing that needs to be done is to have fractional reserve banking institutions busted up and their power to create money (I dont mean profit, I mean literally creating new money) severly curtailed.

The state has granted them this power. With privately issued currency we would not have such a problem at all. As to fractional reserve banking, this remains a source of debate amongst us Austrians. My take is that with commodity-based currency, fractional reserve banking is basically fraud, and would be treated as such. Shareholders and customers won't tolerate fraudulent banks. Introduce private, commodity-based money and fractional reserve banking will disappear.

rom WWII until the 70s we operated under Keynesian economics. Capitalism with rational limits. Inflation was almost non existant, unemployment was at or very close to FULL employment rates (3%-4%), and the distribution of wealth was FAR better than it is now.

In 1967 the Canada Bank Act was gutted. Limits on bank created money were greatly reduced. The great inflation of the 70s was the result (similar measures were taken in almost all western nations at the same time which is why the great inflation was world-wide).

The collapse was the result of the Keynesian policies. Inflation produces an expansion which contracts again soon after, unless counteracted with even more inflation, which delays the contraction but makes it more severe when it happens. As Weimar Germany showed, it can't be delayed indefinitely.

I agree democracy isn't perfect but can you name a greater alternative that doesn't do what you accuse democracy of doing.

I certainly can - anarcho-capitalism, after Rothbard, Spooner, Thoreau, David Friedman, Hoppe and an obscure guy called Jesus of Nazareth. I've defended that view on several threads in this forum. Get stuck in if you want. I can also refer you to Hoppe's theory of time-preference, which posits that a monarchy will be more responsible than a democracy because the time-preference is longer (i.e. monarchs are forced to think decades into the future, but democrats only need to think up to the end of their term in office).

[Technocrat]

Capitolism is inhearently self distructive. It is merely a transformational process from which it evolves into socialism.

Recommended reading:

John Kenneth Galbraith(prominent economist) recognized this and wrote a book called 'the new industrial state'.

[PatM]

The collapse was the result of the Keynesian policies. Inflation produces an expansion which contracts again soon after, unless counteracted with even more inflation, which delays the contraction but makes it more severe when it happens. As Weimar Germany showed, it can't be delayed indefinitely.

I almost agree - Keynes economics coupled with insufficient limits on money creation were the problem. Government did a GREAT job keeping money creation in check from WWII until '67. It was only once limits on Bank created money were removed that we got into trouble - BIG trouble.

Are you familiar with the Economic policies in Austria? The Magic Pentagon?

I was amazed that there is still a westernized country that had some economic sense. They managed both low inflation AND low unemployment - which the Bank of Canada fraudulently maintains is impossible.

I just wish more Canadians would start learning about macro-economics. These criminals (in my view) running our country wouldn't be able to get away with the crap they are doing.

Macro economics is NOT a complicated topic at all. Its kind of like Thermodynamics (movement of heat) - the name sounds scary but the topic is actually pretty damned simple. If *I* can grasp it, at least 95% of Canada can too!

[Hugo]

John Kenneth Galbraith(prominent economist) recognized this and wrote a book called 'the new industrial state'.

You should read "Friedman on Galbraith" in which Milton Friedman explodes all of Galbraith's silly theories and further reveals that Galbraith has absolutely no following amongst economists, which is not true of Marx, or von Mises, or Friedman himself. Galbraith's ideas are full of gaping holes which he usually makes no attempt to plug, just ignoring them. This is why he appeals to laypersons, but is ridiculed by other economists.

Capitolism is inhearently self distructive. It is merely a transformational process from which it evolves into socialism.

Do you even understand what you are talking about?

Keynes economics coupled with insufficient limits on money creation were the problem. Government did a GREAT job keeping money creation in check from WWII until '67. It was only once limits on Bank created money were removed that we got into trouble - BIG trouble.

Banks should be allowed to create whatever money they want. Anybody should. The problem is that unless you create money that's backed by an actual commodity, gold being the best example, nobody is going to use it. The trouble is that government has appropriated a monopoly on money and, worse, abandoned commodity money in favour of fiat, paper money.

Are you familiar with the Economic policies in Austria? The Magic Pentagon?

Not really. I'm interested to hear more, though.

They managed both low inflation AND low unemployment - which the Bank of Canada fraudulently maintains is impossible.

The Canadian government creates both. Inflation is created by fiat money. When Britain was on the gold standard, the pound sterling did not lose any value in about two centuries. Since it left the gold standard, the pound has lost 90% of its value.

Chronic unemployment is created chiefly by minimum wage laws and to a lesser extent by other government regulation. Minimum wage laws don't create any jobs, they just outlaw some that already exist, which is also true of other labour laws. Therefore, what labour interventionism teaches us is that you can buy as much unemployment as you want.

Macro economics is NOT a complicated topic at all. Its kind of like Thermodynamics (movement of heat) - the name sounds scary but the topic is actually pretty damned simple.

I can go one better. Macro economics doesn't even exist. What we perceive as macroeconomics is actually the aggregate effect of microeconomics. If you can understand microeconomics (i.e. the trades and activities of humans at an individual level), you've understood macroeconomics. Of course, it's helpful to speak of macroeconomic effects, and even Austrians do it, but one should always be mindful that it is individual action that creates such effects, and not aggregate actions. "Society", "the economy", "the banks", "big business" etc. are not acting agents, have no unity of purpose and no goals.